Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WarpZone" data-source="post: 4322429" data-attributes="member: 70841">I can see why people keep saying 4E kills the RP aspect, or that it's too much like a video game now.  It's tempting to fall into that mindset, but I really do like some of the simplicity and features of 4E.  I think once we all get used to the new tactical system, the roleplaying and dynamism we love so much will re-emerge.  It'll just take some grinding to get there.  A major obstacle to our usual style of play is the fact that 4E seems to want to treat everything the players are capable of doing other than attacks as a single +2 combat advantage.  So if you know the lay of the land, you research the creature's weaknesses in advance, you drug their drinking water, you gas the area, you turn invisible, you throw sand in their eyes, you lure them into a spider-web and THEN you flank them, the net effect is STILL just a +2 modifier.I guess for us, the main draw of D&D has always been that, unlike a video game, you can think outside the box.  You can attempt to do ANYTHING that's physically possible.  But 4E so limits the potential reward for any such experimentation that it hardly seems worthwhile when you have all those awesome attacks up your sleaves.  So.  This is the question.  How can we preserve that spur-of-the-moment in-combat roleplaying, without adding so many house rules that we lose that 4E simplicity?One idea I had was to simply allow multiple Combat Advantages to stack, in certian cases, when they are the result of careful planning or role-playing on the part of the characters.  (I.E. not built into the mechanics.)  I think this would tip the penulum from pure tactical engagements punctuated by NPC conversations back towards true interactive storytelling.  I don't know if that would unbalance gameplay too much, though.  I haven't really played 4E enough yet to grasp what the rammifications of this change would be.Any thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification