4th Edition: A More Specific System

[Goober4473]

Having looked over the rules, and seen reactions, it seems to me that one of the most significant things about 4th Edition D&D is that it's much more specific than even earlier editions of D&D, which have been much more specific than other systems.

What I mean is, in 4.0, who you are and what you do is very much one thing: You're a heroic fantasy adventurer that battles monsters and gains treasure. This was true in other editions, but it seems to be much more emphasised in 4.0, in character abilities, monster stats, etc.

This focus allows the game to be much more solid. Because everyone is doing the same sorts of things, and variety comes in your method of doing those similar things, it's very easy to balance abilities, make them interesting, and make doing those things fun. If you want to be a heroic aventurer that battles monsters, it's almost perfect.

But if you want to be anything else, if you want more variety in abilities, more possible effects, more character paths, and if you want to do anything else, you just can't. The game just doesn't handle it. With a lot of homebrewing of new abilities, I imagine it could do a lot more, but as more becomes possible, the specifics become less solid. In a focused world, the object of focus can be made flawless. In an unfocused world, that becomes much more difficult.

3.x had less focus, and more options. As a whole, it is increadably unbalanced, but allows for a huge variety of mechanics and game styles.

A game like GURPS has nearly infinite variety and options, but because of that, it has no easy way to make encounters, no challenge ratings or monsters levels, etc., and character creation is long and difficult because you have so many options to consider. The price of generic and universal is a lack of focused design and simplification of any one thing.

4th Edition D&D severely limits options and possibilities, but that's the price for making the game so easy to run, and characters so easy to make. It's allowed the designers to focus absolutely on what they chose to focus on, and thereby provide a wide variety of options within that focus.

All this to say, I think that 4.0 is absolutely amazing, for what it is. What it is is not necessarily what everyone wants, but I think that's always been true of D&D to some extent.

However, unlike previous edition updates, I don't think 4.0 makes 3.5 obsolete. I could envision playing either, depending on what style of game I was going for. They're fundamentally differant enough to consider differant games, rather than one being the update of the other.

[FinalJustice]

Well, maybe the splatbooks can change this. If they do a 4e Stormwrack, suddenly you have 4e pirates. If they do a Spelljammer, well, you know where I am going here...

Plus, maybe they'll fall into another power creep, creating new conditions, unbalanced ones, new lists of powers for the core classes and all those things that made us optimizers happy in 3e. =D

[Cuddly]

Well, maybe the splatbooks can change this. If they do a 4e Stormwrack, suddenly you have 4e pirates. If they do a Spelljammer, well, you know where I am going here...

Well, that's the marketing model. Just keep selling incomplete systems where you have to buy add-ons.

[Daracaex]

Well, that's the marketing model. Just keep selling incomplete systems where you have to buy add-ons.

I don't think it's incomplete... You can buy a computer with on-board video and audio and only 512 MB of RAM and it will be complete. That GEForce 9800 video card and 2 gigs more of RAM is only purchased to enhance what is already there.

[FinalJustice]

Well, if you completeness might be relativized. One could argue that it's expected from a heroic fantasy game to actually have an epic destiny for one who wants to become a great swordsmaster/warlord/etc... Which 4e doesn't.

And I agree with the OP, 4e doesn't invalidate 3e for me. 4e doesn't seem to support some concepts I'd like to play without some serious refluffing (descendant from angels, in the classic conception of angel, for crying out loud). Neither it's gameplay fulfill my needs for crafting builds and optimizing (sue me), since it seems kinda streamlined in one kind of damage and four kinds of defenses. But it's been reported that's really fun to play, and I believe it may really be.

[Tough_Tonka]

Yet another over-obvious statement about 4ed and D&D in general. It's not that these posts and threads aren't more or less true. The problem is they really don't say anything. There's nothing to debate. Yeah 4e won't make everyone quit playing. We know that because before this addition was announce there were still regular post 1st, ed 2ed, 3ed players calling 3.5 a big waste of money, saying who awesome it was, or posting threads like this one.

