Author Topic: What you like/dislike about 4E  (Read 7372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Banor

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
What you like/dislike about 4E
« on: June 13, 2008, 06:19:32 PM »
Just a topic so we can see exactly good/bad point of 4E. Personally I love it, it's a great game and still feel like DnD

Note : This is not a "this feature is like WoW" discussion. Let's pretend that MMO's never existed, just analyze good and bad point of 4E

Good
+ I like the At-will/Encounter/Daily power system, it's simple and much easier to balance
+ I like that combats last for more than 2 round. Combats are the same duration but you play 3-4 times more !
+ I like skill challenge, it is a refreshing mechanics when properly role played, it's fun an easy to understand
+ I like the new crafting system (via ritual) it's much more simple than the stupid XP cost and crafting system of 3.5
+ I like that they scratched the old LA system, "monstrous" races are much simpler to create and are way more balanced than with the LA system.

Bad
- I hate the fact that you can't combine magic items (Vorpal Duelist Dagger !)
- I don't like the multiclassing system. It's a bit too complicated and you get very little in return

Pending
- Lack of choices of powers/Paragons Path/Epic destinies/FEATS ! (likely to change with future splatbooks)
- Lack of choices of items (likely to change with Tome of Treasures)

Your thoughts ? Overall appreciation of 4E ?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 06:21:48 PM by Banor »

GawainBS

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2008, 07:04:28 PM »
+The combination of certain skills, like Spot, Listen, Search into Perception/Insight; Balance, Jump, Tumble in to Acrobatics. (forgot the name.)
+The skill system in general, without skillranks.
+Higher starting HP.
+Healing surges.
+Simpler.

-Simpler. (outweighs the above.)
-The skill scaling. Moronic. Beats the purpose of leveling and advancing and training. (After years of training, I still have the same chance to fail at that 10 ft jump...  ???)
-The lack of a BAB mechanic. Commoners are as good at basic melee as warriors. Again: what's the point?
-Every class feels the same: roll d20, add relevant ability score, 1/2 lvl, do pitiful amount of damage. If you're a Fighter, name it Reaping Strike, if you're a Wizard, call it Magic Missile.
-Multiclassing. Great, we're back to the AD&D system of "once a class, always that class." Sidenote: AD&D did this better.
-The Damage/lvl/encounter table in the DMG. If everything scales like this, what is the point of leveling?
-The way how they screwed over all the fluff. (Granted, this can easily be corrected, but it still counts as a gripe.)
-Economy & Magic Items. Doesn't make sense. They're supposed to be scarce, in high demand, etc... What do we see? You can only sell them at 1/5 creation cost. If things worked this way, there wouldn't be an energy crisis and OPEC would be screwed.


chibishuffle

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • the ultimate chibi
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2008, 07:06:51 PM »
GOOD

Each class has a well defined role within a party with very little overlap.
Casters are balanced against melee types and don't seem to overshadow them
Theres no polymorph or divine power to unbalance things
 
BAD
With some patience the lack of paragon paths and such will clear up
The new characters sheet though looks like a damn tax form :(


There is a difference between being uninformed and being stupid.  When presented with conflicting information the uninformed man admits he's wrong and takes it in stride he may even be happy to find the truth.  The stupid man will rant and rave despite the fact he is obviously wrong.  Dont be stupid

Banor

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2008, 07:17:05 PM »
Commoner aren't as good as warrior at basic melee. Not being proficient with weapons make them loose 2 or 3 to their +hit and they are much likely to have a bad strength score. Think about it, a 3.5 L1 Commoner with a 32PB vs a L1 Fighter with a 32PB is only 1 to hit difference.

I must say that the BAB was a bit ridiculous. My fighter is an expert in beating things with a pointy stick, my wizard been shooting rays and stuff for all his career, why is my fighter able to shoot magic better than my wizard ? There was no level of expertise. Now a Wizard is good a shooting magic and a fighter is good a swinging a sword, that good.

