D&D 4th

[Markdoc]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Looking at the 3.5 Ed Players Handbook' date=' a Longsword does 1d8 damage, double on a critical. A light crossbow does exactly the same, with the same odds of a critical. A heavy crossbow does 1d10. A longbow does 1d8, but triple on a critical. Looks like the crossbow already does not do less than a sword - where is the perceived problem?[/quote']

 

The problem in 3.5 was simply that there are many, many way to increase your damage output dramaticaly with HTH weapons but few (and no real biggies apart from magic) ways to increase your damage output with a ranged weapon - and also that there were lots of HTH weapons that did much more damage than a longsword. Not that I care particularly: balance wasn't really the issue there anyway. Just sayin' is all.

 

cheers, Mark

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I always hate posts that get too hung up one realism at the expense of playability

 

Which is why I expressly stated that I avoid the concept of realism and want the game to be playable and not excessively complex.

 

Looks like the crossbow already does not do less than a sword - where is the perceived problem?

 

If you scroll back you'll see I was responding to someone who stated that bows should do less damage than hand to hand weapons. That's where the problem came from, a response to a specific point someone made.

[Kdansky]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I am not sure how much 4th is a "MMORPG". I actually read through the rules (php, dmg, mm) and I have to say: The dmg is *great* for beginners. Campaign design, flavour, encounters (combat and other) and lots of good advice. The rules itself are incredibly lightweight and look very balanced.

 

+ Wizards/Spellcasters dominating everyone: gone

+ Fighters being booooring: gone

+ The game became a lot more tactical. Yes, you have to use a map. Guess what, hero is the same.

+ Multiclassing madness reduced (have to take a feat)

+ Cool classes (if you have them, better make them cool) like Warlock and Warlord.

+ No crappy Instakill spells anymore. "You are paralized for 8 rounds" - as if that was any different from Save-Or-Die.

 

I really like 4E, much more than ADnD (which is horrible) and 3E (which is bad, due to non-balance).

[Nolgroth]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Well I had a chance to go through it and build a character. I decided on a Dwarven Cleric based on an old 2nd Edition AD&D character that I ran for years.

 

I figured out a couple of things.

 

1. That n[W] (+ Ability Bonus) is actually pretty easy. The n is the number of times you roll your weapon damage dice. [W] is obviously the weapon. And the Ability bonus adds to the total. It would have been nice to have that a little bit more easily referenced, but once you figure it out, no problem.
   
2. The claims of making a character in five minutes comes with the caveat; if you understand all the rules. It took me about three hours to build the character I wanted, but that was mostly trying to learn the rules as I went. I imagine I can probably toss together a character in less time now.
   
3. In terms of class abilities, I can't imagine too many Clerics (and I imagine other classes), of equal level, looking too different. Individuality is going to come from sheer role-playing, the minor customization from race and feats, and what "goodies" the individual characters pick up along the way. Statistically, they are going to be very similar.
   
4. There probably will be additional options with later books. Not interested. Even though I think it is "okay" to buy more HERO books for more design options, it just doesn't seem like something I want to do for D&D 4th. Maybe because I realize that I don't "need" the extra HERO books and I will "need" the D&D books to expand upon what is there.
   
5. It looks like it is going to be a pretty kickdonkey miniatures game. Once you understand the rules and you have a DM that can set up some fun modules, it will probably be a short term riot.
   
6. Ultimately the phrase "short term" is going to rear its ugly reality all too soon and the novelty will wear off.
   
7. Even though I feel less hostile towards D&D 4th edition than I did a few days ago, I don't think I am going to invest much time in it. In the end, HERO is still my game of choice and it is pretty good with miniature combat too.
   

So there is my final take on D&D 4th Edition. Don't hate it like I did D20 in all its incarnations, but I don't see it being a mainstay in my role playing universe either.

 

For all those that want to charge in, I wish you lots and lots of fun. HERO (and I) will still be here when the glamour fades.

 

We'll keep a light on for ya.

[Karmakaze]

Re: D&D 4th

 

+ The game became a lot more tactical. Yes' date=' you have to use a map. Guess what, hero is the same.[/quote']

 

I run HERO a lot and I can't remember the last time I pulled out a battle map or miniatures. I don't even own any miniatures.

[incrdbil]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I run HERO a lot and I can't remember the last time I pulled out a battle map or miniatures. I don't even own any miniatures.

 

I agree--HERO is fairly easy to do without a map. About the only thing you really have to abstract is turning mode, but you can still adjudicate that pretty well as long as you give a good description of the area.

[incrdbil]

Re: D&D 4th

 

[*]In terms of class abilities, I can't imagine too many Clerics (and I imagine other classes), of equal level, looking too different. Individuality is going to come from sheer role-playing, the minor customization from race and feats, and what "goodies" the individual characters pick up along the way. Statistically, they are going to be very similar.

