4E Dungeons & Dragons - Verdict?

[Redrobes]

I played MERP once but err prob 20 + something years ago... I played Traveller just a couple of times, Paranoia (hah nuff said...), a little shadowrun but its been mainly D&D and I did like it when I used to hit it hard with 2nd ed.

Thanks guys. I will treat oil as stated then not that I need it right now but its odd that it was not listed. And I agree with you Neon in that your house rule sounds great. Id also always treat the square your standing on with a candle as bright in case theres some problem reading books / texts. I know a candle light drops off real quick but its the sillyness of not being able to use one at all without low light ability which is odd. Again with a GM thats prepared to deviate and go with some house ruling its all fine.

I am sat here looking to see whether I should go Artful Dodger (All Cha stat) or Brutal Soundrel (All Str stat) and all I can think of is changing my second higher stat to either Str or Cha... and just roleplaying all the stuff and not worrying that my stats don't quite match up with the character that he is supposed to be...

[Gamerprinter]

More thoughts regarding 4e.

I know its not quite true, but it almost seems that 4e is nolonger about classes and individual players, but its "team concept" that only matters. Almost as if the only true mechanic is "defender, striker, leader, controller" and that classes are just fluff for those team positions.

How would one even play a solo mission? (Albeight a solo mission is rare and a bit clunky in any edition) in 4e, how does one play with only one character on the team? Can that character only be a striker?

When I try to discover the differences in "powers" in 4e on Gleemax, everyone tells me, that's just fluff. Huh?? As if everything is fluff except as it applies to team positions.

Unfortunately, to me D&D is more than just team dynamics, while certainly an important part, its just a part. In 4e, it seems to be all that matters.

Again, perhaps just a misunderstanding on my part, but from dialogue with those who know, this seems to be the answer they are providing me.

GP

[Alecthar]

Gamerprinter,

I'm not sure what they mean by the power differences being "only fluff." I'm going to respond, but read this knowing that I wasn't entirely certain or your intent.

The core mechanic of class roles is slightly restrictive, because not everyone can be a wizard or such like, but it does fit with the more tactical nature of the combat, and it's not as MMO-like as some people like to say. Every character can make a direct contribution to damage-dealing in combat, some just do it better, or in a wider area, or they heal while they damage, etc.

But the difference between, say, a Paladin and a Fighter, in terms of powers and class, is more than just "Paladins are fighters that worship a god." The manner in which a Paladin fulfills the Defender role is significantly different than the way a Fighter does. This is a general truism for 4e. Bards and Warlords and Clerics are all Leader classes, and they share a similar mechanic (the "Word" type powers for healing) but their other functions are very different.

The roles were designed to encourage players to field a balanced party, in the sense that you possess characters able to handle various threats and situations. And the design of the game encourages filling all the roles (well, maybe not Controller) but the choice of class within those roles is still significant. Certain classes have capabilities or vulnerabilities that others do not possess.

As for solo missions, you could probably make encounters for a single PC with some experience in the system without too much difficulty. Most Defenders could probably manage a single PC encounter (low accuracy compensated for by being harder to hit) some Strikers could do it (Ranger, Barbarian, probably Avenger, maybe Rogue) though some probably couldn't do it (Sorcerer). I don't know that any Controllers could accomplish it, though Druids could maybe, Wizards and Invokers probably not. For leaders I'd say a Warlord could do it, as well as certain kinds of Clerics and Bards. If you think about all that, though, I wouldn't say that's a significant departure from previous versions of the game. I mean, I wouldn't walk my fragile guys into combat alone in AD&D or 3.5 either.

[Gamerprinter]

Not to worry, I would never compare 4e or anything to an MMO, in that I have never and will never play an online game, period. So what an MMO is like is beyond my understanding or caring.

I only play tabletop games. And while I'm firmly in the 3e or Pathfinder camp, I'm not anti-4e, as I've made several dialogue attempts to understand on forums where people know about it, I just don't plan to buy the books as a means of learning it. My funds are too limited to wildly experiment by buying something just to figure out what it is.

So I don't mean to come off as a 4e hater. Just call me 4e stupid, and without investing in it, I'm trying to learn more about.

