These will kinda be stream of consciousness and not heavy analysis-laden, just my thoughts fresh from the table.
* Fun (but anything I do with Jason, Jim, Eppy, Matt and Saif is so this was a given)
* Mechanical fun – I did enjoy the abilities I had and the powers I could use at any given time (when I hit, that is. We were rolling like shit all night!)
* not any more or less complex than D&D 3.5, complexities are just shifted around.
* some things that used to be feats are now common to everyone (Precise shot no longer needed to shoot into melee without penalty)
* some things that were common to everyone are now feats or different rules that apply for limited conditions (no 1.5 times strength bonus for 2 handed weapons)
* Some base combat rules were just changed around and were ok (Charging adds +1 to hit only but you suffer no AC loss)
* level 1 characters are way more meaty in that there are lots of things to do to choose from. No longer is it “swing swing swing dead next” or “cast my 1 spell and wait for the fighters to clean up”
* minis are 100% needed in all cases of combat. Period. This is a mini combat game above all else.
* Clerics can both fight and heal simultaneously and easily
* Going into negative hit points was not really that worrisome as a result of the above. My character went into negative hit points in 2 different fights but at the end of each fight I was healed to full or near full hp without much effort from Matt’s cleric.
* The term “getting aggro” was used and not as a joke. My paladin and Jim’s fighter used powers to “mark” our targets and “hold aggro” on them so they fought no one else but us. I like this mechanic but it distanced me from D&D and brought me closer to World of Warcraft.
* Skill challenges system was used once. We were already talking about “playstorming” new methods for implementing it so I am not holding out any hope that D&D 4 did anything revolutionary with it and using it as is (even with the errata) might not be the best course of action.
* Tactics tactics tactics. Forcing your enemies to move around and moving yourself is crucial. Positioning is everything. Its easier to move in D&D 4. Again, this is more of a mini tactics game than ever before.
* I like the different attack roll “sources”. INT vs. WILL defense and DEX vs. AC or Reflex Defense. Helps to define the nature of the attacks better.
* To me, it’s missing the flavor and feel of D&D. I guess nostalgia weighs more heavily for me in this whole test than I thought. It feels like some other fantasy game. More like the Warhammer Fantasy mini game than D&D. D&D 3.5 was no slouch in the combat emphasis, let me assure you I am under no illusions about that. I guess D&D 4 embraced its tactical mini nature fully, and makes no apologies for it. It leaves behind the small bits that kept D&D 3.5 a Roleplaying Game and not a Wargame.
10 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
I agree with a lot of that. I also felt that the game was more wargame-oriented but I wonder of part of that is because we all just kind of jumped into the fighting (and Jason helped with that!) because we wanted to test the combat, first and foremost. I wonder if that will balance out a bit if we keep going.
Overall , THE GOOD:
- Gaming with you guys. Super amounts of fun, despite the nasty drawings.
-Combat takes just as long at this level, but that’s because everyone is acting a lot, instead of one or two players getting multiple attacks.
- Cleric’s heal when they hit things! I cannot stress that enough.
- There is no ‘I’ in ‘team’. Combat keeps everyone’s heads in the game, because we need to rely on each other’s powers. It’s harder to zone out, and that’s a good thing.
- Minis are necessary, but minis are fun. Also I think they were pretty darn necessary in 3.5.
- The roles (which I thought I’d dislike) really clarify things and make it easier to achieve the potential of each class (at least the ones at our table last night. I’m still curious about how the Warlord-instead-of-Cleric party works)
- MONSTER TACTICS AND VARIETY! Shifting little goblins. Hobgoblin shield walls. I love it.
The BAD:
- I do feel like the classes are all about combat and our out of combat options are either reduced or I just haven’t really explored them yet. The game loses a lot of flavor for me if it’s just one combat encounter to another combat encounter(although Jason did a good job with the role-playing bits in-between). Maybe the Skill Checks and Rituals will help to alleviate this problem.
The MAYBE:
- Skill checks. Real fuzzy still.
- Still wrapping my head around the lethality of the fights. After each encounter, it felt kind of breezy because most everyone was near full hp despite having fallen once or twice. But the reality was that by the end of both fights I was out of healing. If they’d gone on much longer we’d have been in a world of potential trouble. So it’s either perfectly balanced or something’s missing . . .
- It did feel different, but that’s because it was. So far there is still enough there for me to feel nostalgic about, maybe even more nostalgic. But yes, it’s a different game.
Technically, we had two skill challenges, although that second one wasn’t what you’d really call a challenge.