I have to give WotC props on not claiming to be GURPS.

[Jarlax]

But if you want to be anything else, if you want more variety in abilities, more possible effects, more character paths, and if you want to do anything else, you just can't. The game just doesn't handle it.

untrue. WoTc already have a complete martial book on its way. expanding paths, destinies, powers and magic for players with a martial power source. magic and divine will likely follow next year. while the lack of destinies disappoints me the promise that many more are on their way reduces the frustration. they have already promised a short list of power sources that will appear later on. like ki (to run oriental adventures), Nature(druids and barbarians?) and others as well.

i would also argue that while the options in the core book are limited 4e represents a system designed with homebrew in mind. powers are limited to a single class and follow a fairly standard format, same with monsters and many other elements of 4e. to me it feels extremely homebrew friendly.

[Goober4473]

What I mean by limited paths is, you're an adventurer, who fights in combat. You can't be anything else, no matter how many possible classes and attacks you can pick from. There's no room for the diplomancer or the concept of avoiding a fight to acomplish the real goals. It's just not there without modifying how the game works and most likely homebrewing entirely new classes, powers, and monsters.

But I think that's okay. If I want to do something else, I'll play another system. If I want to do what 4.0 can do, I'll play 4.0, and really enjoy how amazingly well it does that one specific thing.

[JaxGaret]

What I mean by limited paths is, you're an adventurer, who fights in combat. You can't be anything else, no matter how many possible classes and attacks you can pick from. There's no room for the diplomancer or the concept of avoiding a fight to acomplish the real goals. It's just not there without modifying how the game works and most likely homebrewing entirely new classes, powers, and monsters.

What are you talking about? The skill system still exists, and is almost identical to that of 3e. You can still roleplay your characters out of combat just as easily as in 3rd edition.

Just because there is no uber-Diplomancer breaking the game out of the box doesn't mean that what you're suggesting is true.

But I think that's okay. If I want to do something else, I'll play another system. If I want to do what 4.0 can do, I'll play 4.0, and really enjoy how amazingly well it does that one specific thing.

You sure can. You can also try to give 4e a fair shake.

[Morandir Nailo]

Goober: I don't think that this is true at all. The Skill Challenges system supports talking your way through a situation, IMO; it's all in how your encounters are set up. (Generally, angry Hydras aren't inclined to listened to rational arguments, but a BBEG might.) While all classes can indeed fight, they can easily do other things as well without the need for homebrewing; that's what feats and skills are for. Even in 3e, every class knew how to fight to some extent. That's what BAB and weapon proficiencies represented.

Furthermore, who says you actually have to have mechanics for something in order to be able to do it? This is the reason they removed the Profession skill; you don't need to purchase ranks in it, just write into your backstory that your character likes to brew beer. If you want to make some money in-game by selling your "home brew" (yeah, bad pun), the DM can decide how it's going to work, based on how his/her game is set up. It's something that can be worked out at the table without needing a chart. Profession checks never really yielded much gold anyway without min/maxing the roll, so its effect is negligible.

But anyway, all you have to do is wait a bit for the appropriate power sources to be released. I'm sure that Psionics will cover your Diplomancer quite well.

Mor

[fireinthedust]

What I find amazing is that everyone doesn't just play Mutants and Masterminds.

See, it's marketed as a d20 game designed ot let you play superheroes, but it's really a stripped down look at how d20 actually works.
You get to decide exactly what your powers do, how high your BAB is, etc. It's very simple that way, but you also can accomplish just about everything any other system can. You can play any genre, though admittedly its marketing and color will tempt you to think it can *only* be supers.

