Thoughts on 4.0 now that the fervor has died down a bit

[Erk]

The loss of a realistic unit of measurement for in-game situations was probably the very first thing that turned me off about 4e. I mean, reasonable adults wouldn't want a real-world comparison, right?

The conversion of 1 square = 5 feet is still the assumed norm in 4e, it just doesn't pepper the rulebooks with 'feet and inches' measurements. As someone who doesn't use Imperial measurements, I find this in every way an improvement.

 

As to the examples you give here of a supposed broken system, I am not aware of a core ability or feat that allowed adding a full Diplomacy modifier to an attack roll. Sounds like a bad third-party splat book. Likewise, what was a half-orc sorcerer doing taking so many fighter feats? If the DM were worth his salt, balance could easily have been achieved by pressing the half-orc's obvious lack of ability in his chosen class.

My favourite 3e example is the druid. Using core rulebooks only, I have never been able to have a party with a druid remain balanced through standard play, although the other full casters at least keep up. Even poorly built druids were capable of doing everything: in a party with, say, a Rogue, a Fighter, and a Monk - a reasonable party - the druid's capabilities dwarf his companions'. I stopped playing 3e and moved over to BESM when I got sick of trying to keep everything challenging for all players without allowing one or two (druid, cleric, wizard, etc) to make the others seem useless.

 

4e, using the core rulebooks, does not have that problem. In fact, so far with a score of classes and a dozen rulebooks, I'm not aware of any truly broken class/race combos. Even a highly optimised character doesn't leave a nonoptimal one in the dust, and in an 'organic character growth' group like mine, everyone stays around the same power level without any effort. That didn't happen in 3e (it did in 2e mostly), and it's very nice.

 

It would be naive in any case, to think that 4e will somehow be immune to similar bends and breaks and nerfs. No system is immune to tinkering, and considering WoTC's bad history of indulging the worst requests of the loudest and worst elements playing the game, I am sure that by the time 5e shows up, fans of 4e will be voicing all the same complaints about 4e they had when they were "glad" to be rid of 3.5.

3.x came broken right out of the box. So far, as I said, 4e is holding up. If you're not interested in balance, that's cool, but I am... and not because I don't trust my players, but because I like being able to rely on the math of the game to keep them all functioning equally, so that I know that a challenge for Ember the Wizard is also a challenge for Wolf the Ranger and Lance the Paladin, and none of them will cakewalk through or die after one enemy attack, or just sit on the sidelines watching and occasionally complaining about how useless their characters are.

 

To me, this all comes down to the quality of players you sit with. And there will always be enough bad players and unattentive DMs around to break a good game. I've been doing this for 28 years, and no previous system ever seemed so broken to us as to be unplayable or to diminish our fun. The notion of a perfect - or even just superior - system is an illusion broken the minute a single guy gets it in his head to mess with it. After that, it's a matter of flavor and taste.

Fair enough. So why argue? 4e is better to some peoples' tastes: in my case, my taste is to run a balanced game. So far, 4e is. I like knowing at this juncture that if a new book comes out that imbalances the game (or a new feat, such as the expertise ones in phb2) I can just cross them out and keep going, because I have a balanced game right now.

 

Unless you're arguing that the entire optimisation forum on the WotC boards have still failed to find these major exploits? I'm confident that if the CO boards haven't spotted it, my players never will.

[chronoplasm]

The loss of a realistic unit of measurement for in-game situations was probably the very first thing that turned me off about 4e. I mean, reasonable adults wouldn't want a real-world comparison, right?

 

Some people prefer abstraction. I do. That's just personal preference though. I play 4E for gamism and narrativism, not simulationism.

[sethohman]

What Erk said.

 

My Warlord guy moves 6". What is that scaled to? If he is 2" tall, 6" = 18'. Does it matter? Nope - 6" is good enough for me.

[SIGIL]

WTF does DIPLOMACY have to do with a sword stroke?? Answer; Absolutely nothing.

 

Ok out of my system.......

 

Dn't worry Joshua I am working. I take breaks to let my hands and eyes rest for a few minutes.

 

Oi Bryan! Tell Ron to CALL ME! Communication helps to answer the questions. ;)

[yani]

Using " he " or " his " is not an assumption of the reader's gender.

 

Just curious, how does using "she" or "her" pose such a problem then?