My thoughts are pretty similar to those above here, so let me play Devil’s Advocate a bit to get some discussion going: Rob, can you put your finger on what parts of 3.5 that make it feel like a role-playing game that don’t exist in 4e? Is it more skills? More spells?
My turn for random thoughts! Though I agree with most of what has already been said.
- I had fun!
- Regarding this being more of a war game, I feel like 3.5 combat was also very war-game-oriented and mini-centric. Comparing just combat to combat between the two systems, there wasn’t that much going on in 3.5 combat that made me say “this feels more like a roleplaying game”. The difference is that 4E is more tactical and gives you more to do, which I’m very happy about. On the other hand, I was once turned into a cloud of gas to escape a giant snake’s constriction in 3.5, and that did feel more like a roleplaying game than a war game, and I don’t know if that can still happen in 4E. So there’s truth to both sides of that coin.
- My comment about terrain last night came out a little confused, partially because I’m not exactly sure what I was trying to say. One thing I’ve learned about wargames from playing Warhammer 40K is that TERRAIN REALLY CHANGES THINGS. You can have a strategy all worked out in your head, but then you get to the table and see the terrain set up and say “Fuck, what do I do now?”. So one thing I enjoyed about the fight in the crypt is that it allowed us to focus on our raw tactics with no terrain interference. But I am very excited about learning how to use terrain to our advantage and work that into our tactics.
- Agreeing with Matt: Monster tactics and powers are super cool. Though here’s an interesting thought: the hobgoblin phalanx thing would not have been so fun if herzy hadn’t made us aware of it. 4E seems like a more meta-knowledge-oriented game. I posted the other day about how I think the DM needs to play his monsters smart even if they’re supposed to be dumb. On a related note, I think the players should get a hint about something like the hobgoblin phalanx even though the characters wouldn’t know. It could be an in-game hint like “You notice that when the hobgoblins stand next to each other they form a wall of defense, as if they’ve been trained in formation fighting”.
That’s all I got for now.
I feel like in the majority of role-playing games, the GM is basically the arbiter of the characters’ knowledge of the world. It’s so important (in my mind) that the players need to know when certain actions fail/succeed and why they do. I try to keep that mind when I run 3.5 too. Things like damage reduction, fast healing, resistances and whatnot. And your right that it doesn’t have to be a metagaming thing. The characters themselves should be able to note that the hobgoblins are basically good in a phalanx.
I may have been too excited about the new powers last night and blurted out the monsters’ stats.
[Rob, can you put your finger on what parts of 3.5 that make it feel like a role-playing game that don’t exist in 4e? Is it more skills? More spells?]
Yes. The use of skills I think is something of note. I like the way Saga Edition Star Wars does it the most, actually. Skills have multiple in game and possibly in combat uses and can be used creatively. In D&D 4 it seems like they are used just to break up the fight scenes (save for bluffing to feint or intimidating to make someone surrender).
Items. The 4e items just support your combat/tactical powers. They don’t let you do anything unique or different nor can they be used in a new way. I can’t think outside of the box with them – case in point would be those spiderclimb slippers. A ranged fighter (or scout! Oooh!) could plant himself on the ceiling and go to town with the 3.5 edition slippers, not so with the 4e ones.(once a day you can have a climb speed for ONE move action. LAME!). New tactics and 3-d fights! A 3.5 ring of freedom of movement? Oh man I can’t WAIT for Diggle to cast Evard’s Black Tentacles and have Gareth stand right in the middle of it carving enemies to pieces, unharmed by the grasping tentacles! New and cool teamwork! Diggle and Gareth, Magic and Steel, they fight crime!
Spells. Absolutely. Just like Jim said, gaseous form? What a great use of a spell that people usually overlook. The bard spell that allowed Eppy’s bard to hand over the grappled halfling? Can’t happen in 4e. Many spells can be used in new and different ways in D&D 3.5. 4e’s spell use is limited to only damage or debuffing and only to support your role in combat and your abilities. Baleful polymorph? Gone. Magic jar? nope. Animate rope/plants/items? No siree. And some of the awesome non damaging spells that were super useful like Silence and Hold Person are gone or rituals. ugh and silence is just for anti eaves-dropping. How insulting. A once valued spell reduced to an anti-gossip field!. Detect thoughts, adieu. All of these spells let you do some pretty cool non damaging things. No longer.
Don’t get me wrong. Roleplaying happens in D&D 4. It just seems that 3.5’s spells, feats, and items lend themselves more to imaginative/roleplaying use than D&D 4’s does. I can’t think of a cool or new use for an “implement” or their silence ritual. But the Silence spell? I can center it on a pebble and have the rogue sneak into the room with the cabal of mages and have him throw it into the corner and POW! those evil bastards are silenced.. then the rest of the party comes in and slaps them silly! Or maybe I can cast it on the fighter and have him or her be a silent agent of mage-doom.