You also learn:

1) DnD is pre-packaging that you pay for in every book you buy. Each level is essentially a pre-made character as far as numbers go. In 3.5 there are variations based on your feats and ability scores, but in general a medusa is a medusa, a fighter is a fighter. Optimization defines what the characters will ultimately look like. 4e is going to be the same.
Mutants and Masterminds shows you that 10d6 damage is the same: it's a +10 blast. The energy descriptor may be different, or the shape (line, ray, burst, etc.), or the range; but it's still the same. Maybe shelling out a million bucks for new spells isn't the bargain you'd thought. (personally, with all the systems out there, I find fluff is generally what sells recycled mechanical bits in any edition).

2) DnD is clumsy. The power level of the PCs and Monsters is fairly random, with level adjustments and decision based not on what a thing does (either for the over all encounter or on its own) but on things like the level of the spell a creature can use or a few extra hit points. Take a wizard's spells: they're effects that alter gameplay, and generally cool, but they have really vast differences in what they do individually. Higher level spells illustrate this well, but look at entangle: it's ridiculously powerful, but what about other spells of the same level?
And look at the wizard vs. the Soulknife in 3.5 alone. massive problems in power level and, frankly, playability.

3) DnD: You can't play anything you want. You can't multiclass to get the abilities to play the character you want.
Mutants and Masterminds: you can play whatever you want, generally even at lower power levels. Want to play Batman? sure. Want that set of feats? you got them. You can also do it right away, and you don't need WOTC to say it's officially okay. The GM can veto what they don't want, and so the game is shaped by that.

[JaxGaret]

What I find amazing is that everyone doesn't just play Mutants and Masterminds.

So, you come to a forum that's housed on a site that runs a webcomic devoted to D&D, and you don't understand why people here like D&D?

Think about that for a minute.

[Tengu]

So, you come to a forum that's housed on a site that runs a webcomic devoted to D&D, and you don't understand why people here like D&D?

Think about that for a minute.

I understand him - people play other games than DND here, too. And while fourth edition is finally a good game in my book, there are still better ones.

On a side note, other games that have the same "make your own abilities and represent anything" mindset are Gurps and Tri-Stat.

[JaxGaret]

I understand him - people play other games than DND here, too.

I understood his point, too, but this is a D&D website, first and foremost. No?

And while fourth edition is finally a good game in my book, there are still better ones.

Out of curiosity, what do you prefer?

On a side note, other games that have the same "make your own abilities and represent anything" mindset are Gurps and Tri-Stat.

I've never tried M&M, but it did indeed sound precisely as if they were describing GURPS.

[Goober4473]

What I find amazing is that everyone doesn't just play Mutants and Masterminds.

Mostly because it's not well balanced and the system is clunky. Since you can spend points on anything, you end up with crazy min/maxed characters. If you want a point-based generic system, just play GURPS.

Currently I'm working on a classless d20 game that's somewhat based on spending points on abilities, and it's skill based (sword skill, for example), that I think will blow M&M out of the water, though it won't be "generic" like M&M or GURPS are. But the d20 system isn't really built for generic, which is why I call D&D a very specific game.

We'll see.

[Raum]

I understood his point, too, but this is a D&D website, first and foremost. No?

Does that means people shouldn't compare D&D to anything else in a less than complimentary fashion?

What I find amusing is how many concepts D&D is incorporating from other games. Minions, near identical power effects differentiated by flavor, shorter list of broader skills, mechanics to simulate stun & recovery (healing surge / second wind), and a general simplification of mechanics. While D&D changed the mechanics to fit the D&D model, all of the concepts have been done in other games. In some cases, they were done better.

Since the designers obviously looked at what people liked in other games, why shouldn't players? And, if we do so honestly, it won't be best in every comparison. Hopefully it will be good enough to be a fun game.

[JaxGaret]

Does that means people shouldn't compare D&D to anything else in a less than complimentary fashion?

Not at all, but what they were intimating (that everyone who plays D&D is playing the wrong system) was far less than complimentary.

Since the designers obviously looked at what people liked in other games, why shouldn't players? And, if we do so honestly, it won't be best in every comparison. Hopefully it will be good enough to be a fun game.

True enough.