PDA

View Full Version : The best part of 4e for you.



Mike_the_Mystic
2009-09-23, 08:14 PM
I know my favorite part is the fact that Dwarven women actually look hot now, wouldn't you agree?

tcrudisi
2009-09-23, 08:32 PM
Meh. If I wanted to see dwarf women, I'd be going to Duke University instead.

My favorite part of 4e is that the Fighter is useful!

thubby
2009-09-23, 08:35 PM
more control over the shape of the battlefield.

Haven
2009-09-23, 08:44 PM
Meh. If I wanted to see dwarf women, I'd be going to Duke University instead.

Heh.

I like that everyone gets to do interesting stuff from level 1.

Zeta Kai
2009-09-23, 08:45 PM
I like that the game actually encourages teamwork & group tactics, rather than the personal aggregation of power, as seen in 3rd Edition.

There, I gave 4E a genuine compliment, without mitigation. You're welcome.

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-23, 08:47 PM
Not having to scout through the thirty allowed books just to build a character.

Although it's getting there... *sigh*

Jack_Banzai
2009-09-23, 08:48 PM
Putting everyone on a more level playing field, and being able to rely on your fellow players (because you have no choice).

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-09-23, 08:54 PM
Character usefulness and ease of build are the ONLY things I like about 4e. And yet my DM refuses to go back to 3.5.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-23, 08:58 PM
All classes are useful, fun to play, and have options in battles.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-09-23, 09:21 PM
I like that the paladin finally gets the attention and respect it deserves.

Haven
2009-09-23, 09:33 PM
I like that the paladin finally gets the attention and respect it deserves.

Ooh! Another thing I like is that the Paladin isn't LG by default. I greatly enjoyed playing an Unaligned paladin of the Raven Queen in a one shot recently. :smallbiggrin:

Gralamin
2009-09-23, 09:48 PM
The best part is the Teamwork. There are a lot of other good parts though.

Draz74
2009-09-23, 10:03 PM
My favorite is the separation of combat spells from noncombat Rituals. (I houserule most Rituals to be either very very cheap or quite quick, so that they're not useless.)

jmbrown
2009-09-23, 10:12 PM
Meh. If I wanted to see dwarf women, I'd be going to Duke University instead.

My favorite part of 4e is that the Fighter is useful!

Agreed. In addition, spell casters aren't swiss army knives. Magic is still powerful but not game breaking and costs time and resources.

mrmaxmrmax
2009-09-23, 10:18 PM
I like all the extra hit points. The last 3.5 game I played had too many players and when we opened a new door in the dungeon, monsters were often defeated by the time my initiative order came up (on a low roll). The system doesn't set itself up for short battles.

I really like that only the attacker rolls.

I really really like the character builder (but I would like it more if I could use it on my Mac at home).

And (as a retailer) I like that it reenergized WOTC sales from the end of 3.5.

Maxwell.

cZak
2009-09-23, 10:22 PM
The significant cost reduction in 3.x materials.

I bought Red Hand of Doom for $2.49 on Amazon.


Fools are made to suffer, not to be suffered

Mushroom Ninja
2009-09-23, 10:26 PM
The significant cost reduction in 3.x materials.

I bought Red Hand of Doom for $2.49 on Amazon.

Yeah, I've become quite fond of $10-$20 sourcebooks on Amazon.

Within 4e itself, however, my favorite part has to be leaders. I loved playing a warlord and having an at-will that let me use the party's Dorf to hit stuff.

cupkeyk
2009-09-23, 10:32 PM
Agreed. In addition, spell casters aren't swiss army knives. Magic is still powerful but not game breaking and costs time and resources.

This, at first, was the least of my likes in 4e but I learned to live with it and like it. My group and I used to have kill contests in 3e, now we are working together like a real adventure party.

FoE
2009-09-23, 10:57 PM
I really like that it's easy to throw together an adventure, though admittedly keeping track of various conditions can be confusing.

Also, tieflings and dragonborn are core races.


I know my favorite part is the fact that Dwarven women actually look hot now, wouldn't you agree?

I was astonished to see that one hot female gnome in the PHB II! MADNESS!

Kylarra
2009-09-23, 11:00 PM
My favorite part is the character builder.

Lycan 01
2009-09-23, 11:00 PM
-Newbie friendly
-Fun combat
-Straightforward
-Teamwork, teamwork, teamwork...

Starsinger
2009-09-23, 11:31 PM
Half-Elves don't suck!

Vortling
2009-09-23, 11:37 PM
My List:
-Tank classes having ways to focus enemy attacks on themselves
-Decent hp for characters
-Heal-bot role spread out across several classes instead of sunk into one class
-Minions
-Condensed skill list
-No confirming crits

RandomBlueGuy
2009-09-23, 11:38 PM
there are very few things good about 4e one of them is that combat does tend to move faster, i however feel that this is because it is limited.
You are given cards that say what kind of attacks you can make, In 3.5 a player will ask me something like "can i stab that NPC through the foot and stick him to the ground" we then decide on likelihood and possible outcomes and roll for it. In 4e it is far too easy for a dm to say "Do you have that combat power" and the player has to say no.
I feel like 4e has tried to take away a DM's ability to improvise by making the combat child like which feels more like a game of top trumps than a role playing game.

That being said i do like:
The extra HP most characters get, including the ways to heal yourself from bloodied.
How easy things are for a dm as no one has to open a book to search for their feat/spell/ability.
I also love how AC goes up with level. This was always a big gripe of mine with 3.5 and below. I used to enact a similar system myself and just give out less armour and magical items for armour.

{Scrubbed} 3.5 still wins it for me as i feel more in control and better able to improvise without a player shoving a card in my face.
x

Knaight
2009-09-23, 11:43 PM
Honestly, my favorite part is the jokes I can get from it. But if we are looking at this relative to 3.5, I don't miss save or dies. At all. Then again, I crack jokes at 3.5 fairly frequently as well, so no turning this into an edition war.

I also like the new way of doing criticals, and the idea of weapon dice building up, rather than just getting bonuses, although I'm not fond of the implementation. Mostly its the jokes though.

Starsinger
2009-09-23, 11:44 PM
My List:
-Tank classes having ways to focus enemy attacks on themselves
-Decent hp for characters
-Heal-bot role spread out across several classes instead of sunk into one class
-Minions
-Condensed skill list
-No confirming crits
-Playing with Starsinger

I agree those are all excellent points.

... *whistles innocently* :smalltongue:

Meek
2009-09-23, 11:45 PM
Pretty much everything except discussing it on forums.

oxybe
2009-09-24, 12:05 AM
-non-mages being combat capable at all levels
-when you level up you actually learn to defend yourself
-action points are core!
-the idea & concept of skill challenges being core
-the inclusion of races that are more then just "humans with funny foreheads", like the dragonborn from the get-go
-Level 1 Minotaur Fighter. playing as a "monster" from level 1 to 30 that isn't a standard goblin/orc/kobold/ect...
-dwarves are still made of awesome and win. much love for my bearded bretheren
-the seperation of elf & eladrin into the "woodsy" elf and "magic" elf. i would have rather they they swap one of the two for the full orc though in the PHB
-alignment losing it's mechanical overtones and being purely background fluff

Inhuman Bot
2009-09-24, 12:07 AM
Like most people, the fact a fighter can be a badass too.

The fact the minions rule was a stroke of genius.

Humans' +2 to any stat is a different way to make them feel flexable.

I actually like 4e overall, I just prefer the older versions.

Starsinger
2009-09-24, 12:16 AM
there are very few things good about 4e one of them is that combat does tend to move faster, i however feel that this is because it is limited.
You are given cards that say what kind of attacks you can make, In 3.5 a player will ask me something like "can i stab that NPC through the foot and stick him to the ground" we then decide on likelihood and possible outcomes and roll for it. In 4e it is far too easy for a dm to say "Do you have that combat power" and the player has to say no.
I feel like 4e has tried to take away a DM's ability to improvise by making the combat child like which feels more like a game of top trumps than a role playing game.

Open your DMG and look at page 42...

oxybe
2009-09-24, 12:25 AM
actually, in 3.5 most players i know hesitate to perform some combat maneuver if they don't have the appropriate feat (trip & grapple are big offenders), since it's usually associated with:

A) enemy getting an attack of opportunity, which if hits, stops your attempt
B) a -4 penalty for trying something unusual.

the whole "well in X edition my players are creative but in Y edition they're not" is a problem with the GM and the way he presents the options available to the players. with new 4th ed players i gm, i will usually start them trying stuff by having NPC Bob suggest they try a stunt to give them an advantage. i then show them P.42 in the 4th ed DMG and tell them that they shouldn't be afraid to attempt something if they have an idea.

teach the players to be creative, and they'll be creative. stifle their creativity and they'll only play their character as written on the sheet.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-24, 12:26 AM
[...]and the idea of weapon dice building up, rather than just getting bonuses, although I'm not fond of the implementation. Mostly its the jokes though.

Agreed. It's nice to see the melee types doing as much or more damage than the casters. Not nice enough to make me switch, but nice nonetheless.

Gralamin
2009-09-24, 12:28 AM
Agreed. It's nice to see the melee types doing as much or more damage than the casters. Not nice enough to make me switch, but nice nonetheless.

Switch? You mean play both right :smallwink:?

Artanis
2009-09-24, 12:31 AM
The best part for me is probably the reduction in long-term bookkeeping. I'm not talking about the in-combat buffs and debuffs (of which 4e has plenty), I mean the things that you're always going to put up before going into battle, but have to be tracked separately despite always being used. Things like Mage Armor. I've seen times where there's been a ridiculous amount of time spent by a party trying to make sure they have all their buffs on, accounted for, and factored in, just for three or four rounds of combat.

VanIsleKnight
2009-09-24, 12:47 AM
I'm one of those newbies to D&D that I think 4E was geared towards, sort of like how the Wii was designed for new gamers. I look at 3.5 and am more or less intimidated by how much -stuff- there is, and by the fact that everyone I know has played it for years and is incredibly much more experienced at it then I am. I feel awkward, slow, and don't really enjoy myself all that much when I play with them because I play one of their spare characters (one friend has 3), the cleric. I more or less just heal. =/

4th edition, I'm on more even footing. I don't feel awkward or intimidated or worried about slowing the game down, the problem being that my friends (like a lot of people for some reason) really don't like 4th edition at all and switched to Pathfinders instead. So, even though it's not -quite- as bad as it was before, I still find that I'm just running around healing people (they just converted).

