What Makes 4E Different?

[ProfessorCirno]

What makes 4e different as far as I can tell is the shift in focus from describing what happens in the world, to describing what happens on the table.

Earlier editions of D&D said "You throw a fire ball, it does everything you'd expect a ball of fire to do. Things burn, metal melts, etc. Oh and it does 1d6 per level."

4e says "You cast a spell that does burst 2, 3d6 + Int mod and dazes the targets. Oh, and you can call it a fire ball if you want. Or a rain of exploding frogs. Whatever, that's not the point."

I'm surprised I hadn't thought of this myself, as it very accurately describes one of the other MAJOR contention points I've seen people - myself included- have with 4e. It's also one of the major points that other people really like about 4e.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

For me?

It's not D&D.

Must I accept it as such because cunning capitalists claim it is?

No, you don't have to accept it as such. Everyone has his own definition of what's D&D, based on his experience with the game.

As long as you don't try to insult someone with your claim, and only state what it means for you, there should be no problems. (That won't help if someone wants to have a problem with you, but nothing helps you against that.)

For me, what is different or unique:
The MATH. I look at the different classes. I look at the monsters. I look at the guidelines. And I see a system that I can "mathematically" understand. I see the design behind.

In every other game I've played, the math typically looked very "hand-wavy". It kinda works. It is sometimes a little off. No, there isn't a real system behind it. Most systems have game-breaker abilities that don't fit into the framework, and often are broken or seriously impact (usually negative) the game.

Game comparisons (Shadowrun and D&D 3E, the systems I am most familiar with)
[sblock]
Shadowruns worst aspect - in my mind - was always the Initiative system. How do you balance extra actions per round? How can you create a fair balance between the reflex-boosted street sam and a unboosted Decker? (Well, the answer is, you can't. You're not even supposed to. But just because the system works as intended doesn't make it good). The (combat) magic system, too - you can use your combat pool against firearms (3E, in 4E you use the Dodge skill), but against spells, you only get the little bit of Willpower you have, while the mage uses his skill and his mage pool (or ability + skill in 4E)?
3E Shadowrun also still suffered from a dice system that broke down even in an average combat system, making success or failure changes unpredictably.

D&D 3E system gave me formulas to arrive at numbers describing a PC or a monster. What it didn't give me was to say how strong it was in comparison with another PC or monster. It did give me damage caps by spell level and magic type (arcane or divine), but it didn't tell me anything about secondary effects, range, area and stuff like that.
[/sblock]

If I am looking at 4E, I can see the math behind it, how it works. Sure, it's not 100 % (hmm, should this effect Daze or is Stun okay, too?). But all DCs, Defenses, attack bonus, skill checks, I can compare them and see how they interact.

And yet, the surprising thing is - it still does the oddball stuff I learned to appreciate in D&D - spells (and powers) with unusual effects - bigby's hand, mirror image, mordekainens magnificient mansion.


The only system that I'd be willing to give the credit for a similar well-thought out system (but entirely different looking in execution) might be Torg, but I know that that game definitely had some short-comings. (Glass-Jaw Ninjas. Anyone with a high Dodge has a hard time to survive a hit, since you roll to-hit and damage with a single die, and the bonus result is applied to both... If you hit a Ninja, it's always a head-shot, so to speak. Well, maybe 4E will show us its Glass-Jaw Ninjas soon, too. )

 

[Gothmog]

Good question Darrin, and I wish I had a good answer. I can and will stumble through an answer as to how I get that feeling, but can't obviously comment on how others are.

snip

Wis

I agree Wis, 4E is giving me a really strong 1E vibe too, for reasons I can't quite explain fully, but I'll try.

I started gaming in 1983 when I was 10, and back then everything was so new and different, my mind was practically exploding with ideas when I flipped through a book, and I could vividly picture everything during the game. As the years went by 2E came along, and while I still enjoyed 2E and had some of the best role-playing of my life using 2E, it lacked the 1E "grit" feel I grew up loving.

Then 3E came along, and while mechanically it was much better organized than 1E or 2E, it had lost all the charm of AD&D. There was no "grit" to the game, and the characters felt like superheroes compared to challenges of their level. 3E felt antiseptic and clinical- everything was spelled out in minutiae, every subsystem was strongly interdependent on each other, and as a DM and a player, I felt constrained playing it. I had fun playing 3E for a while, and still enjoyed being together with friends, but it was frustrating to me to play or run 3E because it limited my creativity by trying to codify everything. I also noticed my friends all seemed to think something was lacking in 3E too- they got so focused on the rules, they overlooked the game, and our playtime wasn't as satisfying as a result. Rules mastery was a HUGE part of 3E that is barely present in 4E.

4E has the improved and streamlined rules of 3E for ease of play, but the "grit" and wonder of 1E. Yes, characters in 4E start out more powerful than in other versions of D&D, but so do their opponents- in fact most opponents are almost equal to a single PC.

