D&D 4th Edition - The positive, constructive thread, Negativism, go post elsewhere! Options

[Wounded Ronin]

I see where its been done with skill challenges, and I certainly agree that they are broken, but i dont see that anywhere with the combat engine.

Right, I just meant re the skill challenges. I don't know about that other stuff. I expect we'll hear it from somebody, though.

[Cantankerous]

Right, I just meant re the skill challenges. I don't know about that other stuff. I expect we'll hear it from somebody, though.

Actually, the combat engine is much the same as it always was, albeit I think that the one major change in it was utterly and completely a negative change, and that is the way the healing of damage is handled, but otherwise the d20 mechanic is pretty much still the d20 mechanic, with a few alterations, a few new bells and whistles that, hey, aren't ALL bad. I've even cherry picked their skill challenge idea...I am going to fix the bloody thing before implementing it, but the concept itself is a good one without a doubt...just badly executed. I've even thought about importing the multiple challenge matrix into something for GURPS, for social or creative skills anyway.


Isshia

[Malicant]

Actually, the combat engine is much the same as it always was, albeit I think that the one major change in it was utterly and completely a negative change, and that is the way the healing of damage is handled,[snip]

Blah, blah, blah, enough already. Sheesh, what is it with you people? A change to playability and fun is negative? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

[Particle_Beam]

It's just the last death-throws of people fighting the inevitable, truly believing that the more time they yell and whine on the internet against the newest edition, it will fall. Like indians singing and dancing around to make rain fall, but less productive, and more desperate. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Cthulhudreams]

It is unquestionably easy for you to design a useless character, which is unfortunate but a property of any system that lets you assign stats.

However, yes, to keep up competitively with the monsters increasing defensive scores you need to carefully focus your synergies in a limited range of archtypes that have been pre-defined from the box (There are some unexpected archetypes, like an intimidate character who subdues everyone who is bloodied, but most possible characters are 'designed' like decks in new expansions in MTG). Also, the maths is built on the assumption that your race and class choice will be complementary. The maths is very good when this is the case, and it is impossible to be pushed of the RNG, but characters not leveraging synergies will hit significantly less often with their abilities.

As the combat system is very carefully balanced if you take synergistic choices (I have other objections, but it is balanced) the increased number of 'rounds' in combat promote a revision to the mean in combat performance. This means that over time - and time can be one combat vs a solo - it will become very noticeable that a non synergistic character hits 10-20% less often than the character that leverages synergies as intended.

Now your GM can certainly compensate by handing out gear or manipulate the system to compensate for non synergistic choices - but he must be careful. A GM who's players choose to build non synergistic across the board can just tweak monster numbers, but a GM with a mix of synergistic and non-synergistic characters is in a more awkward position.

Thinking about it, in many ways they've moved to an MTG model - and not using a deck (archtype) designed by R&D requires a brilliant innovation, or is doomed to be facestomped by the system. However, when USING decks (archtypes) designed by R&D the game is well balanced and the different archtypes are functional in combat.

[Critias]

Finally scored a copy of the core books (just $65 for all three at Amazon), but haven't really had the chance to sit down and really read them yet. A buddy wants to run a game on-line so I told him I'd fling a guy together and we'll be trying it out.

I like the look of the book so far, the layout, the artwork, etc, etc. Things seem to be set up very neatly for readability's sake (class abilities all in one place, suggested starting 'builds' right there with the class description, suggested classes for each race, etc), so far. I am picking up a bit of a dumbed down/MMORPG feel from that, but not enough to turn me away from the game just yet. I've got Champions and Shadowrun for when I want to roll up my sleeves and really work on building a character. D&D has always, for me, been a beer-and-pretzels sort of game, and if it's a little less time consuming to make a character (or to play one), so far I'm fine with that.

[deek]

I do think that 4th edition was designed with a group of synergistic characters in mind. The balance, therefore, is between the group of players and the encounters, not between individual characters.