-_- I wish I knew more people interested in 4th edition. Aside from the starter campaign, I haven't had much of an opportunity to play it.

tcrudisi
2009-09-24, 12:55 AM
Another thing that makes me ga-ga about 4e: Healers are fun to play. Very few people enjoyed being the healbot in previous editions. It was no fun spending your whole action going, "Okay, I heal you for crap damage." Now? It's a minor action, so you still get to attack! Oh, and at worst you know you are going to heal them for 25% of your ally's hp.

And this is where I also have to give a great shout-out to both page 42 and skill challenges. Skill challenges are a lot of fun and page 42 is my go-to page for when the players try to set something on fire or do something off the wall. I love how easy they made it to let stuff like that work.

Kaiyanwang
2009-09-24, 12:57 AM
I like that the game actually encourages teamwork & group tactics, rather than the personal aggregation of power, as seen in 3rd Edition.


I respectfully disagree. You can built parties around several "party combos" in 3.x.

Said this, I like in 4e weapon categories in core. And SOME aspect of the rituals (I mean, I love 3rd but I recognize that the casting time of a lot of spells were simply too short, at least for some campaigns - I don't like the 10 minutes silence, but I see why a 10 minutes teleport).

AB
2009-09-24, 02:36 AM
-Streamlined combat rules
-All races playable
-All classes playble
-Teamwork enforced
-No splatbook-overflow (but it`s up to come I think)

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 03:50 AM
I'll second (third) the fighter remark. I've never even been remotely interested in fighters in earlier editions, but they're one of the nicer classes now.

Also, any kind of power that messes up the enemies. That includes most interrupts, push effects, and action denial conditions. It's just funny to pick up an enemy figure and say that yes, he moves into the raging fire now.



Open your DMG and look at page 42...
Yes in theory, but whenever actual examples are asked for on this forum about characters who want to do something creative in combat, most DMs tend to make up a response with a high chance of failure, and little actual effect if it succeeds. That isn't very encouraging.

Athaniar
2009-09-24, 04:09 AM
New books. I like new books. Also, cheaper old books. I like old books too (if they are new to me, that is).

Uin
2009-09-24, 04:21 AM
Playing a Leader, preferably a Warlord but then an Artificer, because it gives me an excuse to tell the party what to do so they act like a team (folks I play with are generally headless chickens). All the leader classes have been great so far with Shaman just lagging behind a touch. Primal Power will be released soon though.

Mercenary Pen
2009-09-24, 04:29 AM
Yes in theory, but whenever actual examples are asked for on this forum about characters who want to do something creative in combat, most DMs tend to make up a response with a high chance of failure, and little actual effect if it succeeds. That isn't very encouraging.

Maybe that's not so much a problem with the ruleset as a problem with the over-caution of DM's- some of which may pre-date 4e, coming from editions where a bad call over something like that could come back to screw multiple encounters...


My preferred thing about 4e is that all the playable races are actually playable, rather than having races that you wouldn't touch with a proverbial 10ft pole.

Renchard
2009-09-24, 05:41 AM
The fact that DM prep time can be expressed in minutes instead of hours.

Both DMGs (Especially DMG2).

I can understand a lot of the 3e->4e issues as a player, but as a DM, it's night and day as to which I prefer.

The Rose Dragon
2009-09-24, 05:46 AM
The name reminds me of AD&D 2nd Edition, a wonderful game I enjoyed playing.

((It is also a good wargame, but I'm not very much into wargames.))

Longcat
2009-09-24, 06:10 AM
The best part for me is the option of having Unaligned as my alignment.

AllisterH
2009-09-24, 06:33 AM
For me, it is because I get to play....Strange but true.

I've been the DM since 2e and this is the first edition of D&D that my players actually think they can DM. The DMG1 (and now DMG2) have actually sat down and EXPLAINED how to run a game.

I couldn't believe it when a couple of them told me recently they went out and bought the DMG2 and both of them actually WANT to DM.

I haven't been a player in decades and I actually love this aspect of 4e.

Somebloke
2009-09-24, 07:15 AM
I know my favorite part is the fact that Dwarven women actually look hot now, wouldn't you agree?
A bit more disturbing is the fact that all of the women are hot. Gnomes, half-orcs, shifters...no wonder humans have such a reputation.

Somebloke
2009-09-24, 07:17 AM
In all seriousness though? Having options for all classes and an attack bonus that does not leave the rogue, bard etc. weeping at 12th level.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 07:32 AM
A bit more disturbing is the fact that all of the women are hot. Gnomes, half-orcs, shifters...no wonder humans have such a reputation.

...dragonborn (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0676.html)...

Bagelz
2009-09-24, 07:56 AM
Not having to scout through the thirty allowed books just to build a character.

Although it's getting there... *sigh*

not yet. Also I've had a longtime solution for that. Only allow the core and "complete" books. or before that the core and "sword and fist" "tome and blood" series (which is basically what the complete books updated).

Indon
2009-09-24, 08:08 AM
Best? Hmm... tough question.

4E has a lot of stuff I like a bit, nifty things like how I can build single-round combos with minor/standard action powers and judicious use of my action point, a relatively intuitive and streamlined trap system, and the fact that my Defender's low Will save really doesn't doom him in any way.

But the thing I like best is that I can actually find a group for it. :|

Zeta Kai
2009-09-24, 08:08 AM
I respectfully disagree. You can built parties around several "party combos" in 3.x.

I respectfully counter your disagreement. I wasn't saying that you cannot perform team tactics in 3E. In my experience, you can do just about anything in 3E. I was saying that 3E is more geared towards personal growth, whereas one of the very few things that the designers of 4E managed to successfully do was to build a game that promoted teamwork. 3E does not promote teamwork in any appreciable or functional way. If you've experienced good teamwork in your 3E games, then you had players/a DM who promoted it, almost in spite of the rules. I love 3E, pustulent warts & all, but one thing it does not do well is encourage players to work together. If they wanna work together, then they will. If the wanna showboat, solo kill enemies, backstab each other, & just generally interfere with each other's effectiveness, it'll do that, too. Batman wizards, Pun-Pun, hulking hurlers, & all other sorts of CharOp craziness are just the tip of the iceberg for 3E, & they illustrate how 3E promotes singular builds, not group tactics. When was the last time you saw a team build in 3E CharOp? Hmmm?*

Also 4E does alignment halfway decent. The restricted alignment choices are utterly baffling & unnecessarily limited (Chaotic Good? What's that?), but I do appreciate how they removed the mechanical dependence on alignment. I try & do that in my 3E games, & it's a pain to do comprehensively.

* In saying this, I know that some contrary person will go find a 3E team build. Or maybe a few. For every 3E group build one finds, I'm sure that one could more easily find 100 solo builds. Because that's how the game is played.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 08:15 AM
Batman wizards, Pun-Pun, hulking hurlers, & all other sorts of CharOp craziness are just the tip of the iceberg for 3E, & they illustrate how 3E promotes singular builds, not group tactics. When was the last time you saw a team build in 3E CharOp? Hmmm?*
To be fair, though, 4E CharOp also focuses almost entirely on single-character builds, trying to get the most damage or the biggest save penalties or whatever.

The primary part of 4E that encourages teamwork appears to be the leader powers (of course, this is pretty much the point of having a leader role in the first place). Other than healing, they have a lot of powers like "<do something minor> and an ally may make a basic attack now".

Vortling
2009-09-24, 08:16 AM
I agree those are all excellent points.

... *whistles innocently* :smalltongue:

Oh, I see what you did there :smallwink:

Indon
2009-09-24, 08:17 AM
When was the last time you saw a team build in 3E CharOp? Hmmm?*

I've seen overwhelmingly more individual builds in 4E discussion than team builds, as well - it's the nature of internet optimization, not of any given edition of D&D.

KIDS
2009-09-24, 08:23 AM
I really like it how everything is streamlined, so even many effects are easy to keep track off. There is no such thing as a player having five effects on him, one of which is 1d4+3 rounds, the other 1d10-2 rounds and the rest 1d6+CL minutes, only one of them changes duration when a fortitude save is made.

The second big plus for me is that increased balance has made it possible to play just about anything without worrying about not contributing. Characters built as intended and even not so, might not always be optimized, but they're always effective and nice to have no matter their level.

Lost Demiurge
2009-09-24, 08:29 AM
All the classes are reasonably balanced. All the races are reasonably balanced.

It's hard to think of a class I wouldn't play. Before in 3 and 3.5, I avoided bards like the plague. Now? They're AWESOME!

And the new classes? Pretty good, for the most part.

Starsinger
2009-09-24, 09:53 AM
I've seen overwhelmingly more individual builds in 4E discussion than team builds, as well - it's the nature of internet optimization, not of any given edition of D&D.

True, but a lot of the individual 4e builds I've seen discussed at least pay lip service to the idea of other party members, at the very least strikers (rogues in particular) say "be sure to get CA from the tank."

Indon
2009-09-24, 09:54 AM
True, but a lot of the individual 4e builds I've seen discussed at least pay lip service to the idea of other party members, at the very least strikers (rogues in particular) say "be sure to get CA from the tank."

Rogues frequently use flanking buddies in 3.x, too, and the flanking bonus to hit is nice to have anyway.

Person_Man
2009-09-24, 09:56 AM
Meh. If I wanted to see dwarf women, I'd be going to Duke University instead.

Zing! Take that you basketball winning bastards. Go Terps!

My favorite aspect is that everything is broken down into At Will, Encounter, and Daily. 3.5 went way overboard with 20 different types of magic, psionics, incarnum, etc.

My least favorite aspect of the game is that you have a very limited number of powers, and they don't scale. Instead you swap them out. Having 1,000 different powers means that 90% of them are going to be of the X[W] damage plus minor status effect.

potatocubed
2009-09-24, 10:00 AM
My favourite aspect is that I can design an adventure with all-new monsters and have it ready to play inside an hour - less if I cut some corners.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 10:23 AM
True, but a lot of the individual 4e builds I've seen discussed at least pay lip service to the idea of other party members, at the very least strikers (rogues in particular) say "be sure to get CA from the tank."
I forgot the obvious counterpoint: arguably the most famous 3E build guide is the Batman Wizard. Sure, wizards have a reputation now as "the guy who can do everything alone", but the original Batman was heavily about teamplay and buffing your allies.

