D&D 4E What's Wrong With 4e Simply Put

[Rechan]

It's only a problem in that people focus on that instead of what they accomplished with nWoD: In addition to revised rules, they also cleared away the incredibly daunting metaplot that served as a barrier to later entry in the oWoD. The notion that stuff in ongoing games would be affected by books no longer even in print (and not yet in PDF) was off-putting to more than one player, I know from personal experience.

Again, it's not about the current players. There's not enough of them for the future of the industry. Doing what's worked in the past is not going to significantly expand the market. The big RPG companies have to do something different, or there won't be an RPG hobby in two decades, possibly less.

You have a point about the first one - clearing the debris of too many sourcebooks with all the info spread out, and the countless circlejerks is good.

But still offering lame clans/tribes isn't helping the new players, because the clans/tribes are still lame. That's going to discourage new players because they're not going to really like them, either. Going from 12 tribes in Werewolf to 4 and an NPC tribes really doesn't help, option wise.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You have a point about the first one - clearing the debris of too many sourcebooks with all the info spread out, and the countless circlejerks is good.

But still offering lame clans/tribes isn't helping the new players, because the clans/tribes are still lame. That's going to discourage new players because they're not going to really like them, either. Going from 12 tribes in Werewolf to 4 and an NPC tribes really doesn't help, option wise.

Well, the former is the important goal.

The latter is a matter of taste -- I think the Mekhet are the equal of any of the VtM clans, even if I still miss the Setites, and I think the Covenants have a lot of potential, even if they're sometimes cheesed up.

In any case, this won't be the last time White Wolf or WotC hits the reset button. If they can't get their game lines to grow, it's just a matter of time before they close the doors.

The comet hit the earth several years ago; RPG publishers have to decide whether they're dinosaurs or mammals, and the longer they wait, the more likely it is that they're dinosaurs.

 

[Cbas_10]

And my point is that D&D has by and large always been about killing monsters and taking their stuff, not that it's an effect of "The MMOs are coming".

Do you know what the extent of Social rules are in 3.x D&D? Bluff Vs Sense Motive, or Diplomacy/Intimidation vs. HD check. That's it.

D&D has been a game about killing and looting. But not only killing and looting. There are more outlets for social activities besides 2 different die rolls. Memberships in organizations in PHB2 and Contacts in DMG2 are but two examples.

I don't see how you're suddenly going to "lose" all the great options that 3e offers you. Because it doesn't. I've said it a bunch of times, but if you want to play an intrigue, social-focused game, D&D is not the system for it. Not because those types of games can't fit in a D&D world, or that D&D players just can't handle those games, but the system is not made for it. There are quite a few systems out there that have non-violent, social and intrigue built into them from the ground up, and trying to shoe-horn that into D&D is a severe headache.

3.5 works just fine for me and the group I'm in. I'm just worried that I'll lose those options in 4e if the rules and characters are specifically designed to work only in dungeon settings or that social interactions will specifically be designed to only work as some sort of "Social Encounter" that has difficulties based on character level or something (info has been vague on that).

As someone who is, right now, running a Mystery/Investigation game with 3.5, I can tell you first hand it's a real PITA.

I'm sorry to hear that, but your statements and my sentiments just show that different players/DMs/groups have different playing styles of playing the same game. We both play 3.5, but evidently in quite different manners. The rules support both styles (as well as many others), and I just don't get the feeling from the previews and leaked information on 4e that 4e will be as flexible.

 

[Rechan]

D&D has been a game about killing and looting. But not only killing and looting. There are more outlets for social activities besides 2 different die rolls. Memberships in organizations in PHB2 and Contacts in DMG2 are but two examples.

Which came how late in 3E's life?

Besides, the Contacts rule is really weak and limited.

3.5 works just fine for me and the group I'm in. I'm just worried that I'll lose those options in 4e if the rules and characters are specifically designed to work only in dungeon settings or that social interactions will specifically be designed to only work as some sort of "Social Encounter" that has difficulties based on character level or something (info has been vague on that).

From what Noonan and Mearls explained about Social Encounters, it's better than 3e because it's not just 2 opposing roles, but multiple rolls that can influence things. He even gave an example of how the Fighter gets involved in the social encounter.

So if you like 3e's Social rules, which shocks me, then from the 4e information I've seen, I suspect you'll enjoy 4e's social rules. They sound like an improvement (albeit to me it sounds like a stumped toe versus a kidney punch, but hey).

 

[Kintara]

Actually, they've explicitly stated, if I remember correctly, that they know people will use the social mechanics in the game in different ways. I think their intention here is to add some more weight to the mechanics that are already there, but they will be just as easy to hand-wave away as they are now. But then I struggle to see how they would make it difficult.