While I agree that the skill scaling is a bit dumb, remember what fixed DC result in, yea Diplojumpers and bullshit like that. I can live it. For the damage scaling, it always was the same. Think that in 3.5 your average level 20 monster hit for the same amount of damage than a level 2 goblin ? Nope, there was scaling. The DMG table is guideline for DMs to create their OWN monster.

GawainBS

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2008, 07:34:24 PM »
Commoner aren't as good as warrior at basic melee. Not being proficient with weapons make them loose 2 or 3 to their +hit and they are much likely to have a bad strength score. Think about it, a 3.5 L1 Commoner with a 32PB vs a L1 Fighter with a 32PB is only 1 to hit difference.

I must say that the BAB was a bit ridiculous. My fighter is an expert in beating things with a pointy stick, my wizard been shooting rays and stuff for all his career, why is my fighter able to shoot magic better than my wizard ? There was no level of expertise. Now a Wizard is good a shooting magic and a fighter is good a swinging a sword, that good.

While I agree that the skill scaling is a bit dumb, remember what fixed DC result in, yea Diplojumpers and bullshit like that. I can live it. For the damage scaling, it always was the same. Think that in 3.5 your average level 20 monster hit for the same amount of damage than a level 2 goblin ? Nope, there was scaling. The DMG table is guideline for DMs to create their OWN monster.

BAB wasn't ridiculous. It was a good way to represent martial ability. The "shooting magic better" can be explained by the fighter having a better hand-eye coordination. The commoner and the warrior got bigger differences with higher levels, which is no longer the case.
Damage scaling, well, I wasn't talking about the monsters only. Suddenly, in 4E, fires start doing more damage when you're a higher level.

EntropicShadow

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 85
  • Doth thou desire power?
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2008, 07:56:33 PM »
Likes:
 - Cool tricks early on.
 - Focused on what D&D does best (combat)
 - Non-casters don't suck
 - Combining of certain skills
 - Can start at level 1 without constantly killing players
 - Easier to DM for
 - Skill challenges. 
 - Paragon paths and epic destinies.

Dislikes:
 - The scaling of skill difficulty and damage by level.  (GawainBS is right about the fire doing more damage at higher level.  My first houserule is to ignore this guideline).
 - Magic items being less customizable.
 - Lack of options.
 - Multiclassing feats being power replacements not additions.  Taking feats to stay at the same power level seems conterproductive (usually).
 - The formulaic way the classes are built. 

So far, I like 4E.  What is going to make or break it for me is the first couple suppliment, however.  I need to see what the splat books are going to be like before I can commit to it fully. 
'Cause I'm a bit part demon, a small-time misfit
I say you'll be "Dead by Dawn" but I don't really mean it.
I'm a threat to no one. The other deadites make fun...
You suck!
Of me, Evil Eddy,the bit part demon

GawainBS

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2008, 08:00:44 PM »
-Epic Destinies: big bad no-no for me: They basicly tell you "Get away. You invested months/years in this character and this way you're certain you'll never play him/her again. Haha, we got you there! Sincerely, Wizards of the Coast."

DaveTheMagicWeasel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • If you optimize it, they will come
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2008, 10:04:36 PM »
I'll try and start with the positives:

The Good

- I like the new streamlined monsters - much easier to track as a DM.

- I like the new style of mechanics for things like poison, Medusa's Petrifying Gaze, etc (albeit that the saving throw mechanic could've been handled much better imo, but the basic idea of making Save or Dies into death spiral effects is a good one)

- Removal of full-attacks - should encourage more fluid tactical combats, and makes balancing a Wizard's Standard Action spell and a Fighter's Standard Action attack easier.

- The Cleric.  I love this class - fantastic healer/buffer, who can dish out a decent whack in combat but doesn't end up stealing everyone else's job.  Just about the one class I think was actually done well (stupid Channel Divinity 1/encounter aside :wall).

- Easily homebrewed for - standardised power progressions, Paragon Path structures, etc mean that any schmuck can come up with summat and it'll probably be balanced.  The job is so easy now a trained chimp can do it, hell, at least a chimp would never have published the Vigilante or the Shining Blade of Hieroneous.

- The toning down of full casters power.  Less world-changing effects and less ability to simply steal the entire limelight with a single spell.