Sipex
2009-09-24, 10:31 AM
Favourite parts about 4e:

1) Teaching my inexperienced group how to play D&D was a cakewalk (well, not a cakewalk but it was relatively easy)

2) Classes feel more balanced and harder to screw up. Which is good when your party doesn't know how to optimize.

3) DMing is easy, well, easier than I'd imagine it could be. I have a custom campaign, runs once a week and I only need to put in about 3 hours a week to get things ready. 4 hours if I create a few custom monsters or a custom system.

4) Skills are simplified. This is unrealistic yes (ie: it is possible to be an amazing athelete and not know how to swim) but in the end it's more fun to play.

Also, on the limitation of 'you have to have x power' it really just requires flexible DM intervention. Our rogue came up with 'pocket sand!' (ie: sand in the eyes) before he knew the power existed. I gave it to him anyways stating that it's at-will, he has to pay or collect materials beforehand (or be near sand and expend a minor action to collect a handful), costs his standard action and doesn't do any damage (just blinding). Also, only works on a single enemy once, any enemies in the same encounter (ie: present when the enemy is hit) get a +2 bonus to defense against it if he uses it against them.

Edit: Hit submit by accident.

Starsinger
2009-09-24, 10:33 AM
I forgot the obvious counterpoint: arguably the most famous 3E build guide is the Batman Wizard. Sure, wizards have a reputation now as "the guy who can do everything alone", but the original Batman was heavily about teamplay and buffing your allies.

Yeah, TLN's usage of a Batman wizard was indeed heavy on teamplay, which as I understand it, is part of why TLN plays 4e now.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-24, 10:38 AM
I forgot the obvious counterpoint: arguably the most famous 3E build guide is the Batman Wizard. Sure, wizards have a reputation now as "the guy who can do everything alone", but the original Batman was heavily about teamplay and buffing your allies.

Indeed. The whole point of Batman was originally "Own the other side so hard that even your Big Stupid Fighter can take them out, without looking like you really did anything at all." That kind of wizard isn't a problem, or the kind people usually complain about in wizard vs. X discussions, it's the ones that try to grab all the power and spotlight for themselves.

Hal
2009-09-24, 11:36 AM
Three words:

No . . . negative . . . levels.

Seriously, this was one of THE worst mechanics 3.5 had. I've yet to meet a player who suffered the consequences of one and didn't seriously consider beating his DM to death with a bag of d12s.

LibraryOgre
2009-09-24, 11:43 AM
I know my favorite part is the fact that Dwarven women actually look hot now, wouldn't you agree?

They don't look like dwarven women anymore. Poor, ugly girls without any side whiskers.

However, I think my favorite is delineation of actions; I very much like the existence of minor actions, and their utility.

Mordokai
2009-09-24, 11:44 AM
Half-Elves don't suck!

Though they still seem to carry a lot of baggage from 3.5...

Oslecamo
2009-09-24, 11:45 AM
That the rules now basically tell munchkins to go look for another game. One sneack attack per turn. The commoners survive in the power of plot, so go away your economic thesis to someplace else. And no, you cannot build traps, or mindrape monsters in any way, or summon them at your leisure, and you also cannot play them, and neither gods or any monsters will never do anything for you unless the DM feels like it. Also the monster only have battle-related abilities, so that in the situation where you manage to get your hands on them, you still cannot abuse poorly worded fluff powers.

It was an harsh measure, but necessary.

Indon
2009-09-24, 11:49 AM
It was an harsh measure, but necessary.

I fail to see how things are different in this regard.

Powergaming is still alive and well in 4th edition. In fact, it's overwhelmingly more straightforward and thus more commonplace.

I mean, sure, because the game is designed to be balanced better (i.e. with the intention that players will and should powergame it), optimisation leads to less wild results. But that change is in the degree of result, not the degree of incentive to do it in the first place.

Oslecamo
2009-09-24, 12:01 PM
Powergaming is still alive and well in 4th edition. In fact, it's overwhelmingly more straightforward and thus more commonplace.
We aren't geting endless "class Y is the suckorz/unstopable rofl", neither are we geting endless loops, and best of all I'm seeing a lot less abuse of the english language itself. No bombos like solar gate chaining or city bomb wich don't work in the first place if one bothers to read the whole rules instead of just the part that interests you.



I mean, sure, because the game is designed to be balanced better (i.e. with the intention that players will and should powergame it), optimisation leads to less wild results. But that change is in the degree of result, not the degree of incentive to do it in the first place.
Notice I said munchkin, not power gamer. 4e players don't run around trying to breack the economy, asking from where beholders come from, asking why commoners don't spend their healing surges to heal themselves or why heros have so many of them in the first place, ect, ect.

Indon
2009-09-24, 12:07 PM
Notice I said munchkin, not power gamer.
Aside from degree, of both severity and condescention from others, is there an agreed-upon difference?


4e players don't run around trying to breack the economy, asking from where beholders come from, asking why commoners don't spend their healing surges to heal themselves or why heros have so many of them in the first place, ect, ect.

This has nothing to do with munchkinism, unless munchkinism is defined as expecting an internally consistent universe.

This has to do with the game not having versimillitude as an objective. The economy is unbreakable because there isn't one. Beholders come from the Monster Manual. Commoners don't get healing surges and PC's get them because players are playing them. God can make a square circle in this universe because squares and circles are the same shape. Rust monsters can't digest things for player benefit because the MM entry tells the DM not to let them do it.

Oslecamo
2009-09-24, 12:15 PM
Aside from degree, of both severity and condescention from others, is there an agreed-upon difference?
...
This has nothing to do with munchkinism, unless munchkinism is defined as expecting an internally consistent universe.


Now I may not be the ultimate authority on the matter, but:

Powergamer:seeks to increase his power trough his character options and party. He would never dream of trying to do rust monster farming, and has an idea of the monsters out there but his main knowledge is focused on the PHB.

Munchkin: Will use any and all tools at his disposal to increase his power. He'll try to abuse the economy, he'll decorate the MM and then try to abuse that knowledge as much as possible, and the DM will need to whack him with the no-stick quite a few times if they ever find a rust monster.

Plus trying to abuse any poorly written rules that may appear.

Indon
2009-09-24, 12:32 PM
Now I may not be the ultimate authority on the matter, but:
So one optimizes within the clearly intended optimization boundaries of the game, and the other optimizes within the boundary defined by the entirety of the game?

In 3'rd edition, there were no clearly intended optimization boundaries. The game was not meant to be played with extensive optimization as we know it.

In 4th edition, the only optimization options are the ones explicitly defined by the game, because the game is explicitly not defined outside of that scope.

So what it seems to me you're saying is, in 3rd edition, your definition has meaning, in 4th edition it does not.

Trixie
2009-09-24, 12:50 PM
What is Rust Monster Farming? :smallconfused:

Also - I tried various ways in the past to earn a few monies for my PC spellcasters (mainly, to afford scrolls for party). I hope that doesn't make me a munchkin? :smalltongue:

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-24, 01:07 PM
What is Rust Monster Farming? :smallconfused:

In 4e, instead of eating your items forever, rust monsters just convert it into residuum that you can harvest after the battle, because in the opinion of the 4e designers taking things away from players for more than an encounter or two is badwrongfun. Because breaking items down via ritual only returns a proportion of the value in residuum, it's actually more cost effective to get your things eaten by rust monsters than to break them down via ritual.


Also - I tried various ways in the past to earn a few monies for my PC spellcasters (mainly, to afford scrolls for party). I hope that doesn't make me a munchkin? :smalltongue:

Nah, they're talking about things like infinite-gold loops or the like, not a bit of pocket change.

Myrmex
2009-09-24, 01:15 PM
because in the opinion of the 4e designers taking things away from players for more than an encounter or two is badwrongfun.

To be fair, much of the interwebs thinks so, too.

TheEmerged
2009-09-24, 01:25 PM
Speaking as someone that's been playing since the late 70's?

1> Best balance between the classes and races I've ever seen. This has always been a sore point with me, and the reason I've spent most of my time playing classless systems :smallredface:

2> The healbotting issue.

3> The way it plays at level 1. Just my opinion, but this edition is more playable/survivable at level 1 than any previous edition.

4> The skill system is *closer* to the way I think it should work. It isn't there yet (I dislike the way languages are being handled, and there should be more options for improving your skill than there are), but it's better than 3.x in my opinion (you had to get to about 5-8th level before the points you had in skill 'mattered' relative to the d20 randomizer, but after 12th level or so there was no point in attempting a skill you didn't have).

5> The removal of most of the divination magic. I've been a gamer & GM/DM long enough to know the problems with any mechanic of this nature (I like the phrase "If it spoils a mystery, it probably spoils the game").

6> "Points of Light". Look, I'm sorry for the people that feel it ruined the Forgotten Realms. I'm prejudiced because I never liked that setting, and will admit as much. I happen to prefer the PoL concept, because it gives the characters a reason to be adventuring. Perhaps they shouldn't have tried to shoehorn it into existing settings.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 03:42 PM
We aren't geting endless "class Y is the suckorz/unstopable rofl", neither are we geting endless loops,
I beg to differ.

We had the level-15 ranger solo'ing Orcus the week before the game was released.

We have the stunlock orbizard, the half-elf of doom, and the crit fisher. Probably a few others.

We have a few infinite loops involving epic rangers and spamming elven accuracy.

And we still have "class Y is the suckorz" although admittedly this tends to stem from people not understanding class Y. For instance, people complaining that warlocks don't do as much damage as rangers.

The game has changed; the culture has not. We still have Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies, and Munchkins. And frankly it wouldn't be D&D without them.

AllisterH
2009-09-24, 03:55 PM
In 4e, instead of eating your items forever, rust monsters just convert it into residuum that you can harvest after the battle, because in the opinion of the 4e designers taking things away from players for more than an encounter or two is badwrongfun. Because breaking items down via ritual only returns a proportion of the value in residuum, it's actually more cost effective to get your things eaten by rust monsters than to break them down via ritual.


That kinda would be a bad example IMO. They don't say it is badwrongfun but they do talk about the consequences of using said beastie since a rust monster is NOT a normal monster.

The 4e entry for the Rust monster explicitly mentions watching out for someone trying to "game" the system by rust-monster farming and to put the kibosh on it.

As well, the 4e entry has an "ADVICE" column about using the rust monster (something which I think would be appreciated in earlier editions for DMs and thus the rust monster wouldn't have been such a hated monster in previous editions).

They mention the consequences (namely that a PC _IS_ screwed in later encounters and frankly, IMO, historically much worse than if they had been level drained - there's spells to get rid of level draining) and also, HOW to deal with it. (For example, they mention having the PCs using gear that they find which mighty be suboptimal or even constructing their own crude weapons such as clubs).

The MM2 even talks about how the PCs deal with the loss is part of the fun of _USING_ the rust monster but that it should be temporary

I'm not sure why people think the 4e rust monster is an example of badwrongfun. To me anyway, it is a GOOD monster since the designers actually talk about how it is different from your typical monster which is what made it so hated in previous editions ("oh random encounter time" - _rust monster eats all the gear_ - "here's the BBEG fight now")

Starsinger
2009-09-24, 04:18 PM
Healing is no longer "harder" as the target gains levels.

Saph
2009-09-24, 04:23 PM
Can't actually think of any. Given that I'm playing in a couple of 4e games at the moment, that's not really a good sign. :(

Nero24200
2009-09-24, 04:59 PM
The simplicity.

I prefer 3.5 miles over 4th Edition, in fact, of all the gamming systems I've really tried, 4th Edition is my least favourite. But that fact that it's simple gives it a place in my opinion.

I've got a friend at the moment that I'm teaching D'n'D, well...not just D'n'D, RP as well. She's always been eager to try D'n'D, but shes never really tried RP at all. 4th Edition is miles easier to pick up, in fact helping her create a characer took only a fraction of the time it takes for me or my 3.5 friends to make a character, and wer've been playing for about 5-6 years.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-24, 05:15 PM
Semi-off-topic regarding the rust monster:

The MM2 even talks about how the PCs deal with the loss is part of the fun of _USING_ the rust monster but that it should be temporary

And why is that? Why is it so bad to have consequences that carry over for several days, if not an adventure? Losing weapons is bad; negative levels are bad; ability damage is bad; it seems that anything that doesn't go away with your next extended rest is bad. (Then again, positive effects that don't go away very soon are also bad, so it balances out nicely.)

I have two objections to this philosophy. First off, the idea of PCs having lasting penalties/handicaps is one I would have thought 4e could handle better than prior editions. Speaking of weapon loss specifically, in 2e/3e, if your fighter loses the weapon he's specialized in his contributions to combat can dwindle away to nothingness; in 4e, (A) the only benefit of specialization is a single +1 as opposed to entire class features/feat trees and (B) his weapon-specific powers become slightly less powerful rather than completely useless. Plus, now that casters need implements, losing items isn't a "disable the martial character" situation but rather a "disable anyone" situation, so instead of your fighter cowering in the back while the wizard or monk takes care of things, everyone is equally threatened.

Second, I don't see why removing these effects is better than leaving them in along with effects that remove them. In 4e, if you want to have lasting effects, you either (A) can't or (B) have to fiat something in to which there is no counter. In 1e through 3e, if you don't like level drain/negative levels, you simply don't have to use monsters or effects dealing with them. It's much easier to avoid using a certain subset of effects than it is to try to add them later when their existence hasn't been taken into account by the base system.

Granted, ability damage is calculation-intensive and the differences between damage, drain, and burn are a pain. Granted, level loss in 1e/2e took away huge amounts of progress; negative levels were a better implementation in my view. Granted that many people find some of these mechanics as abominable as I and others find them useful. I just don't think removing them wholesale was a good choice, and think limiting them/putting in disclaimers/making them rare/making them easily preventable/any other solution would have been a better option.

AllisterH
2009-09-24, 05:33 PM
Semi-off-topic regarding the rust monster:
[spoiler]

And why is that? Why is it so bad to have consequences that carry over for several days, if not an adventure? Losing weapons is bad; negative levels are bad; ability damage is bad; it seems that anything that doesn't go away with your next extended rest is bad. (Then again, positive effects that don't go away very soon are also bad, so it balances out nicely.)



The reason why it is temporary is because the advice column mentions that the PCs will, once they get a chance, simply either use the "create Item" ritual or simply head back to town and stock up on what they lost.

Actually, 4e's Disease track is perhaps the best interpretation of what you talk about "consequences past an extended rest". The only problem is, just like 3e, the fact that there's a magic spell/ritual to get rid of the problem means that consequences don't have meaning.

Personally, I think only in pre 3e this actually meant anything since in 3e and 4e, as long as you're a prepared wizard or cleric, consequences don't really have meaning.

Oslecamo
2009-09-24, 05:43 PM
So what it seems to me you're saying is, in 3rd edition, your definition has meaning, in 4th edition it does not.

Yeah, more or less that. In 3e the creators tried to do a versi-whatever world. Monsters and PCs used the same rules, we had the NPC classes, jobs, rules for lots of stuff, how much the dungeon itself costed, and the munchkins took those rules and...We all know how it ended.

In 4e they just said SCREW IT! and made it clear that the players were suposed to go out there dungeon crawling, not trying to create a medieval economy-politic system, and the the wizards would blast, the clerics would heal, the fighters would fight, gods were going to get fragged, ect, ect.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-24, 05:44 PM
Yeah, TLN's usage of a Batman wizard was indeed heavy on teamplay, which as I understand it, is part of why TLN plays 4e now.

For the record, it was the GOD handbook that changed a lot of paradigms on the Batman-style Wizard. The idea that one class could replicate an entire party's worth of abilities has been a goal of many people, but it took the GOD handbook pointing out how many options classes like the Wizard had before people realized it was possible in Core.

The GOD handbook does state that the best option is Battlefield Control, but it also says Buffing/Debuffing isn't a bad choice either (it's just a step below BC).

The descriptions of other classes being worthless was just flavoring. Some people just take it too seriously.




For me, the Barbarian, Bard, and the PH3's Psion preview are all good things. Also, Negative HP and healing. That's pretty much it. Everything else is fairly stale to me due to overlaping class design (not role design, class design). Were there some actual unique-ness between classes, such as the difference between Arcane casting and Psionic manifesting that 3.5 had, I'd be a lot more happy with 4E.

Knaight
2009-09-24, 05:59 PM
After reading this thread, I need to make a pronouncement.

There are roleplaying games other than D&D editions. Some of them don't even include d20s, or levels. I know, I know, shocking.:smalleek:

Yar
2009-09-24, 06:03 PM
The best thing about 4e is that it has good art. The rest sucks. It not ever a roleplaying game. When i saw that they had rules to bypassing an RP encounter In the form of skill challenges. I handed the book over to my friends and said marry x-mas.

Hal
2009-09-24, 06:19 PM
And why is that? Why is it so bad to have consequences that carry over for several days, if not an adventure? Losing weapons is bad; negative levels are bad; ability damage is bad; it seems that anything that doesn't go away with your next extended rest is bad. (Then again, positive effects that don't go away very soon are also bad, so it balances out nicely.)


Complicated math aside, it's a matter of being neutered as a character.

Losing multiple levels or your magic equipment scales your power back significantly. If it's not spread across the party, you'll suddenly find yourself unable to contribute effectively in combat.

The entire point is that it's very frustrating as a player. It can feel like the DM is arbitrarily (or maliciously) punishing you; you spend a long time building your character's power, and the DM steals it away because he just HAD to have you fight that monster. He doesn't have to include this stuff, but he did anyways. One of the thrills of these level-based systems is becoming stronger the longer you play; walking those sorts of things back takes away from the fun for a lot of people. ("Oh boy, after this fight I'll have access to level 9 spells! What, 4 negative levels? Noooo! It'll be three more months before I get that back!")

I realize much of the above depends largely on the DM/player relationship, but I understand this to be generally true all the same.

A lot of the philosophy designs of 4E seemed to center around minimizing the frustrations. It's no wonder to me that negative levels, rust monsters, etc. were removed.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-24, 06:29 PM
After reading this thread, I need to make a pronouncement.

There are roleplaying games other than D&D editions. Some of them don't even include d20s, or levels. I know, I know, shocking.:smalleek:

The other systems recieve less support than DnD does (DnD gets 3 expansions a month, whereas White Wolf and WFRP get considerably less). In WW's case in particular, they are prone to releasing entire new systems that are rarely able to convert over or even be remotely compatible with previous releases (Scion to Werewolf, for example, is nigh impossible due to the differences in power between the two). Sure, it is possible to homebrew a conversion system, but even the creators advise against it (they have gone on record as saying the systems should not be used together, regardless of how similar the systems are).

And yes, there are others. But those three are the most widely-known.

Sir Homeslice
2009-09-24, 06:46 PM
The best thing about 4e is that it has good art. The rest sucks. It not ever a roleplaying game. When i saw that they had rules to bypassing an RP encounter In the form of skill challenges. I handed the book over to my friends and said marry x-mas.

4e's art is terrible.

4e hasn't magically enforced a no roleplaying rule, so I have no idea why you don't think it's not a roleplaying game. And your gripe about skill challenges only proves that you really don't know what skill challenges are.

What do I like about 4e? Optimizing, and the combat.

TheEmerged
2009-09-24, 07:01 PM
The best thing about 4e is that it has good art. The rest sucks. It [sic] not ever [sic] a roleplaying game. When i [sic] saw that they had rules to bypassing [sic] an [sic] RP encounter In [sic] the form of skill challenges. [sic] I handed the book over to my friends and said marry [sic] x-mas [sic].

/humor on
For some reason, I have trouble taking your argument seriously.
/humor off

You're welcome to your opinion. I appear to have a different definition of roleplaying, since I think 4e is better for roleplaying. In 4e most of the roleplay bits were taken out of the crunchy bits. I no longer have to decide between making my character less effective in combat and giving him the skill ranks in Farming a farm boy should have, for one thing.

Talya
2009-09-24, 07:03 PM
Much of the artwork is pretty damn good. Absolute best part of the 4e books right there.

Zeta Kai
2009-09-24, 07:05 PM
After reading this thread, I need to make a pronouncement.

There are roleplaying games other than D&D editions. Some of them don't even include d20s, or levels. I know, I know, shocking.:smalleek:

I'm quite sure that everyone here is aware of that fact, but that's not even remotely the point of this thread. In fact, I believe you could have made that "pronouncement" in any random thread on this forum, & it would have achieved the same level of relevance. I respectfully ask that you do not make condescending statements please, especially those that do not contribute to the discourse.

For the record, I like rust monsters, & although my players justly fear them, they do not hate them per se, as I have never forced them into combat with one. Good encounter design with enemies like that is to give the players a choice: they can fight (& possibly lose their gear) or they can run (miss out on some juicy XP & other loot). It's like an encounter with a pool of lava; a bad DM will force you into falling in, but a good DM will set it up as an avoidable hazard.

And the Points of Light setting design is a good thing, something that I have used in my games for years (although the concept did not have such a name, of course). I suspect that many DMs did likewise. It is a convenient & realistic way to present a world with as many monsters as D&D usually has. I just with that WotC hadn't changed so much about the Forgotten Realms to fit the PoL mold. For me, that world ended shortly after the year 1373. :smallfrown:

Meek
2009-09-24, 08:02 PM
It's funny that I never saw how much an utter, uninhabitable crapsack of a world the assumed setting of D&D was, until 4e's Points of Light made it really plain how horrible life is. To paraphrase one of my favorite books, it's like a boot stomping on humanity's face, over and over. Except that 5 nudnicks with magical destinies can rise up and somehow make this world much better (or so the game tells you, I'm pretty sure it goes right back to being horrible after the campaign ends. There's only so much you can do about the living conditions, short of actively genociding the entire monster manual.)

I don't really like Points of Light much.

CharPixie
2009-09-24, 08:30 PM
Rituals (just love the concept)

Skills. I've always have hated point buy skills, even in skill+attribute systems. There's too much math involved in defining your character. And in 4e you can blow a handful of feats at becoming a skill monkey; it wasn't so straight forward in 3.

No alignment based spells. I hated the dilemma of "houserule or explain" those provided.

Superglucose
2009-09-24, 08:49 PM
/humor on
For some reason, I have trouble taking your argument seriously.
/humor off

Point of interest, "an RP" is proper, because "RP" is, phoenetically, "ar pe" and "ar" begins with a vowel.

Just wanted to chime in on that note :smallbiggrin:

Also x-mas is a perfectly acceptable shorthand for "Christmas."

Catch
2009-09-24, 08:53 PM
Comparison.

Player: "This encounter is BS! I hate Wizard villains."
DM: "We could play 4th edition...."
Players (unison): "WHAT. No, it's fine."

More seriously though, it's an easier game to pick up and play. Enough that a group of friends can do a one-shot in an afternoon or two without planning for a week and checking five splatbooks out from the library.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-24, 09:06 PM
Point of interest, "an RP" is proper, because "RP" is, phoenetically, "ar pe" and "ar" begins with a vowel.

Depends, really. If you read RP as "roleplaying" it works fine, and most abbreviations here work that way; threads might mention the "RAW vs. RAI interpretations of DDM: Persist and PA early-entry," but in real life no one I know talks about "raw" versus "ri" or "dee dee em persist spell." :smallwink:

[/semantics]


The reason why it is temporary is because the advice column mentions that the PCs will, once they get a chance, simply either use the "create Item" ritual or simply head back to town and stock up on what they lost.

I know that's why it's temporary; I'm asking why it was necessary to make the rust monster give you back an equal value in residuum for dissolved items instead of making the item just go away. Heading back to town to stock up isn't an issue; it's the neutering of the rust monster as a threat that is, because you can simply use a ritual to get your item back at negligible cost.


Complicated math aside, it's a matter of being neutered as a character.

Losing multiple levels or your magic equipment scales your power back significantly. If it's not spread across the party, you'll suddenly find yourself unable to contribute effectively in combat.

Which is one of the reasons I emphasized a temporary loss, and noted negative levels as being a step up from level loss. If a rust monster eats your stuff, you should be able to buy it back soon, albeit at a cost; if you take negative levels, you should be able to recover them fairly easily, albeit not immediately. I don't think anyone should be permanently penalized in these cases, which is one of the reasons I saw the 2e->3e transitions in the area of DM-placed treasure->WBL and level loss->negative levels to be a step forward.

I do believe, though, that there definitely should be a measurably penalty, however temporary it may be. Even if the next town over has your exact item, if you run into a rust monster you should be stuck using a backup weapon until then; even if the next roadside temple has a cleric, if you run into a wight you should still be stuck with a negative level or three. The rust monster partially succeeds in my view because you're at least without your weapon for the rest of combat, but then messes up because it can be replaced at almost no cost.

Essentially, it boils down to this: If you're going to include long-term effects (rituals, diseases, etc.) include negative levels, rusting, and other long-term effects. If you're not going to do that, then stick to your guns and don't throw in just a few effects and don't bait-and-switch with the rust monster. The implementation just feels...wishy-washy, I suppose, as if the devs were dead-set against any item loss but felt obligated to include the rust monster somehow.


The entire point is that it's very frustrating as a player. It can feel like the DM is arbitrarily (or maliciously) punishing you; you spend a long time building your character's power, and the DM steals it away because he just HAD to have you fight that monster. He doesn't have to include this stuff, but he did anyways. One of the thrills of these level-based systems is becoming stronger the longer you play; walking those sorts of things back takes away from the fun for a lot of people. ("Oh boy, after this fight I'll have access to level 9 spells! What, 4 negative levels? Noooo! It'll be three more months before I get that back!")

[...]

A lot of the philosophy designs of 4E seemed to center around minimizing the frustrations. It's no wonder to me that negative levels, rust monsters, etc. were removed.

Again, that's all fine and dandy, but if you're going to do that, go all the way. Take out rust monsters, take out wights, take out poisons, take out diseases, take out all the stuff that has long term implications. Removing some of them, half-heartedly implementing some of them, and leaving the rest just doesn't sit well.

Indon
2009-09-24, 09:07 PM
4e hasn't magically enforced a no roleplaying rule, so I have no idea why you don't think it's not a roleplaying game.

Hello, can of worms. I'm Indon!


And your gripe about skill challenges only proves that you really don't know what skill challenges are.

On a serious note, skill challenges frankly aren't the most stellar system. Overall, D&D's approach towards skills (all editions) is pretty weak. Skill challenges were Wizards' way of giving up on trying to make an in-depth skill system (which they made gestures towards in 3.x), and simply make a quick, bare-bones-functionality-oriented fix for the problem.

As a result, skill challenges as written are easy, balanced, and range from silly to unusably absurd in practice. At least the system's easy to houserule due to simplicity.


(or so the game tells you, I'm pretty sure it goes right back to being horrible after the campaign ends. There's only so much you can do about the living conditions, short of actively genociding the entire monster manual.)

Now that is a sweet 4E campaign concept.

Nightson
2009-09-24, 09:27 PM
Monster design is probably the thing I <3 the most.

Skill challenges were not meant to replace roleplaying they were meant to replace things like, "I roll diplomacy to convince the duke to help us."

If you roleplay those things out (which is the case with my group), then you don't need skill challenges to replace them, but their purpose is to have a mechanic in place to provide a more interesting and tactical approach to the use of skills in some cases.

The problem with skill challenges is getting them to work as intended.


And from what I hear, DMG2 has a simple rule for roleplaying advancement. Level equivalent monster XP for every fifteen minutes spent roleplaying.

NeoVid
2009-09-25, 12:18 AM
Favorite part: Game balance. Man, did I miss that.

Sir Homeslice
2009-09-25, 02:19 AM
Hello, can of worms. I'm Indon!

The can of worms says hi back, though they don't understand English, nor can they speak it.

(Also I rather like the idea of Skill Challenges, and routinely cannibalize, modify, and brutalize the existing rules and DCs because they're stupid.)

Kaiyanwang
2009-09-25, 02:46 AM
I respectfully counter your disagreement. I wasn't saying that you cannot perform team tactics in 3E. In my experience, you can do just about anything in 3E. I was saying that 3E is more geared towards personal growth, whereas one of the very few things that the designers of 4E managed to successfully do was to build a game that promoted teamwork. 3E does not promote teamwork in any appreciable or functional way. If you've experienced good teamwork in your 3E games, then you had players/a DM who promoted it, almost in spite of the rules. I love 3E, pustulent warts & all, but one thing it does not do well is encourage players to work together. If they wanna work together, then they will. If the wanna showboat, solo kill enemies, backstab each other, & just generally interfere with each other's effectiveness, it'll do that, too. Batman wizards, Pun-Pun, hulking hurlers, & all other sorts of CharOp craziness are just the tip of the iceberg for 3E, & they illustrate how 3E promotes singular builds, not group tactics. When was the last time you saw a team build in 3E CharOp? Hmmm?*


I wonder why we should use CharOp like a standard. More, Is obvious and wise that they build "solo" builds: they don't know the party of the people reading the forum. If your party or DM need a change, you'll make it, but you could even play solo adventures - I did it with my players. I don't see a point here.

More than that, in 3.x there is teamwork, and from its beginning - say the core fighter and/or grease + rogue. Designers put "combos" of teamwork into the game, but most time you have to work them by yourself. It seems to me that in 4th edition "team combos" are completely pre made by designers so even the less imaginative person can "combo" immediately without thinking about prepare an action or be smart and feel a great strategist.

About this, I've to say that even if I'm wrong, increasing the "party combos" by an inflation of "shift this/pull that" powers and flattening a lot of other things that could have been reworked but not removed does not seem to me such a big improvement.

Yes, 3.x CAN lead to personal power - or cannot. An I love its freedom. And ZK.. you put Pun-Pun as an example? You seriously take Pun-Pun as more than an exquisite mental exercise? Celerity can be a problem in 3.5, not Pun Pun.



Also 4E does alignment halfway decent. The restricted alignment choices are utterly baffling & unnecessarily limited (Chaotic Good? What's that?), but I do appreciate how they removed the mechanical dependence on alignment. I try & do that in my 3E games, & it's a pain to do comprehensively.