 

That is a shame. I hope they havent returned to silly weapons restrictions for clerics. Is there some nod toward spell selection modified to the domain of the Clerics deity?

 

It's almost..how do I put this..Games workshopian in feel? Anything to get new players in and sell the core. Not that much to really keep people in it other than inertia, and the false perception of having some 'investment' in the game after you make that purchase.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I am not sure how much 4th is a "MMORPG". I actually read through the rules (php, dmg, mm) and I have to say: The dmg is *great* for beginners. Campaign design, flavour, encounters (combat and other) and lots of good advice. The rules itself are incredibly lightweight and look very balanced.

 

+ Wizards/Spellcasters dominating everyone: gone

 

I didn't have this problem in 3e.

 

+ Fighters being booooring: gone

 

Ditto

 

+ The game became a lot more tactical. Yes' date=' you have to use a map. Guess what, hero is the same.[/quote']

 

See below.

 

+ Multiclassing madness reduced (have to take a feat)

 

Another issue we never had.

 

+ Cool classes (if you have them' date=' better make them cool) like Warlock and Warlord.[/quote']

 

I prefer cool characters to cool ability sets.

 

+ No crappy Instakill spells anymore. "You are paralized for 8 rounds" - as if that was any different from Save-Or-Die.

 

"Take X damage" for every spell sounds like it will become dull pretty quickly.

 

I really like 4E' date=' much more than ADnD (which is horrible) and 3E (which is bad, due to non-balance).[/quote']

 

See, my viewpoint is probably different, as it is for many Hero discussions. My gaming group doesn't play to min/max the system. We don't have:

 

D&D:

 

- fighters doing 100+ damage in a round

- spellcasters who argue their spells should "logically" be instant kills (Chill cantrips on someone's chest reducing core body temperature to freezing, Create Water in someone's lungs or similar nonsense)

- bizarre multiclassed characters to maximize mechanical benefits

 

Hero

 

- Aid, fade rate per year to provide permanent boosts

- killing attacks with massive increased stun multiples to bump stun damage

 

If your players aren't trying to rape the system, a lot of balance issues fall by the wayside.

 

I agree--HERO is fairly easy to do without a map. About the only thing you really have to abstract is turning mode' date=' but you can still adjudicate that pretty well as long as you give a good description of the area.[/quote']

 

If you want to take advantage of tactical combat, you need the map. To me, this is true of both D&D and Hero.

 

Without the map, how do I know where opposing forces are clustered, and where my own allies are in relation? This will dictate where I may want to place my Force Wall, Entangle as a barrier or any area effect attack, including an attack I want to Spread into multiple hexes. Am I just within, or just outside, a half move of my desired target (or a half move of a range increment I can live with)? Where can I move to be outside direct line of sight and/or far enough away from the opposition so I can let down my defenses and take a much-needed recovery? Where do I need to move to cut off my opponent's option for retreat, or ensure my own retreat is not cut off?

 

Now, a GM who can actually manage all those locations and movements in his head (and I think those are pretty rare) can always answer all those questions. But it will take a lot longer than me just seeing it on the map. So instead of me looking at the map as others take their actions, and formulating my plan in accordance with that, I have to get all that info from the GM when my turn rolls around.

[CandidGamera]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Not to trying to be personal, but I always felt that argument from someone who plays Hero is just a little.... non-sensical

 

"You can have different special effects for your Energy Blast, but it's all really the same thing"

 

That is really all power sources are, Special effects for your abilities.

 

The difference, in Hero, is that the special effect is 100% flexible. And that the underlying toolkit that is the HERO system allows me to build custom powers that aren't 'deal damage and move the target a square'. HERO's special effects aren't a veil struggling to conceal the lack of variety in a system.

 

I can't find the thread but someone renamed all of the fighter abilities like:

 

Hit them so hard they stumble

Hit them so hard it scares their friend into fleeing

Smack them so impressively your teammate is impressed

 

And so on. No jedi flavor - more a Conan like feel for everything.

 

It's more than the names.

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

4th edition isn't a MMOG, it's an attempt to simulate a MMOG with paper and dice. That's just a strange direction to go to me, but it probably will make the game more accessible to a broader range of players, temporarily.

[mayapuppies]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Well I had a chance to go through it and build a character. I decided on a Dwarven Cleric based on an old 2nd Edition AD&D character that I ran for years.

 

I figured out a couple of things.

 

1. That n[W] (+ Ability Bonus) is actually pretty easy. The n is the number of times you roll your weapon damage dice. [W] is obviously the weapon. And the Ability bonus adds to the total. It would have been nice to have that a little bit more easily referenced, but once you figure it out, no problem.
   
2. The claims of making a character in five minutes comes with the caveat; if you understand all the rules. It took me about three hours to build the character I wanted, but that was mostly trying to learn the rules as I went. I imagine I can probably toss together a character in less time now.
   