- Encouragement of teamwork and party synergy by building it into the game.

The Bad

- certain monsters have been mutilated.  The poor Balor has basically been castrated, and what the fuck is up with the new Hydra?  Sure, streamline monsters in general, but the whole fucking point of a hydra is you have to cut off it's heads and it grows two more!  FFS! :fo

- Oversimplification of skills.  Yes, merge some skills, ditch a few pointless ones, get rid of the clunky cross-class skill rules, all good.  But they've gone too far - the difference between one character and the next is minimal, it's just boring now, might as well have gotten rid of them altogether and had everything run off of Ability Checks - no-one would've noticed the difference.

- The Skill Challenges.  Compared to what Mearls did with similar mechanics in Iron Heroes, this sucks.  Again, over-simplification ruins a nice idea imo.

- Encounter Powers.  These are just so lame.  It in no way models people being tired out by combat, as they can carry on swinging at-wills morning noon and night, so all it is is a completely arbitrary limit on an ability. It's such an unbelievably lazy way to approach a per encounter design paradigm.  Fails to really account for differential lengths and difficulties of encounters - it's a game designed for dungeon crawls and nothing else, they've narrowed their horizons when they had a great chance to broaden them, make a game that could support dungeon crawls as well as other style of play (3.5. can, but starting from scratch they should've been able to do it better, which imo they haven't).  Compare Encounter Powers to mechanics of the Factotum, ToB, the Hellreaver, Iron Heroes, Star Wars SE, etc and it's pathetic.  4e should've been the next generation in game mechanics, it should've opened up new avenues for growth and development, instead it's a step backwards from their own preview/precursor work.  What's more, they don't feel any different to an at-will to me.  Tactical feats that required certain actions to set up, or Iron Heroes classes that needed to spend time building up tokens in order to use their best abilities - these were cool and fun mechanics afaic.  But no, "every class must have something cool to do every round" - that would be patronising even to small children.

- Daily Powers.  Did they say Vancian casting was going the way of the dodo or did I get the wrong end of the stick?  It may not talk about "slots" anymore, but it's still memorized fire and forget magic.  The Sorcerer at least broke the paradigm a little, and Warlock et al made me expect this particular sacred cow finally to be given the death it so richly deserves.  Instead, imho, what we've got is a more restricted Vancian system that tries to pretend it isn't.

- There's a lot of things I expected to see and simply aren't there.  Aside from the obvious (Barbarian dammit!), why no Saga-esque Condition Track?

- Pointless and annoying nerfs - charge and reach for instance.

- "Grapple" rules.  Yes, they needed redoing, they were annoying to work with.  But, again, WotC just got rid of it and replaced it with a simplistic half measure that fails to address the problem - poor Grapple mechanics > No Grapple mechanics imo.

- Magic Item Dependency.  They said this was gonna go.  Afaic they lied.  It's still there, just more explicit than it used to be, and the DM is still expected to go through placing treaure, conducting Wealth By Levels audits and all that crap (the main thing I dislike about DMing is dealing with fucking treasure!).  It will be much easier to replace Enhancement bonuses with flat numbers, but there's a more subtle dependency built in now.  As a character levels, they get an increasing number of Daily Powers from their magic items.  Take them away and a lot of versatility goes, as well as a lot of stamina and a lot of fun (i.e. you reach the point of button-bashing at-will powers quicker without magic items).  I think a low-magic (or just different-magic game is still gonna be a pain in the arse.

The Ugly

Multiclassing and "Roles".

Yes, it gets a whole section to itself.  So, they've diversified the healbot and skill-monkey roles throughout the party, but accompanied it by tying these 4 new roles into the pre-designed classes so closely that it's nigh on impossible to cross roles, in particular, Battlefield Control (in the non-magical AoO+Reach style) has been absorbed into the Fighter and Paladin class features - which no-one else can get their hands on.  Imo, it's now a case of someone having to play the Defender, far more than there was ever any real need for someone to play the Healer  Heaven help you if you have a 2 or 3 man party, coz there's no way anyone is gonna be a double-threat (much less triple-) any time soon.

Also, such a restricted system closes off too many options, even taking 4e on its own terms.  There are certain classes that simply do not multiclass well.  Harping on about it I know, but ToB proved that different rules systems could be amenable to mechanically worthwhile multiclassing.  But, again, WotC abandoned the challenge in favour of a dumbed down system.

Also, it closes off the horizons for the game's future development.  3.5 was modular, that meant that each new class brought with it an ever expanding array of options - more and more ways to represent the concept you wanted to play.  But it's as if they think the "Class 1 / Class 3 / Class 2 / PrC4 / PrC 7" builds were a problem, when normally it was just someone trying to match a concept, or make one of the god awful pieces of crap they published playable.  The real powerhouses were mostly very simple - Druid 20, Druid 10 / Planar Shephard 10 / Wizard 5 / Incantatrix 10, etc.  The new standardised system makes it harder to publish a "new Planar Shephard", but not impossible, but at the same time they make it virtually impossible to patch a class later (e.g. the way they patched Gish with Abjurant Champion, or patched melee with ToB).  In fact, standardised abilities means there is still plenty of possibility for unintended interactions (see Blood Pulse or Arch Spell just in Core).  They've all but killed multiclassing, but they haven't really solved any problem by doing so.

3.5 had loads of space into which it could grow, I don't think the same can be said for 4e.  It feels stale already to me.

Heh, that turned into a bit of a rant.  Overall, I really do feel there's some nice ideas in there, and I do feel that 3.5 has some serious problems built right into it's foundations - a clean start with a solid Core to develop from had my full support when they first announced it (irritation about the years of denial and broken promises notwithstanding), but that isn't what 4e is to my eyes.  The game seems to be simultaneously trying to be an RPG and a basis for a planned omputer game adaptation, trying to chase the WoW dollar under pressure from Hasbro while simultaneously trying not to go too far in pissing off the existing customers, and in trying to be all things to all men, it falls between the two and misses both targets.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 10:06:34 PM by DaveTheMagicWeasel »

highbulp

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 113
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2008, 11:33:17 PM »
- The scaling of skill difficulty and damage by level.  (GawainBS is right about the fire doing more damage at higher level.  My first houserule is to ignore this guideline).

You are missing the point entirely. It's not that the same fire does more damage at higher level. It's that the fires you encounter at higher level do more damage. Because they are bigger fires.

The same thing applies to Jump.
Quote from: PHB 4e

As your Athletics check gets better (as you gain levels), you can jump further. A 10' jump is the same static DC 20.

The table just says that the jumps you encounter get harder as you gain levels. Because a 10' pit doesn't cut it at epic levels.

EDIT:
Quote from: DaveTheMagicWeasel
Also, it closes off the horizons for the game's future development.  3.5 was modular, that meant that each new class brought with it an ever expanding array of options - more and more ways to represent the concept you wanted to play.  But it's as if they think the "Class 1 / Class 3 / Class 2 / PrC4 / PrC 7" builds were a problem, when normally it was just someone trying to match a concept, or make one of the god awful pieces of crap they published playable.  The real powerhouses were mostly very simple - Druid 20, Druid 10 / Planar Shephard 10 / Wizard 5 / Incantatrix 10, etc.  The new standardised system makes it harder to publish a "new Planar Shephard", but not impossible, but at the same time they make it virtually impossible to patch a class later (e.g. the way they patched Gish with Abjurant Champion, or patched melee with ToB).  In fact, standardised abilities means there is still plenty of possibility for unintended interactions (see Blood Pulse or Arch Spell just in Core).  They've all but killed multiclassing, but they haven't really solved any problem by doing so.

I respectfully disagree with this. The options won't come from picking what combination of class, but what different combinations of powers are available. Need to fix the Gish? Publish more Gish powers. Need to fix melee? Publish better melee powers. It's equivalent to saying "evocation sucks, so let's publish better evocation spells" in 3.5e (not that they ever did -.-).