:smallsmile: ZK, seems to me that we have almost opposite views: for me, Chaotic Good has a lot of meaning ..now I feel the alignment sistem bland and incomplete. And againg, removing the mechanical dependence makes the system even more bland and incomplete.


* In saying this, I know that some contrary person will go find a 3E team build. Or maybe a few. For every 3E group build one finds, I'm sure that one could more easily find 100 solo builds. Because that's how the game is played.

See above.

Totally Guy
2009-09-25, 04:21 AM
I know that's why it's temporary; I'm asking why it was necessary to make the rust monster give you back an equal value in residuum for dissolved items instead of making the item just go away. Heading back to town to stock up isn't an issue; it's the neutering of the rust monster as a threat that is, because you can simply use a ritual to get your item back at negligible cost.

Actually the treasure tables ensure that the items you carry around are up to 5 levels higher than you are. The ritual is only good for items up to your level. So lose that item 3 levels above you you've essentially replaced your item with one that's merely your level. Or you could wait 3 levels in order to rebuild it to its former glory.

Sipex
2009-09-25, 10:13 AM
Yeah, I'm not too fond of 4e alignments so I just threw the 3.5 alignment table in there instead.

Also skill challenges can't be used as often as they like to infer. Often it seems pointless to stick a skill challenge in as a single check should do it (ie: Researching information) but they do have their uses
- Barganing
- Chases
- Investigating
- Stealth missions (sort of)

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-25, 10:43 AM
Actually the treasure tables ensure that the items you carry around are up to 5 levels higher than you are. The ritual is only good for items up to your level. So lose that item 3 levels above you you've essentially replaced your item with one that's merely your level. Or you could wait 3 levels in order to rebuild it to its former glory.

I forgot about that part myself. So a Rust Monster turns high level equipment into crap, and you have to be inefficient for the next 3-5 levels because the ritual used to create it isn't capable of restoring it.

Pet peeve: The lack of WBL. In 3.5, there was this nice little chart that tells you exactly how much you can spend and how much your players should have at each level. 4E's treasure parcels require me to figure this out by hand, and there's absolutely no shortcuts because of the way treasure is handled.

oxybe
2009-09-25, 10:49 AM
actually 4th ed characters past level 1 have:

-an item equal to your level +1
-an item equal to your level
-an item equal to your level -1
-GP equal to an item equal to your level -1 to spend on gear

i forget what page exactly, but it's in the first chapter.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-25, 10:53 AM
I forgot about that part myself. So a Rust Monster turns high level equipment into crap, and you have to be inefficient for the next 3-5 levels because the ritual used to create it isn't capable of restoring it.
Well, not exactly. For starters, the heroic-tier rust monster can only use his eating ability once, and it may fail. For another, the party as a whole is intended to have one item at level+4 or so, that doesn't mean that every character has one, or that this item will get eaten. And finally, the loss of one item will not make your character "inefficient".

Overall the principle remains that negative consequences for your character should be rare in frequency, minor in effect, and quickly removed.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-25, 10:53 AM
actually 4th ed characters past level 1 have:

-an item equal to your level +1
-an item equal to your level
-an item equal to your level -1
-GP equal to an item equal to your level -1 to spend on gear

i forget what page exactly, but it's in the first chapter.

Someone confirm this for me. Either way, Rust Monsters still ruin at least one good piece of your equipment for a level.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-25, 10:57 AM
Well, not exactly. For starters, the heroic-tier rust monster can only use his eating ability once, and it may fail. For another, the party as a whole is intended to have one item at level+4 or so, that doesn't mean that every character has one, or that this item will get eaten. And finally, the loss of one item will not make your character "inefficient".

Overall the principle remains that negative consequences for your character should be rare in frequency, minor in effect, and quickly removed.

It seems I'd overlooked the whole level+4 item issue--I didn't realize the Create Item ritual could only create items of your level, and assumed it could create an item of any level you're "supposed" to have access to. That makes me feel a bit better about how the rust monster was implemented; thanks, Glug and Kurald.

oxybe
2009-09-25, 11:06 AM
Someone confirm this for me. Either way, Rust Monsters still ruin at least one good piece of your equipment for a level.

i did a bit of research an it is explained in detail on the DMG's page 143, #7 "choose equipment and magic items"

Starsinger
2009-09-25, 11:22 AM
It seems I'd overlooked the whole level+4 item issue--I didn't realize the Create Item ritual could only create items of your level, and assumed it could create an item of any level you're "supposed" to have access to. That makes me feel a bit better about how the rust monster was implemented; thanks, Glug and Kurald.

Artificers can craft higher than their level with a feat... I think it's level+3

Sipex
2009-09-25, 11:50 AM
Yep, level +3, I think they only need to be heroic tier for that too.

You could just outsmart the monster though. It only eats one metal item right? Throw it something useless before it closes in.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-25, 11:58 AM
Yep, level +3, I think they only need to be heroic tier for that too.

You could just outsmart the monster though. It only eats one metal item right? Throw it something useless before it closes in.

IIRC, MM2 says they prefer magic items made from metal.

Sipex
2009-09-25, 12:06 PM
Really? I don't own a copy so I hadn't realised.

Well, an artificer could solve that problem if given the time but it's a waste of resources. Additionally you could carry a weak magic item around at all times but you run the risk of never actually needing to give it up or running into several of the things. (Jesus, the thought of a rust monster swarm just hit me :( )

Well, you could still do it, throw a metal something at it before it sees your other metal items but since you're adventurers this would probably require you having a good hiding spot and it not knowing you're around.

Akal Saris
2009-09-25, 12:10 PM
I like the mindset behind the tactical combat best, since it lets a DM set up a fight with several separate elements similar to a boss fight in WoW - this effect goes off when the boss is bloodied, this effect hits only minions, etc. I could do this in 3.5 too (and I do in fact do so), but the system fights me every step of the way.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-25, 12:15 PM
IIRC, MM2 says they prefer magic items made from metal.

Everybody knows a +3 sword tastes much better than a +1 sword.

Guinea Anubis
2009-09-25, 12:16 PM
I like how easy it is for new players to pick up. As a scout leader I have taken it on some of the camping trips and it was easy for the kids to understand and fun for them to play.

Zeta Kai
2009-09-25, 12:31 PM
I wonder why we should use CharOp like a standard. More, Is obvious and wise that they build "solo" builds: they don't know the party of the people reading the forum. If your party or DM need a change, you'll make it, but you could even play solo adventures - I did it with my players. I don't see a point here.

CharOp is not the standard, it is merely a convenient example of how the 3E ruleset encourages the personal aggregation of power more than the collective growth of the group. 4E emphasizes teamwork more than 3E does, & I like that. I fail to see why that is a controversial statement.


More than that, in 3.x there is teamwork, and from its beginning - say the core fighter and/or grease + rogue. Designers put "combos" of teamwork into the game, but most time you have to work them by yourself. It seems to me that in 4th edition "team combos" are completely pre made by designers so even the less imaginative person can "combo" immediately without thinking about prepare an action or be smart and feel a great strategist.

Yes, you can use teamwork in 3E. I have never said otherwise, & to claim that I have is to put words in my mouth that are not my own. What I have said three times now is that the 3E ruleset does not encourage teamwork, whereas 4E does. That is all. Yes, the group tactics are pre-built by the design team & shoved down every players throat, but some players need that encouragement to work together, & some players prefer not to have to improvise a collective strategy. While 3E certainly allowed for such deeper tactics & gameplay, 4E has such things built in. It may not make for imaginative players, or even natural team-players, but it's nice that the focus is on the party rather than the individual character above all else.


Yes, 3.x CAN lead to personal power - or cannot. An I love its freedom. And ZK.. you put Pun-Pun as an example? You seriously take Pun-Pun as more than an exquisite mental exercise? Celerity can be a problem in 3.5, not Pun Pun.

As I said, Pun-Pun is just the very tip of the iceberg, a shining example of personal character "growth" gone out-of-control, an aberrant cancer of the ruleset that shows the weakness of the system as a whole. I take Pun-Pun very seriously as a theoretical exercise, & I use it as it was meant to be used: to provoke thought about the 3E game system, & the inherent flaws therein. It shows that if players are playing by the RAW, it is quite possible to break the game beyond repair. Yes, Pun-Pun is absurd & extreme, but it is a mirror of a system that is absurd & extreme, & only the shiniest mirror in game full of such reflective examples. In a more balanced & polished system, such wild exploits would not be possible.

As a counter-example, you'll note that teamwork exploits are not nearly as advanced as single-build CharOp. And you see in the PHB that there are level-up charts for each class, but no party growth charts. Players in 3E may think in terms of the party (or not), but the game is driven toward improving each individual & not the group as a whole. If you cannot see that simple assertion as fact, then there is no point in continuing the debate.


:smallsmile: ZK, seems to me that we have almost opposite views: for me, Chaotic Good has a lot of meaning ..now I feel the alignment sistem bland and incomplete. And againg, removing the mechanical dependence makes the system even more bland and incomplete.

You seem to misunderstand me. I lament the loss of such alignments as Chaotic Good & Lawful Evil. When I just play (rather than DM, like I do mostly), I rarely play a character that isn't CG. And in my DMing experience, I find that the most useful villains are Lawful Evil (an statement that would require another post to defend properly, I'll admit). The loss of those two options was a shock, one that presaged my subsequent rejection of 4E & most things that it stands for. I think that the 4E alignment system is a change for change's sake, one that disrupts decades of gaming history & inertia, one that needlessly alters the most widespread system for in-game morality that the gaming world has ever had, & one that takes things away without giving any benefit in return. It is an ill-conceived mockery of a "system", & the game would probably be better off without alignment at all, if that what the designers are going to do with it.

But what I was trying to convey (because I said as much) was that there is one part of the alignment system that 4E does well. They uncoupled alignment from mechanics. Alignment is now a purely flavor choice, like height, weight, hair color, eye color, gender, & name. It is a semi-accurate shorthand for the character's general outlook on life, but it has no binding strictures on the player's actions in-game. It is now the functional equivalent of a character's Demeanor & Nature in World of Darkness games. It's a good thing to write down something in that spot on the sheet, & some thought should go into what you want to write there, because it has some bearing on your character's personality, but whatever you write there will not prevent you from taking some action in the game, nor will you receive any bonus or penalty for what you chose to write down.