Because I don't know the "whole story" the tidbits I do hear, only seem to confuse more, and not educate at all.

This is where I am coming from in my questions about 4e.

I do see where lots of references involve roles in combat, and while core to the game, combat isn't the defacto end all be all of the game. Roleplaying involves much more than just combat. So how do these roles reflect non-combat parts to the game?

GP

PS: I have never owned a console game either, I don't have nor have ever played Nintendo, XBox, Playstation, whatever - digital games are not my thing.

[Notsonoble]

How would one even play a solo mission? (Albeight a solo mission is rare and a bit clunky in any edition) in 4e, how does one play with only one character on the team? Can that character only be a striker?

GP

See this is actually rather important to me...because my "groups" are almost always on the small side (3 players a session is a big thing here)... so solo and duo play is big on my list...

And everybody I've talked to about 4th says you simply can't do it that way...

While even I find that a bit hard to chew on... I still find it disturbing that anyone's saying it in the first place... I get a lot of "I'd never run 4th with less than three players, and even then I'd probably have a party-tied NPC" and that just won't fly...

Also, I'm not sure I'd call 3.5/Pathfinder all that clunky on solo games...

[msa]

I'm not sure what they mean by the power differences being "only fluff." I'm going to respond, but read this knowing that I wasn't entirely certain or your intent.

Well, you sort of said youself what it would mean. I agree with GP, and it seems from my research that a lot of other far more serious 4e players do as well. What really matters in 4e is your class role, but class is really just flavor. Like you say, the difference between a pally and fighter is that each has slightly different mechanics for playing the defender role. Slight is the key word here: there difference between two classes with the same role is marginal at best.

Whether you like this or not is personal choice. In 3.5 and before, every class was basically a damage dealer or a healer. Those were the only two roles, and the only difference between classes was flavor. The control abilities were extremely limited, often restricted only to casters, and were poorly balanced. To me, this was one of the major weaknesses of pre-4e, and one of the most interesting things about 4e. Yes, the game is, by default, balanced around having a group more than before. But anyone who has every played in a group with no healers in 3.5 knows that's not new. DMs will need to tailor games to their groups makeup, and although this process is now more challenging, it is still completely possible.

As for the role-play argument, I've got to be honest: I don't get it. My best RP experiences come from games with very few rules, and even very few dice. Rules are, in my experience, unrelated to role-playing, and are often a trap that allows you to avoid role-playing through dice. In 3.5, there was nothing preventing this exchange:

DM: you encounter a kobold. He is hostile.
Rogue: I roll diplomacy.... ummm... 13 + 8 = 21.
DM: ok, he is unfriendly now.
Rogue: I ask him to let us pass.
DM: he says 'no'. roll initiative.

That's not role playing. Enforcing role playing has always been up to the players and the DM, and often too many rules get in the way. The simplified skill rules in 4e don't really take much away, and there are ample house rules and PHB2 rules that allow for things like backgrounds and professions to add flavor and unusual skills to a character. You also are no longer forced to divert points away from skills with a defined combat role (tumble, bluff, etc) to take skills with little use outside RP (profession, perform).

The difference between the two versions breaks down as such in my mind. In 3.5, you have maximum flexibility, lots of special rules systems, and limited tactical interest in combat. In 4e, you have highly constrained combat roles, consistent rules for most everything, and highly tactical combat. Do you want a game where the rules will not get in the way of your imagination? Play 3.5. Do you want a game where the rules will not get in the way of gameplay? Then 4e.

I want to be clear again: I am a 3.5 player, and with my serious group always will be. I prefer flexibility, and the cumbersome rules and poor balance are not concerns given the way we play and our level of knowledge. So I'm not advocating for 4e by any means, I just don't necessarily agree with the problems many people state with it.

[Greason Wolfe]

As for the role-play argument, I've got to be honest: I don't get it. My best RP experiences come from games with very few rules, and even very few dice. Rules are, in my experience, unrelated to role-playing, and are often a trap that allows you to avoid role-playing through dice. In 3.5, there was nothing preventing this exchange:

DM: you encounter a kobold. He is hostile.
Rogue: I roll diplomacy.... ummm... 13 + 8 = 21.
DM: ok, he is unfriendly now.
Rogue: I ask him to let us pass.
DM: he says 'no'. roll initiative.