What people need to understand is that the class matters a whole hell of a lot less now. It's just a framework for picking a role (which I personally don't mind, but I totally understand why the role emphasis bugs people). What is important is the powers you get. Powers define what you can do, and thus (mechanically) define the character.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 11:39:53 PM by highbulp »

Dragon Snack

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
    • Dragon Snack Games and Entertainment
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2008, 12:38:44 AM »
Quote from: PHB 4e
Well here's a piece of bullshit I didn't know about yet.  So, the better I get at jumping, the more chance I can't control it?

Now I know why that asshole running the Gargantuan Red Dragon crawl at Gen Con tried to say I jumped into the lava...

We've been doing fixed HPs in my group for years now, so there's a plus.  I once suggested combining related skills, one more plus (binary training annoys me though).  My 1E homebrew setting could be easily described as Points Of Light, so another plus for me.  I could proably be talked into liking Healing Surges.  That's about it though, which are outweighed by too many things I don't like.
Visit my Message Boards (they're strangely familiar) and my Blog...

If you look at the entire history of the RPG industry, you'll see the same, long, sad story: a mountain of conventional wisdom, usually backed by selective listening, that leads to a long chain of failed games and bad ideas. - Mike Mearls

heffroncm

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 374
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2008, 01:06:05 AM »
Um, Dragon Snack, it does say the number of squares you CAN leap across, not the number you have to.

EntropicShadow

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 85
  • Doth thou desire power?
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2008, 01:14:05 AM »
You are missing the point entirely. It's not that the same fire does more damage at higher level. It's that the fires you encounter at higher level do more damage. Because they are bigger fires.

That really wasn't the impression I got from the example the book gave.  The example seemed amazingly arbitrary.  The example DM set the skill DC based entirely on level and the "type of thinking" he wanted to encourage.  He picked the high value of damage for that level because it "wouldn't being giving too much up" versus the characters normal damage.

On a more light-hearted note, I am not sure that "bigger" is the best way to describe damaging fires at higher levels.  If its fire from the Elemental Chaos, sure, that should be more damaging and is something that would more likely be encountered later in a adventurer's career.  But my character's torch doesn't become a bonfire just because he is level 20. 
'Cause I'm a bit part demon, a small-time misfit
I say you'll be "Dead by Dawn" but I don't really mean it.
I'm a threat to no one. The other deadites make fun...
You suck!
Of me, Evil Eddy,the bit part demon

Dragon Snack

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
    • Dragon Snack Games and Entertainment
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2008, 01:21:09 AM »
Um, Dragon Snack, it does say the number of squares you CAN leap across, not the number you have to.
"You land in the square determined by your result."

I don't see a mention of choice...
Visit my Message Boards (they're strangely familiar) and my Blog...

If you look at the entire history of the RPG industry, you'll see the same, long, sad story: a mountain of conventional wisdom, usually backed by selective listening, that leads to a long chain of failed games and bad ideas. - Mike Mearls

highbulp

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 113
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2008, 02:51:14 AM »
Um, Dragon Snack, it does say the number of squares you CAN leap across, not the number you have to.
"You land in the square determined by your result."

I don't see a mention of choice...

Quote from: PHB 4e
This is the number of squares you can leap across.

Right there, I made it big for you.

Quote from: EntropicShadow
That really wasn't the impression I got from the example the book gave.  The example seemed amazingly arbitrary.  The example DM set the skill DC based entirely on level and the "type of thinking" he wanted to encourage.  He picked the high value of damage for that level because it "wouldn't being giving too much up" versus the characters normal damage.

On a more light-hearted note, I am not sure that "bigger" is the best way to describe damaging fires at higher levels.  If its fire from the Elemental Chaos, sure, that should be more damaging and is something that would more likely be encountered later in a adventurer's career.  But my character's torch doesn't become a bonfire just because he is level 20.

Exactly; that's a really good example. At level 20 you aren't swinging a torch, you're swinging a bucket of Elemental Fire. It isn't about simulation (for better or for worse). It's about being cinematic. Fire damage comes out based on an appropriate fire, otherwise it doesn't happen because that's not part of the story. At high level, little torches don't matter. Not because you can ignore them or aren't there, because because they aren't suitable to the caliber of the story at that point. Conflict escalates over the course of the game, and you can't go back to solving the little problems that you did before. It's how movies work, and that's the goal of this game (again, for better or for worse).