Yes, you could now have an alignment of Monkey Waffle, or Queasy Fibrous, & there would be no mechanical difference, but i think that is better for the game as a whole. I have tried to decouple the alignment system from 3E mechanics, & it is a struggle to do so. Making clerics/monks/paladins/spells/domains/feats/monsters/items/whatever work without dependence on any one alignment or another is very difficult, & I still don't think that I have figured it all out, but I think that it is worth it to make a game where characters are not bound by their label. The character should define the label, & not the other way around.

Artanis
2009-09-25, 12:49 PM
*stuff about LE and CG*
I always figured they had just renamed the two, because the description of 4e's "evil" is extremely close to the description of 3e's "lawful evil" (and likewise 4e good = 3e CG).

Of course, then the discussion becomes about the removal of NE and NG...*shrug*

oxybe
2009-09-25, 12:52 PM
the alignment in 4th ed is no longer a system since it doesn't have any mechanics at all. it's now a vaguely-defined storytelling utility and nothing else instead of a vaguely-defined storytelling utility tied to very specific mechanics.

Indon
2009-09-25, 02:05 PM
CharOp is not the standard, it is merely a convenient example of how the 3E ruleset encourages the personal aggregation of power more than the collective growth of the group.
But it doesn't show that at all. As has been noted, 4E has individual super-breaking combos just like 3E does (some even involve the kind of infinite loop silliness that creates Pun-Pun or the like), and 3E has optimization discussion centered around teamwork.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you that 4E emphasizes teamwork in its' tactical aspect. We're just disagreeing that the character optimization community at all reflects this.

You even seem to imply you agree at one point - what's the point in discussing an intentionally strictly limited, simple metasystem imposed upon every player in the context of character optimization? There's not much need for CharOp to discuss teamwork in 4E because it's all obvious, and we no more need to talk about it than we need to talk about, say, opportunity attacking.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-25, 05:06 PM
the alignment in 4th ed is no longer a system since it doesn't have any mechanics at all.
That's true. Personally I consider that an improvement over the debate-prone alignment rules of earlier editions.

(of course, they could have added the square/funky axis...)

BobTheDog
2009-09-25, 07:45 PM
Everybody knows a +3 sword tastes much better than a +1 sword.

Excuse me, but not everyone here goes around licking swords, magic or otherwise. That's sexually questionable AND dangerous, to say the least. :smalltongue:

And I forget who said that "rust monsters should impose some kind of heavier penalty", but I have a suggestion: You could make it so that it returns only half (or 3/4 or 66.66% or whatever) residuum for the item(s) it consumed. Then, unless the characters have some spare residuum/ritual components, even if they lose the old armor they were planning on selling soon, they won't have it back so easily.

Kaiyanwang
2009-09-27, 10:05 AM
Yes, you can use teamwork in 3E. I have never said otherwise, & to claim that I have is to put words in my mouth that are not my own. What I have said three times now is that the 3E ruleset does not encourage teamwork, whereas 4E does. That is all. Yes, the group tactics are pre-built by the design team & shoved down every players throat, but some players need that encouragement to work together, & some players prefer not to have to improvise a collective strategy. While 3E certainly allowed for such deeper tactics & gameplay, 4E has such things built in. It may not make for imaginative players, or even natural team-players, but it's nice that the focus is on the party rather than the individual character above all else.


I'm sorry, but you only just demonstrated that 4th edition designers have a worse idea of their customer intellect, not that one edition is more teamwork oriented.



As I said, Pun-Pun is just the very tip of the iceberg, a shining example of personal character "growth" gone out-of-control, an aberrant cancer of the ruleset that shows the weakness of the system as a whole. I take Pun-Pun very seriously as a theoretical exercise, & I use it as it was meant to be used: to provoke thought about the 3E game system, & the inherent flaws therein. It shows that if players are playing by the RAW, it is quite possible to break the game beyond repair.


I'm shocked to see taking Pun-Pun so seriously. In a system with demon lords, magic, wishes and other things, it's obvious that mergeing things from several sourcebook and taking them as absolutes, instead of hooks for the amusement of DM of players, can lead to strange and absurd things. But this is not the game as intended: rules are there to help players and Dms in building their Gameworld and their Story. What ruins game and story is discarted - maybe not the same things the same time. Removing the power of the Sarruk or of Pazuzu could make them less "dangerous" if tei fall in the hands of idiots, but make them far less interesting.



As a counter-example, you'll note that teamwork exploits are not nearly as advanced as single-build CharOp. And you see in the PHB that there are level-up charts for each class, but no party growth charts. Players in 3E may think in terms of the party (or not), but the game is driven toward improving each individual & not the group as a whole. If you cannot see that simple assertion as fact, then there is no point in continuing the debate.


you seem ignore my statements above here. Built a teamwork build is far more difficult than optimize a single PC. Teamwork depends far more from how Dm fight with monsters, party composition and how people are smart. Otherwise, would be like be surprised of why is more simple go to have a beer in the pub or climb the everest (exagerating).



You seem to misunderstand me. I lament the loss of such alignments as Chaotic Good & Lawful Evil. When I just play (rather than DM, like I do mostly), I rarely play a character that isn't CG. And in my DMing experience, I find that the most useful villains are Lawful Evil (an statement that would require another post to defend properly, I'll admit). The loss of those two options was a shock, one that presaged my subsequent rejection of 4E & most things that it stands for. I think that the 4E alignment system is a change for change's sake, one that disrupts decades of gaming history & inertia, one that needlessly alters the most widespread system for in-game morality that the gaming world has ever had, & one that takes things away without giving any benefit in return. It is an ill-conceived mockery of a "system", & the game would probably be better off without alignment at all, if that what the designers are going to do with it.

But what I was trying to convey (because I said as much) was that there is one part of the alignment system that 4E does well. They uncoupled alignment from mechanics. Alignment is now a purely flavor choice, like height, weight, hair color, eye color, gender, & name. It is a semi-accurate shorthand for the character's general outlook on life, but it has no binding strictures on the player's actions in-game. It is now the functional equivalent of a character's Demeanor & Nature in World of Darkness games. It's a good thing to write down something in that spot on the sheet, & some thought should go into what you want to write there, because it has some bearing on your character's personality, but whatever you write there will not prevent you from taking some action in the game, nor will you receive any bonus or penalty for what you chose to write down.

Yes, you could now have an alignment of Monkey Waffle, or Queasy Fibrous, & there would be no mechanical difference, but i think that is better for the game as a whole. I have tried to decouple the alignment system from 3E mechanics, & it is a struggle to do so. Making clerics/monks/paladins/spells/domains/feats/monsters/items/whatever work without dependence on any one alignment or another is very difficult, & I still don't think that I have figured it all out, but I think that it is worth it to make a game where characters are not bound by their label. The character should define the label, & not the other way around.

yeah, here I misunderstood and apologize for it: now i see your point. nevertheless, I see that our point of view is different indeed: I like the alignment well rooted into the game mechanics (even if not always at the same level, like for humanoids and outsiders as an example).

Kylarra
2009-09-27, 10:13 AM
To add something new to the discussion, I like the fact that 1st level isn't rocket tag anymore. A single crit isn't going to put your character into the negatives.

Conjurer
2009-09-27, 11:24 AM
I like:
- All classes are useful. Even the Fighter. Actually, the fighter rocks!
- Half Elves don't suck.
- Tactical feel of combat & that it encourages more teamwork than before.
- Condensed Skill lists allow options out of combat to all classes.
- Unoptimal characters still add significantly to combat when compared to Optimized ones.
- I don't have to deal with CR & EL anymore. Also, fewer improperly rated critters. (Needlefang Swarm, I'm looking at you).

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-27, 03:00 PM
The Penny Arcade podcasts of the 4e games.

And Jim Darkmagic. Of the New Hampshire Darkmagics.

There's no such thing as a bad seat to a Jim Darkmagic show.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-27, 03:04 PM
I always figured they had just renamed the two, because the description of 4e's "evil" is extremely close to the description of 3e's "lawful evil" (and likewise 4e good = 3e CG).

Of course, then the discussion becomes about the removal of NE and NG...*shrug*
NE, LE, CG and NG just good folded into the generic "evil" and "good" alignments.

I think they're trying to recapture OD&D's Law vs. Chaos angle by making the alignments LG and CE the opposing extremes. And it's also very theme appropriate for the 'Points of Light' idea they kind of threw out. Although that phrase comes up about once in the entire set of core books.

In practice, alignment doesn't really matter much.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-09-27, 03:37 PM
I just like that it feels like a far more unified system. Instead of paladins working one way, wizards work a different way, and warblades yet another way, everyone does different things but they're all stated within the same framework. At will, encounter, daily. Stat vs Defense. Range X, Melee, or Close Burst/Blast.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-27, 04:01 PM
I think they're trying to recapture OD&D's Law vs. Chaos angle by making the alignments LG and CE the opposing extremes. And it's also very theme appropriate for the 'Points of Light' idea they kind of threw out. Although that phrase comes up about once in the entire set of core books.

While that is an admirable goal, I personally would have preferred that they either drop one axis and leave us with L/N/C or G/N/E, or leave in LG/CG/LE/CE/N; having an "alignment axis" or an "alignment X" would have been fine, but the current "alignment Z" does the various alignments an injustice and doesn't quite logically flow.

AllisterH
2009-09-27, 04:09 PM
I think the alignment shift is because of how historically the game has been played.

Everyone _KNOWS_ what LG and CE are in the game world and in fiction with respect to the very next step in the alignment chart, but the difference between Lawful evil and Neutral evil?

Similarly, the difference between Chaotic good and neutral good?

This has always been hazy I found. D&D has never realy played up the difference between those two sets of alignments.

Then of course, there's the usual alignment debates circling Chaotic-Lawful Neutral and I think the 4e designers just said, "Unaligned" and that's good enough.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-27, 04:45 PM
Everyone _KNOWS_ what LG and CE are in the game world and in fiction with respect to the very next step in the alignment chart, but the difference between Lawful evil and Neutral evil?

Similarly, the difference between Chaotic good and neutral good?