Take the warlord, for example (I play one, so I am most familiar with that class). I could have 10s across the board and still contribute to the party. The simple fact that I am withing 10 squares of a player gives them a +2 initiative bonus. Twice per encounter, as a minor action, I can allow an ally to use a healing surge + 1d6. Every single time its my turn to act, I can give any ally a free basic melee attack. None of these require any rolls, so it doesn't matter what my stats or equipment does...

Now I think the days of wondering if your wizard can kill the fighter or rogue in the group is over in this edition. There are some classes, as defined by their role, that make one on one combat unbalanced, but with the overall concept being to play in a group, that's obviously not as important.

I think it was a very bold step, to actually treat the player group as a single unit. Instead of having a bunch of individuals that could all be good at the same thing, 4th edition separated everyone by roles and basically capped certain things each class could actually excel at.

I mean, my warlord, is never going to do huge amounts of damage when compared to a rogue, ranger or even a fighter...but you put him in a fight with a couple allies, and the group strength has increased a lot more than just adding another striker.

[DireRadiant]

It's very easy to pick a character and start. The pattern for advancement is also very simple. Got your xp, pick a power. On to the the next encounter.

It's group focused. There are things you can do to enhance or screw up your individual build, but it's really the group synergy that makes the big difference. One character can debuff NPC Will rolls, but then doesn't have any Will attack powers. No big deal, someone else in the group probably does! There don't seem to be that many builds that are totally optimized by themselves, but are optimized in conjunction with other PCs. I like this emphasis on needing effective teamwork to unlock the true potential of the group. The PCs need each other and the various roles.

[deek]

It's very easy to pick a character and start. The pattern for advancement is also very simple. Got your xp, pick a power. On to the the next encounter.

It's group focused. There are things you can do to enhance or screw up your individual build, but it's really the group synergy that makes the big difference. One character can debuff NPC Will rolls, but then doesn't have any Will attack powers. No big deal, someone else in the group probably does! There don't seem to be that many builds that are totally optimized by themselves, but are optimized in conjunction with other PCs. I like this emphasis on needing effective teamwork to unlock the true potential of the group. The PCs need each other and the various roles.

I agree and like it a ton...granted, I also play WoW and have learned that without the appropriate group makeup, you cannot complete level appropriate instances.

And that is a huge departure, IMO, from earlier DnD editions. You could make about any class/race combination before 4th, and the DM could have a great campaign, tailoring a lot, but still. In 4th, that can still happen, get any race/class makeup and have the DM tailor your encounters, BUT if the DM follows the encounter building rules, then I don't think its going to work. The balance is based on 4-7 players with a fairly broad role makeup. If you don't have that role makeup in the group, you are likely in for a much rougher playstyle...

[DireRadiant]

The balance is based on 4-7 players with a fairly broad role makeup. If you don't have that role makeup in the group, you are likely in for a much rougher playstyle...

You mean if you don't use it as intended it sometimes doesn't work? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

That shouldn't surprise anyone. Almost all systems break down when you go to extremes.

I do like that it makes it clear it's intended for groups and group play. It's one of the things I've always liked about Shadowrun, a single player can't do everything, you'll need a group to get the most out of things, and to be able to handle most variety of things.

In 4th Ed it's very explicit that a group of 4+ with various roles is the core mechanic. But it doesn't seem limiting to me so far, there a variety fo ways to go with any particular character, and even the Wizard, a single role and class, has within it an enormous variety of options for play.

I think it's good when both the mechanics and genre encourage group gaming. It helps with the fun and socialization.

[deek]

Good insight, DireRadiant.

And I was just thinking, with multiclass feats, maybe a pair of characters, both multiclassed into additional roles, could fill some of those missing gaps. I mean, you never have to be in a party without thievery skills, as anyone can pick it up as a multiclass feat.

[Nightwalker450]

I'd like to say I'm liking the group synergies. With every character being a benefit to their ally, instead of a competitor, you'll spend more time thinking "how can this ally help me more", rather then "I'd be better off without him". I'm also a warlord, and did the Inspirational one to boot, and being at the heart of the group tactics it is a very different form of combat than in previous editions.

We just made level 2, and I will have to say that the even numbered levels are going to get annoying. This is because all skills, attacks, and defenses, have Lvl/2 bonus on them. Its a simple conversion (until you notice you forgot Initiative or something else), but there's alot of places. Maybe I'll work on some new sheets that have these grouped for easy conversion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Moon-Hawk]

I'd like to say I'm liking the group synergies. With every character being a benefit to their ally, instead of a competitor, you'll spend more time thinking "how can this ally help me more", rather then "I'd be better off without him". I'm also a warlord, and did the Inspirational one to boot, and being at the heart of the group tactics it is a very different form of combat than in previous editions.

We just made level 2, and I will have to say that the even numbered levels are going to get annoying. This is because all skills, attacks, and defenses, have Lvl/2 bonus on them. Its a simple conversion (until you notice you forgot Initiative or something else), but there's alot of places. Maybe I'll work on some new sheets that have these grouped for easy conversion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

It's true, pretty much every number on your sheet changes at the even levels. I've taken to using auto-calculating pdfs or excel sheets (like Heroforge) and then just printing a new one each level. It's just easier. Of course, it also means that I'll never generate an old, wrinkled, food-stained, eraser-worn, hand-written sheet of a much-beloved character.

The new classes (some more than others, particularly the leaders) definitely allow for more synergy than most classes in previous editions, and that's definitely a cool thing, IMO. It's not that players/characters weren't cooperative in previous editions, but there were fewer cooperative powers. In 4th, every class has at least a few abilities that can benefit everyone, even if it's just pushing your enemies around the battlefield to set them up for a teammate.

[Aaron]

I had heard that D&D was supposed to "work" for any four characters, even be they four wizards.

[Particle_Beam]

Depending on the game master, it may work, the same as in 3rd edition a game with four wizards could work.

What is certain is that D&D 4th edition wizards have a little bit more staying power at the lower levels and can fight moderatly well at the higher levels. The healing surges will also ensure a little bit more longevity of the faboulus four.

It's much more survivable, if you play wizards without henchmen armies and stuff. But it's not going to be a cake-walk, if your group isn't balanced in the other three roles. Even less if all player wizards choose the same spells (and have thus the same weakness).

[Cthulhudreams]

A party of 4 wizards in 3rd (and pretty much in 3.5) edition was awesome, and would cause most GM's nightmares. You needed pro strats to survive the rocket launcher tag for the early levels, because of the lack of healing (though that said, it was supposed to be 4 encounters until a rest, and you had 8+ sleep spells that would cause people to save or die when you CoD them right in the face).

Once you hit 7th and got polymorph other it onto easy street.

[Particle_Beam]

A party of 4 wizards in 3rd (and pretty much in 3.5) edition was awesome, and would cause most GM's nightmares. You needed pro strats to survive the rocket launcher tag for the early levels, because of the lack of healing (though that said, it was supposed to be 4 encounters until a rest, and you had 8+ sleep spells that would cause people to save or die when you CoD them right in the face).

Once you hit 7th and got polymorph other it onto easy street.

1st level is the hardest of them all. One hit means usually instant-death. Fortunately, the rather flawed CR system in 3.X expected four player characters to gang up on one monster of a CR equal to their average party level. At level one, you could throw them two orcs as opposition, or one gnoll, for one battle.

[Cthulhudreams]

Yeh, but one hit can mean instant death for a cleric or a rogue too. I'd probably set up fairly high con characters if I knew I was going to be doing that sort of thing

Something like Str: 8 Dex: 14 Con: 16 Int: 18 Wis: 12 Chr: 8 -> Then we make him a dwarf will have 8 hitpoints at level one (whoo, I know, but that minimizes the chances of being one shot) and is still long term playable.

I'd then add a grapplemancer with an octopus familiar, looking like

14 10 16 16 10 8 -> Who is the other front liner who has +10 or so to grapple at level 1 and can seriously outgrapple any CR1 challenge

Then we have a controlmancer and a diplomancer to bring up the rear.

Would be pretty strong.

[Cantankerous]

Blah, blah, blah, enough already. Sheesh, what is it with you people? A change to playability and fun is negative? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

Ok, since this has been addressed directly, I feel completely at ease with answering it directly. I see absolutely NO IMPROVEMENT to either playability or fun by making every being on the planet nigh immortal. Actually I see it doing both, making the game LESS playable and FAR LESS fun to have this, as it all but completely makes heroism (the ideal of HEROIC Fantasy, the supposed genre of this game) impossible.

What is fun about getting in to a fight and never, EVER really getting hurt? If you aren't dead, your good to go? This is PRECISELY like cheating playing solitaire. Where is the fun in it? Where is the challenge? It was always hard enough in D&D to get seriously hurt...there were never many repercussions to it. Now, there are none whatsoever. Why not act like a berserk moron in combat? Why bother to ever think or strategize past the present fight? You can always just heal up and keep right on going.

THIS is 90% of the reason why I DO agree that D&D 4E has been massively dumbed down. They've taken away that last and final bastion of necessary thought in the game. Is this negativism? Sure it is. Because these aspects of the game itself ARE negatives.

Compare this to Shadowrun. How much fun would Shadowrun be if you could never get hurt, never feel pain or fatigue and KNOW that as soon as combat halted for even the briefest of moments that, video game like, you could just surge back on? If Shadowrun ever goes in this direction I'll drop it like a hot rock, just as I have D&D.

This isn't hate for a new edition either. I was one of the people on the WotC boards who were the most strongly and openly LOOKING FORWARD to the new edition. I was the poor idiot telling people, hey, give it chance. If it's broken, then yell, but don't hate the new edition simply because it's new. Meet the thing on it's own merits, give the designers a chance to present the finished product, instead of going off, as sooooo many were, on the possible problems inherent with the glimpses of the game that we were getting.

I don't think ANYONE actually believes that their complaints amount to a hill of beans. Certainly I can't think that ANYONE who has brains enough to type is actually brain dead enough to think that they will make the new edition fall. At the same time, there is no need to be a fan boy and close your minds to the faults that DO exist.




Isshia

[Critias]

At the same time, there is no need to be a fan boy and close your minds to the faults that DO exist.

Except maybe that that's what this thread is set up for.

[Cantankerous]

Except maybe that that's what this thread is set up for.

What? Closed mindedness?

Look, while I'm all for enjoying differences, what I am decidedly not for, and respond badly to, is being characterized as delusional because I disagree with a stance.

I'd like to DISCUSS the problems, not ignore them or call them a solution in and of themselves. Different styles exist? Sure, grand! Provide for the differences, allow something that CAN keep you just going and going and going ad infinitum, when you are wounded. Like magic maybe. Being what it is it doesn't need rationalization. It's bloody magical.

But when you take a standard way in which the world works and change it so out of kilter that there is no longer the possibility of ignoring the paradigm shift, it destroys the suspension of disbelief. Fire is suddenly icy cold. Water is suddenly dry. These things make it nigh impossible to act and react in anything like an understandable manner as a person. the ONLY thing you can be in 4E D&D is a game construct. You can no longer portray a person of any mortal sort, period. That is the crux of my problem with 4E. You can NOT role play within it unless you ignore the ability to engender the suspension of disbelief almost entirely.


Isshia

[Fuchs]

This thread is for positive things about D&D 4E. You can discuss and debate the negative things in the other thread. It's not hard to understand.

[deek]

Having just played last night and seeing our rogue die, I'd have to gravely disagree that our 4th edition heroes are immortal. And I am not talking about unconsciousness, this was death.

While I think many complaints focus on the healing surges, if you actually take a look at them in play, they aren't infinite. While you can use them at-will outside of combat, you certainly can't do it during a fight. In order to use any healing surge, a player needs to use Second Wind...and that's a standard action, once per encounter. So, while you may have 6 or 7 surges to use for the day, inside of combat, you get one. And its in place of an attack. And one surge is equal to 1/4 full health...not a lot of immortality going on there.

Now, add a warlord...the warlord can enable anyone to use a healing surge on his action. But that is limited to twice per encounter. Again, not immortal there. Our combat last night had our rogue step through a door against two drakes. They had some insane bonus of +9 to damage if adjacent to an ally. Our rogue took 32 points of damage and went two points past his negative bloodied value in two hits...dead.

And it wasn't cause he was stupid or the opposition was overpowered...its because 1) we had never seen monsters gain that type of benefit before and 2) he walked through a door, attacked one then got ganged up on...

So, one can certainly complain about healing surges making everyone inhuman, but you certainly can't say any of the heroes are immortal. In fact, the fight just before, my warlord hit -3 and that really put a hurt on everyone else. When you are fighting and the warlord spends his two Inspiring Words and then everyone realizes that they have one chance to use Second Wind, instead of attack, and we have no other healing...it puts things in a very different perspective. And it didn't take an overpowered combat to make this happen, just some strategy by the DM.

[deek]

And I think this sums it up best: "Healing surges represent the maximum amount of healing your body can take during a given day without actually stopping and sleeping for 6 hours." That was from a person on another board, but I think it hits the mark right on the head.

Unlike previous editions, each player does have a daily cap to healing. If you took 100 clerics into battle, they could only heal you so much, as healing surges are triggered actions. So, the warrior with 100 clerics backing him up, still isn't immortal...if he started the day with 11 healing surges, he's only going to be able to use 11 until he has to go into an extended rest. Because of these surges needing to be triggered, the clerics can only do so much.

Now, just reading the rules, I didn't realize this until it came to practical use at our table last night. Our dragonborn fighter needed healing, my warlord had already used his inspiring word twice, so the only options left were the fighter to use his second wind or someone adjacent to the fighter using first aid to allow the fighter to use one of his 11 healing surges.

[Critias]

What? Closed mindedness?

Look, while I'm all for enjoying differences, what I am decidedly not for, and respond badly to, is being characterized as delusional because I disagree with a stance.

I'd like to DISCUSS the problems, not ignore them or call them a solution in and of themselves. Different styles exist? Sure, grand! Provide for the differences, allow something that CAN keep you just going and going and going ad infinitum, when you are wounded. Like magic maybe. Being what it is it doesn't need rationalization. It's bloody magical.

But when you take a standard way in which the world works and change it so out of kilter that there is no longer the possibility of ignoring the paradigm shift, it destroys the suspension of disbelief. Fire is suddenly icy cold. Water is suddenly dry. These things make it nigh impossible to act and react in anything like an understandable manner as a person. the ONLY thing you can be in 4E D&D is a game construct. You can no longer portray a person of any mortal sort, period. That is the crux of my problem with 4E. You can NOT role play within it unless you ignore the ability to engender the suspension of disbelief almost entirely.


Isshia

Rwar! CAPS LOCK FURY! Rwar! Underline of justice! Rwar! Multi-paragraph response!

Calm down. Reread Bull's opening post, and several of his semi-chastising posts since then. This thread is for "close mindedness," if you want to call it that, in that he doesn't want all the "boo, hiss, this edition sucks and dingoes ate my baby!" nonsense to spill over into it. He wants all that shit in all the other threads, not this one. If you can't say something nice (or, at least, neutral and optimistic) about the new edition, quite plainly, he's asked you to not say anything at all.