Or, perhaps you swing a torch but are so skilled that you manage to set the guy's nosehairs on fire so it does more damage. The logic is to have creative actions not punish the player. I know I don't like at 15th level when I come up with a creative attack using a torch (or a magically generated icicle against a fire giant, in one case), but end up doing 1d4 or 1d6 damage with a -4 penalty. It means I might as well have used my regular attack. But the idea is to allow people to do OTHER stuff without punishing them for it. Hence the guidelines.

Personally it's one of my favorite parts of 4e, but it does deal a hefty blow to simulation. But I, personally (my opinion), don't care. I understand that some do though.


Just to be fair, I'll throw out something I don't like about 4e: weapon sizes. Dear god, why?! 3.5 at least had a working system, and Saga actually figured it out (weapons have size. Their difficulty in wielding is based on its size relative to yours. Done and done). Similarly, I dislike that being Small is a penalty for Halflings, when the goal is to have races give only bonuses, not penalties.

EntropicShadow

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 85
  • Doth thou desire power?
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2008, 03:38:08 AM »
stuff

Fair enough.  To me, it seems like it slaps mechanics onto DM fiat.  But if the DM is using them to make things more cinematic, assuming that is what your players want, I suppose it isn't all bad.  Still not something I will be using.   :shrug
'Cause I'm a bit part demon, a small-time misfit
I say you'll be "Dead by Dawn" but I don't really mean it.
I'm a threat to no one. The other deadites make fun...
You suck!
Of me, Evil Eddy,the bit part demon

DaveTheMagicWeasel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • If you optimize it, they will come
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2008, 11:31:33 AM »
Quote from: DaveTheMagicWeasel
Also, it closes off the horizons for the game's future development.  3.5 was modular, that meant that each new class brought with it an ever expanding array of options - more and more ways to represent the concept you wanted to play.  But it's as if they think the "Class 1 / Class 3 / Class 2 / PrC4 / PrC 7" builds were a problem, when normally it was just someone trying to match a concept, or make one of the god awful pieces of crap they published playable.  The real powerhouses were mostly very simple - Druid 20, Druid 10 / Planar Shephard 10 / Wizard 5 / Incantatrix 10, etc.  The new standardised system makes it harder to publish a "new Planar Shephard", but not impossible, but at the same time they make it virtually impossible to patch a class later (e.g. the way they patched Gish with Abjurant Champion, or patched melee with ToB).  In fact, standardised abilities means there is still plenty of possibility for unintended interactions (see Blood Pulse or Arch Spell just in Core).  They've all but killed multiclassing, but they haven't really solved any problem by doing so.

I respectfully disagree with this. The options won't come from picking what combination of class, but what different combinations of powers are available. Need to fix the Gish? Publish more Gish powers. Need to fix melee? Publish better melee powers. It's equivalent to saying "evocation sucks, so let's publish better evocation spells" in 3.5e (not that they ever did -.-).

What people need to understand is that the class matters a whole hell of a lot less now. It's just a framework for picking a role (which I personally don't mind, but I totally understand why the role emphasis bugs people). What is important is the powers you get. Powers define what you can do, and thus (mechanically) define the character.

I respectfully disagree with this :P

For me, what defines a character in 4e is their class.  What makes a Fighter/Paladin a defender isn't the powers, it's the class abilities that allow them to control the battlefield, pin their enemies in place.  Likewise, what defines the Cleric/Warlord is the Healing Word/Inspiring Word abilities, the Warlord's Commanding Presence to unlock the improved power effects.  What makes a a Ranger/Rogue/Warlock a Striker is the damage boost from curse/quarry/SA and the range/mobility of the class.  There are odd examples of ways to get these abilities by multi-classing (half-elf, Soldier of Faith, etc), but as 1/encounter abilities rather than at-will, and that makes a massive difference imo.

A Fighter who multi-classes into Warlord doesn't really become a Leader, a Cleric who multiclasses into Fighter doesn't become a Defender, etc.  I'm not that bothered which class I get powers from - Cleric has some pretty decent melee powers for instance, no point swapping over for another classes because they're so rigidly defined as to what powers of the same level can do.

