An observation

[subplotkudzu]

4E has now been out for nearly a week, and so far I have one, count them one, comment from anyone on my Friends list about it - drcpunk's comment on how the book lays flat while reading it and she's happy the 3E faux-notebook visual design is gone. 

Is everyone as ambivalent about this new system as I am? Did anyone even buy it? Where's the love, people? Or the hate, for that matter?

Comments

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

And in so doing likely designed a game in which I have little interest. I'd like to say that's a pity, but it's really not, because I admire and support the idea of the game being designed to support a specific setting and style of play. I think part of my complaint is that with all of the changes it doesn't feel like the D&D I grew up playing.

I felt that 3E got the idea that their game was a mix of encounter based dungeon crawl and social interaction and did a very solid job of providing that and, better still, leaving it open for others to expand on the social aspects in OGL supplements. That was how I played 1E and 2E, and it's no surprise that it's how I play 3E. the carousing in bars burning through our money, the politics of the cities and towns, playing with spells outside the dungeon, cheek by jowl withthe resource management of Vancian magic, dungeon crawls and jungle voyages.

These are all things I have front and center in my Emirikol game, whereas the high-octane, tactical, encounter-based stuff is secondary at best. This system might very well work better for my Russia campaign, which is designed as an up-front dungeon crawl with a historic justification. But not if Minis are required. We aren't mini folk round these parts....

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

And as for minis, absolutely they're required (or seem to be).

Meh.

So how would this system handle, say, a fencing match between two fighter-types?

And what's with the 23 HP for a 1st level Wizard? do attacks do a lot more damage or something?

[mneme]

I think the idea is that a first level wizard should need about as many hits to fall over as a 23rd level wiz -- so the 23hp are supposed to last longer. And, of course, in a way, attacks -do- do a lot more damage at first level; monsters typically have more HP and do less damage than PCs, but a fighter can lead off with their daily if they want, for, say, 6d6+4 damage if it hits (3w with a greataxe).

Fighter vs Fighter fencing -- ignoring the Str vs Dex question (fighters are always Str based; if you want Dex melee attacks, you need a rogue or to make up your own class), it would be a bit sluggy -- fighters are sticky, and good at punishing opponents for moving, but aren't so good at getting away from sticky opponents themselves. So barring special abilities like an Eladrin's teleport, they'd probably go to melee range and stay there.

They avoided twidly options like total defense and attack defensively, so that option's not there. OTOH, they put the options back, to an extent, in the form of powers -- a 1st level non-human fighter (a human would have one more at-will) would have 2 at-wills, which could be cleave (not useful in a duel), reaping strike (does some damage even on a miss; could be interesting), sure strike (does less damage, but hits more often), or tide of iron (must be using a shield (could be a buckler), normal damage + pushes the target if they're not too much larger than you)), one encounter ability (two that just do normal per-encounter damage + work against/with a group; one that does less damage (as much as an at-will) but knocks the target down, one that does normal per-encounter damage and makes the target slowed (only slows movement), plus a daily (3 choices: one does lots of damage and is reliable (only used up if it hits), another reliable one that does per-encounter level damage and lets you spend a healing surge (heal 1/4 your maximum hp, if you have surges left), and one that does per-encounter damage, is -not- reliable -- but gives you +2 to to hit and +4 to damage for the remainder of the combat, and half that if it misses). (normal damage: weapon + stat. Encounter: weapon x 2 + stat. Daily: w * 3 + stat).

So, if it were to first blood, I'd expect whichever fighter had sure strike to have a signficiant advantage, but not an overpowering one (a +2 is a +2). OTOH, if it were to bloodied (and in 4e, bloodied -- half damage -- is an obvious condition that everyone can see), the dailies might come into play--the third one would be hugely telling if it hit, whereas the others -would- eventually hit.