Exactly my point in my above post--people tend to have much clearer ideas on LE and CG than NG and NE (if only ideas as simple as "LE = Darth Vader, CG = Robin Hood"), so having LG/CG/U/LE/CE would have been better and more intuitive than LG-G-U-E-CE.

Kiero
2009-09-27, 06:36 PM
The best part is the Teamwork. There are a lot of other good parts though.

Agreed on all counts. I like the fact that everyone has an explicit job to do in a scrap, and that each class is actually designed to do that.

I love that they got rid of all that tedious skill point-accounting, and the overly-detailed skill list.

I also like that we started at 7th level, and despite not having played D&D since AD&D2e in 1996, it wasn't hard for me to make and play my character.

Faleldir
2009-09-28, 09:02 PM
Two words: Save ends.
Ideally, I'd like to have different bonuses for different saves, but that's just nitpicking. I love this rule. If an enemy caster Blinds or Slows me in the surprise round, I know I still have a chance. The battle isn't over yet!

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-28, 10:26 PM
Two words: Save ends.
Ideally, I'd like to have different bonuses for different saves, but that's just nitpicking. I love this rule. If an enemy caster Blinds or Slows me in the surprise round, I know I still have a chance. The battle isn't over yet!

While I do like the fact that you can break out of conditions after failing the initial save, I'm not really a fan of the part where you can't really have effects last more than a round or three without getting into crazy Orb-lock territory. I'd prefer for there to be a middle ground between "Lasts for 1-2 rounds" and "Orcus never wakes up again."

Yar
2009-09-28, 11:00 PM
This thread has sort of degenerated from its original point. All the 4th ed haters like myself sort of rant with the Hateing. On a second glance I don't think its total crap, Just as an RPG it sucks IMO. I will play WOW if i wanted nothing tanks, Healers, Crowd control and DPS. It feels more like a fantasy themed board game. Though Honestly i have been tempted to stat out some of the stuff here (http://www.aq.com/) That said, as far as RPG's go i will stick with Pathfinder/3.5 type stuff.

infinitypanda
2009-09-28, 11:11 PM
Board game? Why do you say that? You don't even really need the battlemat. I DM'd 4e without a battlemat, and we did just fine. You just need to be more verbose.

Edit: I like how everyone can feel useful.

Yar
2009-09-28, 11:32 PM
It just feels like one. Im not going into it.

I like how it feels like a board game.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-29, 03:44 AM
Board game? Why do you say that? You don't even really need the battlemat. I DM'd 4e without a battlemat, and we did just fine. You just need to be more verbose.
Really? I wonder how all the many "push 1, shift 1, swap places with" etcetera effects work without a map. Sure, you can handwave them, but that makes a large amount of powers pretty meaningless. The game was very obviously designed to be played on a some kind of gameboard.

Hal
2009-09-29, 06:47 AM
I just want to point out, since alignment has no mechanical bearing on characters in 4e, you can still use the 3.5 axes of morality. I know it's not what's in the PHB, but in this case it's not a difficult houseruling.

Theodoric
2009-09-29, 07:29 AM
Combat is more streamlined, while the non-combat parts of the game aren't hindered at all IMO compared to other editions (though, ofcourse, rituals are meh).

Indon
2009-09-29, 08:06 AM
Board game? Why do you say that? You don't even really need the battlemat. I DM'd 4e without a battlemat, and we did just fine. You just need to be more verbose.

Without the battlemat, either most players don't get to make effective use of their control-like secondary effects, or the game gets bogged down with people trying to remember all the niggling details about it.

4E has a wide variety of good points (though IMO, none really jump out at you). That combat is coherent without a grid is not one of them.

Kylarra
2009-09-29, 10:13 AM
Board game? Why do you say that? You don't even really need the battlemat. I DM'd 4e without a battlemat, and we did just fine. You just need to be more verbose.

Edit: I like how everyone can feel useful.I'll have to agree with everyone else here. We did one session without a grid once, it was pretty hard to use ranges et al to advantage. Not to say it can't be done, but you lose a lot of the simplicity of being able to see exactly what you're doing.

TelemontTanthul
2009-09-29, 10:13 AM
My favorite part of 4e was "At Will Spells" for wizards.

My other favorite part of 4e was going back to 3.5e

Seemed too WoWish for my taste. Every attack had a name, and a power level and stuff.

Mando Knight
2009-09-29, 10:36 AM
Seemed too WoWish for my taste. Every attack had a name, and a power level and stuff.
Might as well complain that it was too Street Fighter-ish for you. Or too much like martial arts for you. Or too much like spells for you. That part only seems to be a WoW ripoff because you want to think it looks like a WoW ripoff.

Zeta Kai
2009-09-29, 10:52 AM
Might as well complain that it was too Street Fighter-ish for you. Or too much like martial arts for you. Or too much like spells for you. That part only seems to be a WoW ripoff because you want to think it looks like a WoW ripoff.

I kinda agree here. There are a number of other reasons to get the impression that 4E was designed to play more like an MMO, but the named attacks thing isn't one of them.

Also, 4E was meant to played on a grid, it emphasizes grid manuevers at every possible point, & to play without a grid seems like it would either involve heavy bookkeeping (far more trouble than it's worth) or heavy simplification in the one part of the game that is not grossly simplified.

And yes, I understand that I could still use the 3E axes of morality with house ruling, But that doesn't change the fact that the 4E alignment "system" is needlessly simplistic & insultingly stupid. I would have prefered that the old axes remained, with the addition of Unaligned. Then the focus of argument would been in the right place: whether or not alignment should have a mechanical component. The alignment changes just obfuscate the real issue.

I do have to say that I like the addition of the Unaligned alignment. It differentiates the two kinds of True Neutral: the "I'm firmly dedicated to the balance of the cosmos" TN & the "I have the moral & ethical investment of a sandwich" TN. No other alignment option in 3E is so dichotomous, so the split was wise, IMO.

Kiero
2009-09-29, 11:36 AM
This thread has sort of degenerated from its original point. All the 4th ed haters like myself sort of rant with the Hateing. On a second glance I don't think its total crap, Just as an RPG it sucks IMO. I will play WOW if i wanted nothing tanks, Healers, Crowd control and DPS. It feels more like a fantasy themed board game. Though Honestly i have been tempted to stat out some of the stuff here (http://www.aq.com/) That said, as far as RPG's go i will stick with Pathfinder/3.5 type stuff.

Whereas as someone who never had to suffer 3.x in tabletop, I have no idea what this great appeal you're seeing is. It's a kludgy, confused, badly-designed system that doesn't seem to have a clue what it's trying to achieve.

As to WoW, I have no time for any MMOs, I like to play with people I know and choose to, not some random oik on the internet. Who is in all likelihood some barely-teen moron who thinks homophobic slurs are the height of wit.

I guess it helps that my group are awesome, but I'm having loads of fun both in and out of combat.

Yar
2009-09-29, 11:29 PM
Whereas as someone who never had to suffer 3.x in tabletop, I have no idea what this great appeal you're seeing is. It's a kludgy, confused, badly-designed system that doesn't seem to have a clue what it's trying to achieve.

As to WoW, I have no time for any MMOs, I like to play with people I know and choose to, not some random oik on the internet. Who is in all likelihood some barely-teen moron who thinks homophobic slurs are the height of wit.

I guess it helps that my group are awesome, but I'm having loads of fun both in and out of combat.

I guess the bottom line is having fun. I personally don't like it much and probably will never play it But im done bashing it.

Talyn
2009-09-30, 12:41 AM
I guess the bottom line is having fun. I personally don't like it much and probably will never play it But im done bashing it.

Er, fair enough, I guess.

Anyways... I like the Racial Feats, they seem much more integrated into the "theme" of the different races than in 3.x. I also like the "paladins of any alignment and any god," which are a blast to play. I like the idea of "minion" monsters, though I wish there was an intermediate step between minions and full-powered foes. Finally, I like the enhanced low-level survivability of PCs, especially the "squishy" ones.

...oh yeah, and, as a DM, I LOVE how easy it is to create level-appropriate monsters and traps in, basically, minutes. Love it love it love it - it's cut down the amount of grunt work I need to put into making my campaigns by 50% or more, and lets me focus on the fun stuff.

Xzeno
2009-09-30, 01:27 AM
I just can't compliment 4th ed without bashing it.

I like how paladins don't suck, but then again, they are now allowed to be any alignment, which infuriates me. I like how it's more balanced but I don't like how this was achieved. (Making classes all gain powers in the exact same way.) I like more control over the battle field and group tactics but... I mean, tieflings, come on.

The best thing about fourth edition? Go to the players handbook and flip to the Ranger. Just look at that picture. Worth every penny.

Drager
2009-10-01, 06:21 AM
I like how much easier it is to set up in depth complex consequence based roleplaying campaigns.

Seriously.

I have been DMing since 2nd (and playing since 1st) and my group that I've been DMing for for the last 8 years has a tendency to like really complicated roleplaying stuff as well as the combat.

Taking the Skill challenege system and running with it makes this part of the game about the charcters more and less abou tthe players acting skills, they still roleplay what their characters do and then make a roll (as they did back in 3.5, when it was just lots of Diplomacy and Bluff checks), however with the way I have set up skill challenges how well each character does effects the next and I can set up a rolling system that has important consequences.

When one player makes a speach and fluffs the roll, well maybe he became tongue tied halfway through, or didn't respond to the mood of the crowd and the next character gets to find out about this immediately. It has a mechanical effect, which affects the choice of check that character makes, which in turn affects what he is saying (say he was planning to make a speach about the importnace of the Dye industry, but is now covering for his friend fluffing a comment on water purification).

Yes the dye industry and water quality issues are things brought up at council meetings that the players actively care about. Alongside invading the neighbouring Giant held mountains.

It is really very rich and far easier to use than 3.5 for this.

CrazySopher
2009-10-01, 12:12 PM
I like that the game actually encourages teamwork & group tactics, rather than the personal aggregation of power, as seen in 3rd Edition.

There, I gave 4E a genuine compliment, without mitigation. You're welcome.

Gonna strongly agree on that one. It's relatively balanced, very user friendly in comparison to 3.5, and DMing it takes tons less work.

Also. Level Adjustment. Argh. :smallmad: