Scrying The 4e Crystal Ball: It's Here!
With 4th edition of the new D&D game out, I felt a need this weekend to take the new rules for a spin, and not just because of World D&D Game Day on Saturday. Unfortunately, despite its participation in the day on an official level, no 4e gaming was going on at the nearest FLGS and the better one (which is slightly further away, hey gimme a break, gas is $4 a gallon) was full by the time I cornered the manager of the nearby game store to find out that indeed no 4e gaming was going to take place.
Fortunately, my regular gaming group meets on Sundays and agreed to do a test. I purchased Keep on Shadowfell just after its release and my gaming group (sans one player) gave it go. That gave us a group of five players, which is conveniently what the rules recommend (and also the number of pre-gens available). Saved from trying to figure out character creation over the weekend, I focused on learning the rules. Many of the changes came as no surprise, I have, after all, been reporting what little we've been able to learn for the past six months. I have a controversial opinion, I know, but frankly, while I love 3e and 3.5e, I think this game (so far) plays better for my group.
I'll give a full review tomorrow, but I think it's safe to say that 4e is D&D, but not necessarily the flavor of D&D that is right for everyone. I'll explain those sentiments tomorrow.
Faerie Dragon
Posted to Hot Stuff, Industry News, Roleplaying Games on 8 June 2008
· Comments (16)
Other stuff like this: 4e, d&d, dungeons and dragons, rpgs, wizards of the coast
It's not just any 3.5
I'm playing Keep on Shadowfell with my group tomorrow. :) Let's compare notes, shall we? :D
From reading the PhB, though, I get the feeling that my views on the game basically match up with yours. I hope Mr. Lich has a frothing hatred for the game so he can provide a different viewpoint. :P
JIC you get that 6th player back to the table. there is a 6th character for Keep on the Shadowfell
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080522a
It is a Tiefling Warlord. Enjoy :D
well, ive messed with it some. i think ive solidified my opinion and sloughed off a lot of the instant dislike of any change that normally comes from these things.
i STILL have to argue that this is in no way D&D. its just a game that has the possibility to be played as such. but dont think im totally knocking it. its waaaaaaay better than 3rd. it even just seemed more fun reading it the first time thru before playing.
reliance on minis sucks. the way things are structured leave very little room for classical "imaginary" play. with so much technical jargon in the basic abilities, abstract play styles suffer hard. but this is indeed mitigated by the fact that what you do actually get from miniatures rules is well integrated and pretty fun. i just prefer games that arent so static on a regular basis.
a LOT of things dont make a lick of sense. the only argument i really ever hear people bring up as to why 2nd ed doesnt make sense (successfully, anyway) is how none of the dice rolling systems are standardized (thaco and saves for instance). but daaaaaaaaaamn there are some stupid things in this edition. i mean, every edition fixes the previous "wonky bits" and then invents like seven more. but the way powers work is the single most "just accept it" thing ive ever seen in a game. basing how you use something around "per encounter" just doesnt float realistically. what in your real life would be considered "an encounter" that would allow you to do something you are trained to do only ONCE during that timeframe (yet you know you can do it again at the "next one")?
it works, yes. but ill never accept any argument for why 1st or 2nd was broken if this is allowed to logically stand up. and i see things just as crazy on almost every page. granted, its the kind of crazy thats endearing. like how batman likes to slap just about everyone on a regular basis.
but anyway, ill just put it this way: if this was the game design for, say, The Wheel of Time roleplaying game, it would be bloody A M A Z I N G. the rules actually seem to look like it would make a damn good fit for that specifically the more i look at it, with a few tweaks. it would just fit the nonstandard fantasy game perfectly, overall. any of those specific non-tolkien inspired worlds. G. R.R. Martins stuff, or even the Elric setting. but D&D is classic, archetype based fantasy. thats what it excelled at. so this new edition just seems an odd fit.
I'm glad to see people finally posting actual SPECIFIC REASONS that they are upset with this edition, and not simply knocking it as "too much like an MMO" without giving examples of how that's the case or why that's a bad thing (as far as I'm concerned as long as a mechanic works and is fun I don't really care where it came from).
That being said, so far I like what I've read, and while I haven't played yet, most of what I've read from those that have actually played and examples of games (like the on-going penny arcade playtest podcast that's been coming out for two weeks now), indicate it's a lot of fun, and actually does end up playing more like D&D than it might initially seem just reading it (I still think adding dragonborn and teiflings as core races is kind of weird but whatever). I'm excited to sit down and try out a short adventure with some friends!