Maybe we can use hold person and silence to take the evil mage with only vocal component spells out of the fight. Maybe I can make the rogue a guard assasination machine so he can silently destroy the sentinels outside of a keep without anyone becoming aware! Maybe We can pass through an area where there is a siren singing unharmed because her lilting voice has been silenced and cannot draw us to our doom! Wooo! Imagination is awesome! D&D 4 sucks out a lot of the power of my imagination.
Rob’s point about the spells and items is a very good one, and it’s something that I dearly hope they fix in 4E. I will miss the Gaseous Form and the tactical creativity that goes along with it.
But to use the above example, while it would be super cool to have Gareth using a ring of free action in the middle of Evard’s Black Tentacles, in 3.5 the encounter would go something like this:
Diggle – ” I cast Evard’s Black Tentacles.”
Gareth – “Cool! I use my ring of free action to move into the middle and attack.”
Gareth – ” Here’s my first attack . . . I hit! Here’s my damage . . . . ”
Gareth – “Here’s my second attack . . . . I hit! Here’s my damage . . . .”
Gareth – “Here’s my third attack . . . . I hit! Here’s my damage . . . .”
Gareth – ” Here’s my fourth attack . . . I hit! Here’s my damage . . . .”
Gareth – ” Here’s my fifth attack . . . . I hit! Here’s my damage . . . ”
Diggle – “Should I cast magic missle? Oh, wait it’s the beginning of your multiple attacks, Deckard. Sorry. I’ll just flip the my spellbook for a while longer . . . .”
And I don’ think that the above is an exaggeration. For me the 3.5 combat is just plain broken. But the little flourishes like Gaseous Form make it a still-fun game to play. I think that 4E went to great lengths to correct one problem and perhaps they went a little too far in that direction.
you left out a part:
Diggle – ” I cast Evard’s Black Tentacles.”
Jason – “OK roll to grapple all the creatures in the area
Diggle – ” Here’s my 1st attack . . . Grappled! Here’s my damage . . . . ”
Diggle – ” Here’s my 2nd attack . . . Grappled! Here’s my damage . . . . ”
Diggle – ” Here’s my 3rd attack . . . Grappled! Here’s my damage . . . . ”
Diggle – ” Here’s my 4th attack . . . Grappled! Here’s my damage . . . . ”
Diggle – ” Here’s my 5th attack . . . Grappled! Here’s my damage . . . . ”
Gareth – “Cool! I use my ring of free action to move into the middle and attack.”
Gareth – ” Here’s my first attack . . . I hit! Here’s my damage . . . . ”
Gareth – “Here’s my second attack . . . . I hit! Here’s my damage . . . .”
Gareth – “Here’s my third attack . . . . I hit! Here’s my damage . . . .”
Gareth – ” Here’s my fourth attack . . . I hit! Here’s my damage . . . .”
Gareth – ” Here’s my fifth attack . . . . I hit! Here’s my damage . . . ”
I saw you pull out the tiny violin and play it but then I smashed it.
Touche, Sir! Well-played! Too bad I have a whole shop full of shiny little violins!
But you get the general idea. Combat slows to a grind in 3.5 for certain classes, but not for others. And for Sorcerers and other spell casters combat is more about resource management and less about action. The ratio of combat action per player is much more balanced in 4E – everyone has some resource management to contend with in their daily powers but you can be assured that after the fight you’ll get most of your good stuff back. Now if Pathfinder, or future 4E books (or any other system for that matter) can fix the balance issue, keep combat interesting AND keep the cool little stuff like Gaseous Form then I’ll be a believer.
[Combat slows to a grind in 3.5 for certain classes, but not for others. And for Sorcerers and other spell casters combat is more about resource management and less about action.]
True! Now we all have resources to manage and action.. but at what cost? Food for thought it is…
we’ll see how pathfinder does it and compare. Hopefully it will be fun too.
Regarding the subject of how to tell players about monster abilities/powers (the options being: tell them explicitly how the power/ability works, hint at how i works via the in-game fiction, or not at all), I just read in the DMG that it recommends explaining it in-game as part of the fiction AND explicitly. The example it gives is telling the players “the heat emenating from the pit Fiend is intense even from this distance. You know that getting within 5 squares of it will burn you”.
I like this approach because, as I mentioned in my previous post, tactical abilities that the monsters have only really make the game more fun for the players if they know exactly how they work.