If it's to unconciousness or death, things get interesting -- level 2 would bring in utilities (like one that gives you, 1/day, regen of 2 + your con for as long as you're bloodied). And at that point, potions would be fair game--and in 4e, drinking a healing potion cost a healing surge (so no unlimited potions), but is a minor (=swift) action. So fighters who were locked in combat and down hp could spend their move and minor actions to drink two potions and keep fighting.

For fencers fighters, level 3 would be where things realy got interesting, as it has the first set of per-weapon abilities. Including, for those wielding light blades (like a rapier), armor piercing thrust (str vs -reflex-, 1w, and if you're using a light blade or spear, add dex bonus to to-hit and damage), precise thrust (str+4 vs ac, 1w, hmm. usually not the best option given the others available...except that it's not weapon-restricted), and Rain of blows (make -two- attacks vs AC, but only if you have Dex 15+ and are wielding a light blade, a flail, or a spear).

[mneme]

Personally, I don't think minis are any more needed than they are in 3E. Yes, there are attacks of opportunity, pushing attacks, zones, etc -- but if anything, the areas are typically simpler (AoO is adjacent-only, except for a few monsters that get "threatening reach" because that's their thing, all areas on a battlemap are square, allies don't provide cover to enemies), and you can do the same things with these mechanics you do in 3 -- describe actions relative to other combatants and based on intent, and assume the characters more or less know what they're doing. Also, the fact that the fighter, frex, can do his "thing" without knowing his precise physical location (because once he's marked a foe, he's assumed to be getting in their way regardless of where they go) and the fact that you can't just lay down a giant pile of conjured creatures to clutter up the map probably makes boardless play somewhat simpler, despite all the pushing.

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

Hrm. I've been running 3E (not 3.5) on and off since shortly after it came out and I've never used minis. Nor have I ever really had a major problem. Back when Jonathan Tweet was still writing in A&E he boiled the AoO rules down for me, reducing it to "if you do something that drops your guard, which includes moving more than one pace, people near you get a free swing at you." That was simple, clean and made sense, and has worked for me ever since. The flanking rules are "if you're on opposite sides, the foe is flanked, and you get bonuses" and I assume that all combatants will do what they can to take advantage of that (and defend themselves from it) so a little common sense keeps everyone happy. No Minis required.

I have several aversions to minis - they cost more than I want to spend, they get people focused on a 3'x3' square on the table rather than the tableau in thier head and every time I've played in games that have them I'm seen the characterization and innovation suffer in fight scenes. Your milage may vary, of course, but that's how it seems to me. I just don't have any interest in D&D as a boardgame hybrid. I'll leave that to Battletech (and that might be why i can't get my players interested in a Mechwarrior style game - they don't have any interest in roleplay/boardgame hybrids either).

[mneme]

*nod* And 4e AoO rules are even simpler than 3E ones -- "if you move or attempt a ranged attack while in someone's threat range, you draw an attack of opportunity, but can't draw more than one from the same person, and some movement explicitly doesn't draw (shift, teleportation, forced movement)." That's it, actually; there are no actions other than moving or ranged attack that draw AoO. In some cases, this is because basic actions that used to draw--non-ranged-attack spellcasting, drinking potions, standing up, bull rush, coup de gras, grab (weaker grapple), punch or kick, aid, skill use (including heal)--don't. In others, it's because the action doesn't exist at all as a "standard" action -- disarm, sunder & trip are doable using the new "do anything" rules (basically, ad hoc resolution with a per/level table with difficulties of easy/medium/hard broken out per level), but aren't standard actions any more -- though trip (er, knock prone), certainly, is a not-uncommon power result

Regardless, I think if you can do and prefer 3rd edition without minis, 4th without minis won't be a problem; sure, they refer to distances in terms of squares rather than feet, but you can treat those either as conceptual units (which is, after all, what they are), or multiply by 5 if that's your preference, just like you can treat each round as "6 seconds" or just figure that a round is as long as it needs to be.