PS - Explanation for "per encounter" powers is pretty simple: You need a few minutes to rest before you can do it again. Now "per day" is a bit tougher to explain, though I guess it could be similar but you just need a lot more rest. Also, at least for spells etc the Vancian system of spells that's been with D&D from the start works more or less like that and has never made very much sense to me, so it's just sort of expanding that to other classes a little bit.
I have now played one session in 4E and read most of the books, and I would agree that some people will not like the flavor of the game. It is a much more magically infused world, or at least that is how it feels to me.
I still think it is very D&D, and each character type still fills a very specific role, but wizards and clerics now don't feel like the only magical PCs. The powers, even the martial ones since I play a rogue, have a stronger infused with magic feel to them.
I do think that 'imaginary' play, without a map, is pretty much impossible. You can do it with a lot of communication, but it isn't going to be as easy, although I would argue that minis are necessary. Just a map and a pencil are all you need, but the minis give it a better feel.
Also, I was surprised at how much more I could do as a player and how much I needed to be involved in the action not only with my character, but with how the others were setting up and playing their characters. Teamwork is big, and the DM can't be the only one on top of the action. That was a nice change.
Overall, I like it so far. We play more soon, so I will get a better feel for how it all works.
I have now played one session in 4E and read most of the books, and I would agree that some people will not like the flavor of the game. It is a much more magically infused world, or at least that is how it feels to me.
I still think it is very D&D, and each character type still fills a very specific role, but wizards and clerics now don't feel like the only magical PCs. The powers, even the martial ones since I play a rogue, have a stronger infused with magic feel to them.
I do think that 'imaginary' play, without a map, is pretty much impossible. You can do it with a lot of communication, but it isn't going to be as easy, although I would argue that minis are necessary. Just a map and a pencil are all you need, but the minis give it a better feel.
Also, I was surprised at how much more I could do as a player and how much I needed to be involved in the action not only with my character, but with how the others were setting up and playing their characters. Teamwork is big, and the DM can't be the only one on top of the action. That was a nice change.
Overall, I like it so far. We play more soon, so I will get a better feel for how it all works.
well, as far as the old system for magic, its never ever been a problem for me to make sense of. i really dont see how it never did. but tons of people weigh in all the time that it simply doesn't so i accept that the way magic works will always be the first thing to change. and honestly, i like the way 3e handles the concept. not for a baseline classic fantasy but it does have its unique spin.
but i still dont buy the way encounter powers or daily powers work. i mean, as a fighter, if i have a particular attack that works and works well then i really dont see why i steadfastly refuse to use it more than once in a particular fight. one could argue that now that these goblins know my tricks they wont fall for it again. but what if i fight them again at a future date? the logic holds that i shouldnt be able to get away with the same things, they would be prepared. and thats completely skipping the fact that sometimes things just work, regardless of how well prepared someone is.
thats just regarding daily or encounter use for combat powers, and the only logic i can fathom as to explain why they have restricted use. spells, i can get. some spells are tough to use. but then, i have stated that i always have been very comfortable with memorization.
but as far as defined roles for each class? i think that is the first thing i have to argue with in the new ruleset. first off, the earliest editions have VERY clearly defined roles. drawing from literature and psychological archetypes. you dont get better than that. thats what makes mythology so GOOD and the star wars prequels so BAD. (do note that the good star wars movies directly applied archetype and mythology). this game tosses that out and defines roles based on combat. and defines them poorly. i have always been a rogue at heart. be it the game, or in literature, or just in attitude. 4e rogues have absolutely none of the spirit of what a rogue really is. its just a sneaky fighter. and for sure not a (mmo term,ugh) "striker". hell, if you really need to understand this, Gygax himself wrote a book loooong ago called "Role Playing Mastery" that gets into all this.
anyway, you arent defined by how you behave in combat. i am not. the guy next to us isn't. the guy in the Humvee in Iraq, however, currently is. rogues arent combat machines. they have so very little to do with combat and so very much to do with many many other things. but now they are jammed into being the "high damage output" for the group. i guess because thats the only way that one can express rogues and their rather intangible qualities on a video game. and now people have become comfortable with that and they view them as sneaky deadly lightweight fighters who occasionally pick locks and disarm traps.
i know that example is rogue heavy, but they are the ones that seem to really suffer most from rules becoming more and more specific on how a class behaves. wizards have always been potent combatants, but just flat out saying they have a given combat role to perform seems a bit silly too. they CAN be war mages, but many freak at the idea of a fight, and avoid them at all costs.granted, in playing a given character, one can change that. but in presenting this face to new players, this is what they will imprint. ive already seen that with the previous edition, and now this. in another ten years time, classic Thieves will make so very little sense to people in favor of this little bloody combat whore. WoW rogue player attitudes are generally the worst among all players, and completely contrary to the mindset for playing a good one. and i see this as just following down the same path.
okay. ranted enough. i really do think this game is much more playable than the last version. it certainly seems a lot more fun, so far. there is a lot that i wished didnt have to be sacrificed. but i guess the only thing to do is try to teach each new player i meet just what D&D really is (as opposed to the flat rules), and where it came from, in the hopes that the gaming community isnt flooded with the same types of people the Xbox Live one has. for a while now, its looked like thats where its been heading. but its really up to us to hang the proper gloss on the rules WotC wants to give us to keep this from happening.