1E also had distinct character roles- the fighter was in front swinging away to protect the back ranks of magic-users from being skewered by orcs. 4E has brought this back- each class has a strong role they excel in, and cooperation and teamwork are the keys to survival, NOT tricking out your character with l33t items, feats, and prestige classes so he can operate as a lone wolf deep-strike commando team.

Combat in 4E feels desperate and dirty, much like 1E combats did for us. We used all sorts of whacky moves in 1E- jumping on tables to kick a flagon of ale in an orc's face, tripping opponents with rope, etc- things I see being done again in 4E, but which were never done in 3E because they were "suboptimal choices".

4E also encourages players and DMs to play a little fast and loose with the rules, and make up things that are fun for them. We did this in every edition to some extent, but 4E encourages it to a degree not seen in 2E or 3E. For example, 3E had monster and spell descriptions for every single entry- and most of them were badly written and extremely narrow, leacing little room for imagination. 4E gives you more generalities, and encourages the players and DMs to make up the specifics of how a power or monster looks like in the game world- something I love doing.

I'm sure there are other things I'm missing or haven't been able to put my finger on yet, but those are a few of the reasons that have occurred to me so far. I've been playing in a 4E game that just got to 4th level, and DMing one that is about halfway to 3rd level, and it REALLY feels like 1E to me. I haven't had this much fun playing D&D since....well, 1E- and I'm loving every second of it!

 

[Aus_Snow]

The single most significant difference, eh?

Yeah, I guess the powers have it.

Or maybe, trying to be all things to everyone? That's honestly the first significant impression I had of the edition, from some of the earliest marketing attempts through to the finished product thus far. If they actually pull it off, I'll be amazed. Well, a bit.

 

[Najo]

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.

This is not correct. To use rituals you either have to be a cleric or wizard or take a feat called ritual caster. Then you need the appropiate skills for the ritual, usually arcana, religion or nature. Not attacking, just pointing out something that might interest you. Character's do require appropiate training to do rituals. Rituals are the powerful non-combat spells of the older games like raise dead, magic circle, portals etc.

 

[Najo]

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.

Ironically to me, this is a huge improvement and adds realism to the game. "Powers" is a loose term. For martial characters, powers are their combat moves, for casters they are their spells. These powers use the appropiate ability modifiers (STR/DEX for martial, INT/WIS/CHA for spells) and they attack appropriate defenses, melee vs AC, area effects vs reflex, domination/ psychic vs will etc. This makes for easy to pick up rules but very diverse and belivable combat tactics. Monsters defenses really matter more now, as do the attack modes characters use against them. Its awesome.

 

[TimeOut]

4e says "You cast a spell that does burst 2, 3d6 + Int mod and dazes the targets. Oh, and you can call it a fire ball if you want. Or a rain of exploding frogs. Whatever, that's not the point."

That is actually the change I will name as my choice for the thread.

Basically 4e has removed the useless rule bloat that plagued 3e and is completely focused on combat. I don't need rules for roleplaying and non-combat encounters (skills are debatable), but I want strong and option-filled combat rules. That those rules are fluff-independent is a huge plus.

 

[Najo]

No offense, but I don't consider 4E any more miniatures based than 3E was. Yes, movement is featured prominently in the rules, but then there are a whole bunch of combat options, most of which are still there in 4E, that simply wouldn't work properly without miniatures.

Being DM-less? Sorry, but after looking through the rules, I feel that the opposite is true. The DM is given solid guidelines for encounter building, but this is pretty far away from a game that only needs players. This isn't the new incarnation of F&F minis. After reading through large chunks of the DMG, I just don't get this criticism.

That said, the biggest change that I've seen is reduced prep time that still leads to a fulfilling game. The play experience isn't as different from 3.5 as people keep trying to claim, but the time I have to take before game to get it to go off right is a fraction of what it used to be. This is only a good thing in my book.

I want to second Darrin here. The DM-less comment above is way off. 4e empowers the DM more than any edition I've seen. DMing is an artform again with this rules set. The game gets out of your way but keeps the crunchy goodness of 3.x without the headaches. 4e is the DMs game from every DM I've spoken too about it in person. They love running it and many use words like plug and play, paint box, drag and drop, etc... They feel like the shackles of previous rules systems are gone.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Regarding rituals, isn't it the case that you only need to be trained in Arcana or Religion, depending, and that you can acquire such training via a feat, for example (if necessary)?

IOW, are you completely sure, Najo, that you must be a Cleric or Wizard in order to do the rituals thing? I'm not 100% sure myself, just curious.

 

[Najo]

For me?

It's not D&D.

Must I accept it as such because cunning capitalists claim it is?

How about the legions of excited D&D fans saying it makes them feel like their running games in mom's basement again for the first time ever? Just give it a fairshot and play it if you haven't yet. The kool aid tastes so good!