Plus, because the effect of a power of a certain level is very tightly defined (X[W] + level appropriate "kicker" effect), I can't see how the publication of more powers can really change anything, unless they start with power creep and violate their own design framework.

The game strikes me as having been designed to make the job of Game Designer easier more than trying to make the DM's job easier.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 11:35:14 AM by DaveTheMagicWeasel »

Dragon Snack

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
    • Dragon Snack Games and Entertainment
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2008, 08:41:03 PM »
Quote from: PHB 4e
This is the number of squares you can leap across.
Right there, I made it big for you.
So?  That still doesn't explain "You land in the square determined by your result."  The second line is there to clarify the first.  If it doesn't, why is it there?

At the very least it's a stupid line (that shouldn't have been printed), at worst it's a stupid mechanic (that can screw you over).
Visit my Message Boards (they're strangely familiar) and my Blog...

If you look at the entire history of the RPG industry, you'll see the same, long, sad story: a mountain of conventional wisdom, usually backed by selective listening, that leads to a long chain of failed games and bad ideas. - Mike Mearls

highbulp

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 113
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #17 on: June 14, 2008, 09:14:29 PM »
Quote from: PHB 4e
This is the number of squares you can leap across.
Right there, I made it big for you.
So?  That still doesn't explain "You land in the square determined by your result."  The second line is there to clarify the first.  If it doesn't, why is it there?

At the very least it's a stupid line (that shouldn't have been printed), at worst it's a stupid mechanic (that can screw you over).

I read it as clarifying you land in the square. As opposed to... I dunno, falling prone in the square. I wouldn't be surprised if that used to say "you fall prone in the square" and they took out the word prone because that didn't work well.

I fail to see how it can screw you over, unless your DM is a jerk. That and I'm not sure why you're complaining about an asshole DM who ran a 3.5e game almost a year ago.

Treantmonklvl20

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #18 on: June 14, 2008, 09:51:45 PM »
Positives:

1) It's a new RPG with a new mechanic
2) Simplified skill system seems to be a step in the right direction
3) More feats allows more character mechanical development - unique abilities
4) I like At will/Encounter/Daily/Utility options for all classes
5) Combat rounds moving faster - no sitting there for 10 mins while the Cleric runs through his spell list then says, "ahh..I hit with my mace"

Negatives:

1) Unfamiliarity with the system makes for lots of rule - look - up breaks
2) Classes are more pigeonholed
3) Pigeonholed classes mean more expandability of the system - which means even more splatbooks
4) Not big on diagonal square movement being x1.
5) Very hard to hit.
If at first you don't succeed - maybe failure is your style.

brislove

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • Email
Re: What you like/dislike about 4E
« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2008, 06:10:15 PM »
So on the topic of higher level fire doing more damage. I think i have a logical explanation.

Hit Points and health are different things. Hit points represent your characters moral, endurance, ability to absorb a blow without being severely injured ect. beyond just how much punishment you can take physically.

Here is my example: Boxing
If i were to step in the ring with mike tyson, I would probably die, probably in 1 punch, I don't know how to roll with a punch that well, I don't have training in boxing. That right hook is likely to break my neck.

If tyson were to punch Holyfield, holyfield would be able to take the hit better and would likely not even be significantly slowed/dizzied by the hit.

So tyson and holyfield are both high level fighters, while I'm a commoner.

If I were to stand in a fire. I would burn a lot, it would hurt a lot, I would need to go to the ER because I would have severe burns

If Tyson or Holyfield were to stand in the same fire my charred self was just removed from. They would burn a lot, it would hurt a lot, and they would need to go to the ER because they would have severe burns.

My point is that things that effect your physical well being, that you can't really avoid getting hurt by through experience. (you can dodge fire/cover up/ect but those are all reflex defense or resistance pieces of the puzzle). Should scale, so they do a reasonable % of a characters health, wounding damage should scale.

Falling was the first thing I thought of being a similar thing that didn't scale, but adventurers fall a lot it's part of the job, they learn to roll out of the falls, or land on body parts that don't break so easily.