3. In terms of class abilities, I can't imagine too many Clerics (and I imagine other classes), of equal level, looking too different. Individuality is going to come from sheer role-playing, the minor customization from race and feats, and what "goodies" the individual characters pick up along the way. Statistically, they are going to be very similar.
   
4. There probably will be additional options with later books. Not interested. Even though I think it is "okay" to buy more HERO books for more design options, it just doesn't seem like something I want to do for D&D 4th. Maybe because I realize that I don't "need" the extra HERO books and I will "need" the D&D books to expand upon what is there.
   
5. It looks like it is going to be a pretty kickdonkey miniatures game. Once you understand the rules and you have a DM that can set up some fun modules, it will probably be a short term riot.
   
6. Ultimately the phrase "short term" is going to rear its ugly reality all too soon and the novelty will wear off.
   
7. Even though I feel less hostile towards D&D 4th edition than I did a few days ago, I don't think I am going to invest much time in it. In the end, HERO is still my game of choice and it is pretty good with miniature combat too.
   

So there is my final take on D&D 4th Edition. Don't hate it like I did D20 in all its incarnations, but I don't see it being a mainstay in my role playing universe either.

 

For all those that want to charge in, I wish you lots and lots of fun. HERO (and I) will still be here when the glamour fades.

 

We'll keep a light on for ya.

This is exactly how I feel about. Now I just need to start setting up my Dungeonsiege modules...

[culhwch]

Re: D&D 4th

 

That is a shame. I hope they havent returned to silly weapons restrictions for clerics. is there some nod toward spell selection modified to the domain of the Clerics deity?

 

Sorta. Not in the spells themselves, but there are feats a cleric (or paladin, I assume, I've only skimmed the feat chapter so far) can take that gives them a power based on a diety. Each diety in the core rules has a Channel Divinity feat which works with the cleric's Channel Divinity class feature (and probably paladin since they have the same class feature).

[Markdoc]

Re: D&D 4th

 

4th edition isn't a MMOG' date=' it's an attempt to simulate a MMOG with paper and dice. That's just a strange direction to go to me, but it probably will make the game more accessible to a broader range of players, temporarily.[/quote']

 

Yeah, but from a certain point of view (ie: marketting) it doesn't matter too much if new players try the game for a while and then, after six months get tired of it and drop out - by that time they will already have purchased many of the books. After all, many of the splatbooks sold for 3.5 were by third parties, so the return on that for the original IP holders was probably wafer-thin. As long as the MMO->RPG link draws in more players than your original core audience, it's a win (and the MMO audience you are drawing from is already far, far bigger than your pen and paper RPG audience and growing faster, so that's a plausible assumption). You might also be able to feed a proportion of your pen and paper RPG audience directly into your more profitable online games, and I suspect that also underlies the design decisions.

 

That's not a point of view I endorse, btw, but I can very readily see someone crunching the numbers to come to that conclusion: it would be on par with the careful design decisions they made in the rule books themselves.

 

cheers, Mark

[Nolgroth]

Re: D&D 4th

 

That is a shame. I hope they havent returned to silly weapons restrictions for clerics. is there some nod toward spell selection modified to the domain of the Clerics deity?

Silly weapon restrictions? Yes, but not in the way you think. Clerics are restricted to "Simple" weapons. It's a silly list.

 

Spells don't really exist anymore. They have Cleric Powerz which are variations of attack powers interspersed with some Healing abilities. There are Rituals that sort of take the place of spells, but they are much fewer than the sheer number in earlier editions.

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

it doesn't matter too much if new players try the game for a while and then, after six months get tired of it and drop out - by that time they will already have purchased many of the books

 

Probably that's their marketing concept, to sell books more than make a great enduring game. From a Hero games point of view let's hope they introduce new people to paper and dice RPGs and they move on to a better system.

[incrdbil]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Silly weapon restrictions? Yes, but not in the way you think. Clerics are restricted to "Simple" weapons. It's a silly list.

 

Spells don't really exist anymore. They have Cleric Powerz which are variations of attack powers interspersed with some Healing abilities. There are Rituals that sort of take the place of spells, but they are much fewer than the sheer number in earlier editions.

 

Sounds horrifically boring and repetitive. Oh, but next years players book will add more...yeah, I see where this is going.

[Kristopher]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Probably that's their marketing concept' date=' to sell books more than make a great enduring game. From a Hero games point of view let's hope they introduce new people to paper and dice RPGs and they move on to a better system.[/quote']

 

If even 5% of the non pen & paper gamers from MMOs enter the P&P gaming hobby via 4thEd and move on to a different P&P game after trying 4thEd, then I think the P&P industry will benefit greatly.

