What Makes 4E Different?

[CleverNickName]

Search your heart. Look deep within yourself...past the preconceived notions and the politics, past all of the arguments and sore feelings. Open your books and let your eyes play slowly over those glossy, full-color pages...breathe in that sharp smell of fresh ink....listen to the soft crackle of a newly-creased spine. Take it all in, and then ask yourself truthfully:

What is it about the 4th Edition, that makes it truly different?

Don't be hasty. Give it some thought. Yes, 4th Edition is different on many different levels, and there is much to choose from. Avoid the temptation to write a list...look deeper, and choose only one. What makes the biggest difference to you? What is the one thing that sets it apart from all of the other games that you have seen, for better or for worse?

 

[CleverNickName]

The thing that really sets 4E apart for me? The powers. Every character has a stack of special powers that they can use. Paths, tiers, classes, feats, builds...most elements of the game are designed around the acquisition and use of these special powers. Now, special powers have always been part of the game, but in 4E they seem to be much more emphasized.

This can be a good or bad thing, depending on who you talk to. I'm not judging; I'm just making an observation.

 

[Doug McCrae]

4e is really very similar to 3e. The combat system is practically identical, retaining minutiae like 5-foot steps and swift actions. If you compare 4e monsters to both 3e and 1e, they look much closer to 3e.

I agree that class abilities are the big change.

 

[rounser]

It's antiseptic and claustrophobic.

The vibe I took away from earlier editions was this enormous sense of scope and possibility on a canvas the size of a world or multiverse. That's been replaced by an enormous sense of scope and possibility on a canvas the size of a battle map.

Rituals didn't save 4E from this, for me, because since anyone can do them, they seem entirely unspecial and unmagical. I know Conan, the Grey Mouser* and Call of Cthulhu all see non-spellcasters casting spells via going through the right motions and putting the dribbly black candles in a circle, but this conflicts with D&D logic. In D&D, fighters don't cast spells unless they're trained in it via multiclass dabbling. And "just anyone" casting spells is a raid on the heart of what makes magic special in D&D (which admittedly is almost nothing, now).

*: Actually, not entirely true - the Mouser got some schooling from either Sheelba of the Eyeless Face or Ningauble of the Seven Eyes from memory, but he's primarily a rogue. He'd probably be covered by 4E's multiclassing rules.

 

[mach1.9pants]

As DM: back to easy monster design.
As Player: All the classes operate in the exact same way (power, paths, etc)

 

[Reynard]

4e is really very similar to 3e. The combat system is practically identical, retaining minutiae like 5-foot steps and swift actions. If you compare 4e monsters to both 3e and 1e, they look much closer to 3e.

I agree that class abilities are the big change.

I have to disagree, hjaving finally gotten a chance to play it. While on the surface things look similar, in practice combat is very different from previous editions. There's a lot more movement, for one, and in addition the importance of teamwork is much more emphasized. Also, the roles the particular classes take is, on the whole, very different. For example, the guy playing the fighter, who has always liked fighters, can get in trouble if he thinks his fighter is, as has always been, the one who is going to dish out the biggest damage and act accordingly.

It is interesting: when I was in basic training, it was the guys who were hunters and sport shooters who were initially the poorest marksmen with the M-16. They had all this experience which they thought applied, but didn't. So they would try and shoot the way they had always shot, that had been successful for them, and they did poorly because of it. Guys like me, who had shot a gun maybe once in their entire lives, picked it up a lot more quickly and were very successful very early on. That isn't to say the hunters and shooters didn't eventually learn to put away their previous experience and become good with the M-16, but it took them some time.

I think the situation is similar with 4E. Long time players will, I think, have more dicciculty mastering the game initially that newbies. They have years or even decades of experience that tell them how fighters and rogues and clerics behave, and none of it applies anymore. We'll eventually get it, of course, but the initial change in outlook will be more detrimental than no knowledge at all.

I think sometimes people leap to the defense of 4E by saying it isn't different when it obviously and intentionally is. Different isn't necessarily bad, so there's no reason to deny the fact in order to stave off criticism.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The thing that really sets 4E apart for me? The powers. Every character has a stack of special powers that they can use. Paths, tiers, classes, feats, builds...most elements of the game are designed around the acquisition and use of these special powers. Now, special powers have always been part of the game, but in 4E they seem to be much more emphasized.

This can be a good or bad thing, depending on who you talk to. I'm not judging; I'm just making an observation.

Heh, this was what I was going to use.

My gripe with the powers is that it sets a very strong limitation for other classes. For all the disagreements with Vancian casting, you didn't have to use it. There were multiple other forms of wizards or casting in 3.5.

But the powers are mandatory. If you didn't like Vancian, you had options. If you don't like the powers, you're crap out of luck. The entire game system - the ENTIRE game system - revolves completely around the system of powers. For me, it's a bad change. But even if I liked it, I'd have to say it's the biggest change, as it pretty much is what 4e is all about.

 

[pawsplay]

It's "new fantasy." The original D&D was swords-and-sorcery, with all the mishmash elements that implies. Dragonlance brought it into "genre fantasy" with its grand epic scale and romance. D&D 4e... is the cover art for a new Magic: The Gathering set. It wants to be Warhammer, Exalted, and Dreamblade all at once, but its kind of a poseur. I just don't find X-treme minotaurs that cool, although I'm aware many people probably do. Although the magic has, in theory, been tuned down, D&D is farther than it ever has been from the Dark Ages.

It's miniatures based and is geared to be run as DM-less as possible. That's fine for what it is, but I like a freer hand. And better official miniatures.

It superficially limits your choices, but it creates an almost indigestible mass of synergies to confront. We'ved moved from "build" to "tactic" to "team tactics." It's very hard to optimize a character toward a specific archetype. It's comparatively easy to optimize them toward a role. It's the game-within-a-game to optimize them toward killer team combos.

It's "more is better." Drow are more spidery, hobgoblins more martial and inhuman, elves more woodsy. Conversely, everything is simpler. Elves are less intellectual, hobgoblins are less like orcs, driders are less ambiguous in nature.

It's more collectible, less complete.

The classes are less distinct.

Okay, I should come up with some nice things to say, too.

The combat system is more organic and unpredictable. PCs are more individually defined within their classes. Epic level play looks like a massive improvement. A lot of bookkeeping has been removed. Racial design has been simplified. Overall, it looks retooled with a lot of experience behind it in terms of game design.

Where it fails for me is "milieu." I don't want "rogue powers." Rogues have skills!

 

[CleverNickName]

4e is really very similar to 3e.

I have to disagree, hjaving finally gotten a chance to play it...

Come on guys, take it easy...please don't make this another "Edition War" thread.

 

[pawsplay]

Actually, I thought Reynard's response was spot on, respectful, specific, clear.