@ Kyle
I'll say it again, per encounter powers are supposed to be pretty intense things and it seems easy to me to explain it away with simply needing to rest a moment before you can pull something like that off again.
Daily powers are a bit harder to explain away like that, I'll certainly give you that.
As to your complaints about them defining the "roles" of the different party members - those have always been in there, now they're just explicitly stating it. Rogues have always been "strikers" what with their backstabbing etc. Nothing about the "roles' is really new when it comes to combat, they've always been like that, now they're just saying it out loud.
As to your complaints about role playing and roles - In the book they state pretty clearly that the roles they're talking about are just in regard to combat, which is really the main mechanical componant of D&D and always has been.
The fact that they're focusing on combat in the players handbook to me is a good sign, it means they're talking about the mechanics of the game and reducing and simplifying the mechancis and rules for other things, thus allowing for more imagination and role playing in the other parts of the game. If you want to play a rogue who's sneaky and untrustowrthy, there is absolutely nothing to stop you from doing that, in fact I'd wager that the vast majority of poeple will do that. I certainly will (I slmost always play rogues too, and not because of their combat role, though I do enjoy that too).
Ok, I've coverd the gist of what I wanted to say, (though haven't gotten into the few things so far I've found that I'm not so sure about) and my class is starting so I'll cut this short. May add more later.
ive been playing D&D since just a bit before 2nd ed came out. in many states, with many groups. not to mention convention games. i dont think ive EVER seen anyone play the rogue to be a "striker". indeed, backstab really didnt come up all that often. it was a really rare surprise that generally can turn the tide of battle, but then you never saw it happen again. which is completely counter to being a striker. that implies repeatable high damage output. something rogues classically cant do. they get one "gotcha" then the surprise wears off and they have to rely on reflexes and wit to get out of dodge. which is where i am coming from when i made the rant about the role definitions being a bit out of character. some of these classes just were never meant to sustain that role in the party, despite being able to occasionally fill it. while fighters seem somewhat relegated to "tank" instead of being the actual heavy hitters.
i think somewhere wires are getting crossed with the way i explain my dissatisfaction over the arbitrary nature of power use. i could buy that some of these are stressful and cant be used often (especially spells) but some of the abilities just ARENT stressful in theory, and dont really have any particular reason to be assigned how they are. and in some cases of spells its just seems absurd. this going back to Knock. Knock used to be the lifesaver. Verbal only, opens two bonds in an area. if you got caught and tossed in a dungeon and chained up with no equip- no problem! one word and either you are free or you and a friend are free! now its a pricey ritual that takes a rather extended amount of time and prep. things like that dont seem well thought out.
but in that case, its not so much a slam against 4e sucking all over. ive said numerous times i am so far kinda getting into it. it just is a bit of a slam against the game designers seeming rushed in areas and not thinking things thru in the long term. its an easy fix though. BOOM! knock is now an encounter, or daily power. or something. and it just requires a word to use. problem solved.
I see where you're coming from, and I hope I didn't come across as being angry or anything. I'm not trying to defend 4th Edition at all costs, I just have a different opinion. Anyway! On to the debate!
In 2nd edition you are right, Rogues weren't as good at backstabbing as they came to be in 3/3.5. (I can't speak to earlier editions) But it was still pretty helpful in combat, and other than trying to move your way into position to get a back-stab opportunity thieves didn't really have much they could do that was all that helpful in combat, since they couldn't really deal much damage otherwise and didn't have the hit points to take much damage. So I'd still argue that in combat their role was striker, even if it was somewhat harder to do than I'd have liked. I'd argue that their evolution into better strikers starting in 3rd edition (just have to flank an enemy) was an improvement, as honestly before that point I always found combat to be rather frustrating as a rogue (or thief in 2nd edition).
I will agree though that the 4th edition book doesn't put quite enough emphasis as their role outside of combat as the parties skilled person, the person who opens locks, disarms traps, sneaks and scouts ahead, and depending on how you set him up, can do negotiations and such, and many other things. This leads me to my biggest complaint about 4th edition (at least my biggest complaint so far, I haven't read the whole PHB or anything), skills.
I both like and don't like the way the PHB is so focused on combat. On the one hand I like it because it means they're focusing on mechanics where they're most important and leaving other stuff open to more role playing and improvisation (do you really need a specific mechanic to roll dice and determine how much money you can make performing on the street? It's always seemed like something like that is best done through role playing and then talking with the DM to figure out it out a reasonable amount for your game world and circumstances ).
But I'm a bit worried as far as skills go they may have gone too far in cutting them down. I'm glad there are fewer skills and their scope is a bit broader, but I'm a bit worried they've cut down the list a bit too much,and I'm unsure how I feel about what's essentially a (sort of) return to the 2nd edition proficiency system. We'll see once I get started playing, but that's the one area I'm a bit unsure about, but it's easy enough to fix with house-rules.
The other problem I see, and it's a related problem to the skills problem, is that the PHB doesn't spend enough time talking about non-combat situations and role playing. I don't think it's really an issue with 4th edition as a system per se, because role playing and such are and always have been up to the group that's playing, but it'd be nice if the book talked about it a little bit more.
As for you "Knock" complaint... well we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that. I personally think Knock is a silly spell, and in the game I'm playing right now, it simply doesn't exist. It just makes it far too easy to open locks. If you can simply speak a word and open basically any lock you want, how can the party ever be challenged by trying to break into or out of somewhere or something? For that matter why bother having the rogue put any skill points into open lock? I actually think the 4th edition ritual rules are a great way to balance it. You can still open locks and such if you don't have a rogue or if your rogue is somehow incapacitated or away from the rest of the party, but it takes time and effort (so a rogue is better at opening locks, but a mage will do in a pinch). But that's just the way I like to play and my opinion, obviously you have a different perspective. And I don't think I'll be convincing you on that point.
I demoed 4E and enjoyed it. A little too much of a battlemap-oriented game, but whatever.
I was far, far more excited about the two new Dark Heresy books that came out this month. Talk about a game that makes me want to grab my velvet dice bag and get to gamin'....
no no, knock is a bit silly in the way you described. its saved our parties asses NUMEROUS times, and we do indeed love the spell. but it was one of those things that went down on the great book of excuses for not having a rogue in the group. i always saw it is very much a classic swords and sorc kinda wizardly thing to do. its pretty impressive. but still, it sorta steals the limelight from other players. a lot of spells did that. i just think taking it to the ten minute 35 gold ritual end is a bit on the other side of crazy.
but on your other point, the PHB really does just involve itself in combat and thats pretty much it. ive flipped thru my DMG a bit, but not really to any great extent. i am impressed that in a few places it really does tend to discuss other more roleplaying oriented things. not often, and not to great detail. but its not a book on combat and effects, at least.
skills. hrm. yeah. they seemed really crazy cut down. but then, this is WotC. i have a feeling we will see endless amounts of skills soon in suppliments. along with feats and powers.
@Kyle
That's a good point about all the new skills and feats we're probably going to see, so I guess we just need to give it a few months or so and there'll probably be more.
Now I just have to hope they don't wait forever to introduce Psionics...
actually, i was thinking about that. if you read the PHB it mentions that there will be future PHBs. and the front of the book says Divine, Arcane and Martial heroes.
i imagine it wont be long before the next PHB comes out with Psionic heroes. and probably include another type or two. Like Song or Talent or something with bards in it. possibly Natural heroes with druids. not that im trying to make accurate guesses, but you get the point. im getting the feeling that the classes in the first PHB arent the only ones they worked on, and that soon we will have some support for the "missing" ones.
Oh I know that they'll have new classes and power sources (it mentions them in the current PHB, including Psionic), so I know it's coming, it's just a matter of when. I'm hoping it's sooner rather than later!
"rogues arent combat machines. they have so very little to do with combat and so very much to do with many many other things."
!!!
???
What!?
OMGWTFLMAOBBQ!!!
Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You really think that a game where combat is a vital part should feature a so called NON-combat character in a party?
LOL @ kyle.
First of all where would a thief/rogue get his leveling experience from since he's not suppose to be in combat? Second whats the point of someone playing a character who "suppose" to be dead weight in battle? Any RPG worth playing needs all the PC's to be effective in combat.
Also rogues HAVE been strikers in past editions. Stealth+Backstabbing at least made them effective mage slayers.
LOL @ kyle
The idea of a pc that suppose to be gimped in combat is plain foolish and retarded.
So damn stupid....
P.S.
Work on your CAPITALIZATION skills idiot.