 

[Cbas_10]

From what Noonan and Mearls explained about Social Encounters, it's better than 3e because it's not just 2 opposing roles, but multiple rolls that can influence things. He even gave an example of how the Fighter gets involved in the social encounter.

Actually, they've explicitly stated, if I remember correctly, that they know people will use the social mechanics in the game in different ways. I think their intention here is to add some more weight to the mechanics that are already there, but they will be just as easy to hand-wave away as they are now. But then I struggle to see how they would make it difficult.

Well, this is why I'm here reading and chatting it up. Both are interesting and cool statements. Not that I'm calling for a need of rules like that...but knowing that the game is still designed with the options in mind. Cool.

 

[Rechan]

Well, this is why I'm here reading and chatting it up. Both are interesting and cool statements. Not that I'm calling for a need of rules like that...but knowing that the game is still designed with the options in mind. Cool.

Not sure if you heard what I did, but here, let me repeat what I remember.

Let's say your PCs are trying to convince the local Lord to use some of his power to help you out. In 3E, you just roll Diplomacy vs. Lord's level and that's that.

A social encounter in 4e is something like:

You roll diplomacy against the Lord for help. The lord then says "You have a point - but what about those (adventurers) that went and beat up my friends (the guys you beat up). You know anything about that?" Make a bluff check - fail it, and you get a penalty/his opinion shifts to something else. You roll bluff. You continue to ask for his help; another diplomacy. Then his adviser leans over and whispers in his ear, and rolls a diplomacy against your roll. The fighter decides to use Intimidate against the Adviser; the adviser is intimidated, and he leaves the room.

 

[Cbas_10]

Not sure if you heard what I did, but here, let me repeat what I remember.

Let's say your PCs are trying to convince the local Lord to use some of his power to help you out. In 3E, you just roll Diplomacy vs. Lord's level and that's that.

A social encounter in 4e is something like:

You roll diplomacy against the Lord for help. The lord then says "You have a point - but what about those (adventurers) that went and beat up my friends (the guys you beat up). You know anything about that?" Make a bluff check - fail it, and you get a penalty/his opinion shifts to something else. You roll bluff. You continue to ask for his help; another diplomacy. Then his adviser leans over and whispers in his ear, and rolls a diplomacy against your roll. The fighter decides to use Intimidate against the Adviser; the adviser is intimidated, and he leaves the room.

Okay. Looks just like 3e possibilities. Being similar to 3e is not the reason that part of my interest has started to swing towards 4e, but the fact that social situations can be a large part of the game does help to swing to the 4e.....

 

[FireLance]

Regarding rules and unequal multiclassing...I never meant to say or imply that the rules encourage unequal levelling. I meant that the rules assume it will happen because the designers probably already knew what we figured out 3 days after the PHB came out: having a main class and adding on a level or two of other classes would be very common and powerful. Thus...the XP penalties, and no XP penalties to go the weaker route of even levelling.

I'd always figured that the multiclass xp penalties were there for flavor rather than balance reasons, and the fact that multiclass characters with even levels were less capable overall than their single-classed counterparts was an unforeseen bug that WotC tried to patch with prestige classes and feats since solving the actual problem would require a complete overhaul of the multiclassing rules.

The basic problem with multiclassing spellcasters was that spellcasting ability did not improve with levels in other classes. Multiclassing between primarily combat classes and skill-using classes was not so bad because BAB and skill points stacked. If multiclassing for other characters worked like multiclassing for spellcasters, a fighter 10/barbarian 10 would have a BAB of +10, and a ranger 10/rogue 10 would have a maximum of 13 ranks in Spot.

And your point (whether you are serious or just having fun with the thought) is what I am really wondering. Through multiclassing in a manner that allows your fighter 10/wizard 10 to cast spells at about the same level of ability as a wizard 20.....why would single class characters exist? Maybe a fighter (or whatever the new equivalent is) loses bonus feats and the wizard side loses extras like bonus feats or the familiar or something to multiclass as a wizard and allow fighting AND spell casting to go up at Character Level rates. But that is why I am here....to keep my mind open about 4e, learn more as it comes out, keep reading, and hope that I'm part of the voices WotC hears when it comes to future development.

Spellcasting ability advancement can basically be broken down into three main aspects: caster level, number of spell slots, and access to higher level spells. If only one or two of these aspects advanced, possibly more slowly, with levels in other classes, single-classed characters would still have an advantage over their multi-classed counterparts. For example, a fighter 10/wizard 10 might be able to cast cone of cold as a 15th-level spellcaster. However, a wizard 20 would cast it as a 20th-level spellcaster, and would have access to wish, too.

 

[Hairfoot]

Perhaps I've misinterpreted the multiclassing predictions for 4E, but I'm alarmed at the proposal that training as a fighter for 20 levels is going to give a PC a head start when he takes a level of wizard.

Multiclassers have always paid a price for not specialising, and I don't see a problem with it.