That's not role playing. Enforcing role playing has always been up to the players and the DM, and often too many rules get in the way. The simplified skill rules in 4e don't really take much away, and there are ample house rules and PHB2 rules that allow for things like backgrounds and professions to add flavor and unusual skills to a character. You also are no longer forced to divert points away from skills with a defined combat role (tumble, bluff, etc) to take skills with little use outside RP (profession, perform).

Here, here. That, I think said it very well. I don't know that I would have said that too many rules get in the way. Instead, perhaps, I'd have said that too many "rules lawyers" get in the way. Still, my sentiments almost exactly. Role playing isn't about rolling dice (or roll playing as me and a few others like to call it), it's about letting your imagination loose. I've always likened it to the art of acting, myself.

GW

[beltaurb]

I totally agree with Greason Wolfe, that rules lawyers get in the way. My post up 1 page said that in my own opinion the rule books are great for the combat and skill challenge parts. But as I stated, It takes Players and DM's to Roleplay and not role and play. We seldom use dice except in combat. The books are good for fluff and my comment about them being for combat only was meant to mean that they help best in combat, and that books cannot fully teach one how to roleplay, that takes imagination and a good teacher (DM).

All in all I like 4th edition and it's the only one we use.

Thanks all for allowing me to give my opinion without really attacking. If you've read my Greeting on the Introduction page you would see I said I'm shy so it doesn't take much for me to feel attacked. So going back to lurking, have fun.

[Talroth]

Here, here. That, I think said it very well. I don't know that I would have said that too many rules get in the way. Instead, perhaps, I'd have said that too many "rules lawyers" get in the way. Still, my sentiments almost exactly. Role playing isn't about rolling dice (or roll playing as me and a few others like to call it), it's about letting your imagination loose. I've always likened it to the art of acting, myself.

GW

True, but without the dice you're not really playing anything. Now I'm not saying it is all about the dice, but the dice are still very important in my mind. Without it, how does your character ever fail? I can't see many players going "Oh, well, I've been kicking butt all session, so I think I'm randomly going to take a dive here and let that goblin shank me."

I find the dice forces you to think on your feet far more. It isn't "And I slash the first goblin, then I move and chop the head off the second one. The third I'll kick down that mine shaft, and the forth I'll throw my offhand sword into. The fifth I'll punch out with my free hand while cutting the sixth to ribbons with my sword", you might want to do that, but what if you miss your first goblin? Then you have to think "Well, what does my character do now?"

But of course it is all about proper balance, as doing nothing but dice and having your character as an avatar of stats isn't all that fun either.

[Greason Wolfe]

True, but without the dice you're not really playing anything. Now I'm not saying it is all about the dice, but the dice are still very important in my mind. Without it, how does your character ever fail? I can't see many players going "Oh, well, I've been kicking butt all session, so I think I'm randomly going to take a dive here and let that goblin shank me."

I find the dice forces you to think on your feet far more. It isn't "And I slash the first goblin, then I move and chop the head off the second one. The third I'll kick down that mine shaft, and the forth I'll throw my offhand sword into. The fifth I'll punch out with my free hand while cutting the sixth to ribbons with my sword", you might want to do that, but what if you miss your first goblin? Then you have to think "Well, what does my character do now?"

But of course it is all about proper balance, as doing nothing but dice and having your character as an avatar of stats isn't all that fun either.

Oh, unquestionably. I'm not saying the dice should be thrown out at all. It is just as you said, they force one to think on their feet, so to speak. Admittedly, there are times when it might do well to forget about the dice (say an uber-fighter type against a small group of goblins) or make a single roll to determine the final outcome, but, by the same token, occasional failure (even at uber-levels) can always happen ("Hey, who put that sheet of ice on the floor that I wanted to run across?") All in all, it is most definitely about balance between "role" and "roll" play, and getting a group of players together that understand that balance is, I think, where the foundation of a good session begins.

GW