[NestorDRod]

Re: D&D 4th

 

If even 5% of the non pen & paper gamers from MMOs enter the P&P gaming hobby via 4thEd and move on to a different P&P game after trying 4thEd' date=' then I think the P&P industry will benefit greatly.[/quote']

 

Perhaps, but if they bring the "kill the monsters, gain phat lewt, level up" attitude along with them, it won't necessarily translate as good times for all other players.

[mayapuppies]

Re: D&D 4th

 

4th edition D&D Wizard battles a 4th edition Warlock in a test of magical power and knowledge.

 

[Old Man]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Ryu is cheat.

[Curufea]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Just thought I'd pipe in and say I had to rep CTaylor for dropping two letters from MMOG.

No MMOG has RP. RP does not mean lots of combat and increasingly super powered characters. Character development does not mean "getting better at combat". Or at least it shouldn't.

[Old Man]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Well, to be fair, the bulk of most RPG rules is about combat. Few people would be interested in playing RPGs that completely lack it. That said, a "real" RPG (IMO) needs to incorporate out-of-combat roleplaying elements to set up the dramatic tension that makes the combats interesting. I'm a combat monster but straight dungeon crawls bore me to death. I want revenge. I want respect and heroism and sacrifice and tragedy and victory snatched from the snapping jaws of defeat. Not kewl l3wtz.

[Curufea]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Well' date=' to be fair, the bulk of most RPG rules is about combat. Few people would be interested in playing RPGs that completely lack it. [/quote']

 

Except of course for games that have no combat in them, or the combat is trivial and less than 1/10th of a session at most. Such as My Life with Master, Amber, Prime Time Adventures, Doctor Who, In Spaaace, Castle Falkenstein, Call of Cthulhu etc.

 

Which are all "combat-lite". There are also "combat-medium" games, where combat occurs and is almost as important as roleplaying - such as Dogs in the Vineyard, FUDGE, Harn, Rolemaster, Star Trek, WFRP, Fading Suns, Serenity, Space 1889, etc.

 

"combat-heavy" games are any of those where the majority of the session is combat, and roleplaying rarely occurs. Usually it's just light relief between selling your stolen property, and running off to more genocide (although that tends to occur more in the fantasy genre than others). This includes D&D, any dungeon-crawl clone of D&D and the superhero genre (although there tend to be more morals and more roleplaying for supers - combat is still a major factor), Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, Star Wars, Judge Dredd.

 

I strongly suspect you haven't read many different roleplaying games if you think combat is an important aspect in all of them. Or even in most of them.

 

That said' date=' a "real" RPG (IMO) needs to incorporate out-of-combat roleplaying elements to set up the dramatic tension that makes the combats interesting. I'm a combat monster but straight dungeon crawls bore me to death. [/quote']

 

I find it dubious that there is ANY in-combat roleplaying. The majority of things that occur within a combat ARE NOT roleplaying. They're random factors, tactical decisions, out-of-character rules knowledge and system manipulation. Combat more closely resembles wither a boardgame or a wargame that it does anything like "imagine what it is like to be the personality in this setting, what are your feelings and your responses?"

 

How often does a player describe what their character is thinking or feeling when they attack in combat in your games?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I find it dubious that there is ANY in-combat roleplaying. The majority of things that occur within a combat ARE NOT roleplaying. They're random factors, tactical decisions, out-of-character rules knowledge and system manipulation. Combat more closely resembles wither a boardgame or a wargame that it does anything like "imagine what it is like to be the personality in this setting, what are your feelings and your responses?"

 

How often does a player describe what their character is thinking or feeling when they attack in combat in your games?

 

Actually, my games see a lot of combat decisions based on role playing. Yes, that would be the tactically superior choice, but real people in the heat of the moment don't always make the tactically superior choice. They act on biases and impulses. A well role played character will make tactical choices that are poorly considered while the player smiles and says "I know it's not a smart move - but that is what my character would do".

 

And a well run game allows for the players to make good role playing, poor strategy choices and still have a fun game. If you want to see role playing in combat, you can't:

 

- run NPC's whose combat choices are solely based on bets strategy, but who also make choices based on their own flaws and foibles

 

- mock poor combat choices which are good role playing choices

 

- design scenarios where the players can succeed only if they throw role playing to the wolves and choose the most tactically sound options based primarily on out of character knowledge and system manuipulation.

 

This should be a surprise to no one, but it always seems someone is shocked to learn that players play the game in the manner the GM sets it up. If good role playing is encouraged, appreciated and rewarded, you see more of it. If you play combat solely as a tactical exercise, the players will too.

 

The level of role playing in or out of combat is directed by the players and the GM.

[Kristopher]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Perhaps' date=' but if they bring the "kill the monsters, gain phat lewt, level up" attitude along with them, it won't necessarily translate as good times for all other players. [/quote']

 

I was thinking that the 5% would be those who played 4thEd, and moved on because they were unsatisfied by it.