 

I, as a female, can sometimes feel alienated in an area that is clearly male-dominated. I don't want to push the gender-inequality button too many times, but it was quite refreshing to see the rule books refer to both genders - i.e. "He is a such-and-such wizard from this place" ... "she would roll the die, add her modifier".. etc.

 

To each their own opinion, sure, but it seems a little illogical to rant over the use of both gender forms in a rule book for a game in which both genders play. Why does it have to be written all in the male verbiage? It doesn't add or detract from anything by using one, the other, or both gender types. Yes, I notice when the paragraph refers to a female player/character, but I also notice when a comic book team has more females than males, or when a co-gender show has a female lead. It's just that little bit from the norm that it's noteworthy, but it doesn't put things at a disadvantage.

 

Just a little curious over the vehement rant from a couple of pages back over the use of female verbiage and where it comes from....

 

 

 

(on an additional note, I personally love the artwork they've given dwarves. They don't look all the same, just different clothes. )

[joshuaslater]

I'll answer that one. It was confusing to me reading 3.0 and 3.5. I love that the games are gender inclusive after so many years of being male dominated, but it's funny how many women were playing in the eighties... anyway, my point was that the books did it in a clumsy fashion. Strictly subjective here, the books read to me like they kept switching back and forth between the male and female every other paragraph. I'm sure I'm wrong, but it just felt awkward, and I wonder if there would have been better ways to do it.

 

So that's my take on gender, stylistically.

 

As for vocabulary, I still feel Hasbro has dummied down the writing in the core books. They don't feel like the ones I grew up with.

[Erk]

I'll answer that one. It was confusing to me reading 3.0 and 3.5. I love that the games are gender inclusive after so many years of being male dominated, but it's funny how many women were playing in the eighties... anyway, my point was that the books did it in a clumsy fashion. Strictly subjective here, the books read to me like they kept switching back and forth between the male and female every other paragraph. I'm sure I'm wrong, but it just felt awkward, and I wonder if there would have been better ways to do it.

IIRC, they typically used a certain gender pronoun for whatever class/character was in the illustration of what they were talking about, but I never paid much attention. As an example of what I mean, the sample Monk was Ember, a female, and all the monk text talked about 'she'. Once I noticed that I stopped really noticing gender pronouns in the text.

 

As for vocabulary, I still feel Hasbro has dummied down the writing in the core books. They don't feel like the ones I grew up with.

That one I agree with. I still prefer the writing style of the 2e books I have.

[joshuaslater]

I'm asking 'cause I haven't read my bootlegs.

 

Is it still Armor Class, or is there a distinction between a loincloth wearing barbarian trading armor for mobility, dodging and parrying, vs. an armored knight, relying on the protection of armor and shield?

 

Next question. Characters and damage. Do characters in 4.0 suffer when they are wounded? I am comparing them to models in Reaper's Warlord and CAV. When they take wounds, they are on a lower damage track, and all their stats suffer accordingly. It's one thing that I like about Reaper's game engine. Savage Worlds has a similar vibe in that wounded characters start to suffer penalties as they get beat up, unless they have Edges to counter that.

[Reaperbryan]

I'm asking 'cause I haven't read my bootlegs.

 

Is it still Armor Class, or is there a distinction between a loincloth wearing barbarian trading armor for mobility, dodging and parrying, vs. an armored knight, relying on the protection of armor and shield?

 

Next question. Characters and damage. Do characters in 4.0 suffer when they are wounded? I am comparing them to models in Reaper's Warlord and CAV. When they take wounds, they are on a lower damage track, and all their stats suffer accordingly. It's one thing that I like about Reaper's game engine. Savage Worlds has a similar vibe in that wounded characters start to suffer penalties as they get beat up, unless they have Edges to counter that.

There are now 4 defenses - Armor, Reflex, Will, and Fortitude. Melee attacks usually attack Armor, although Rogues can attack your Reflex and Some classes have Maneuvers that attack Fortitude. Spells typically attack Will, Ref or Fort. So you *could* build a barbarian with a high Reflex Defense, but be aware that your AC will be attacked better than 50% of the time, if you are a melee fighter. Of course, Dexterity or Int (your choice, the higher of the two) still adds to your AC if you are wearing light or no armor, so a high Reflex Barbarian in light armor (leather, for example) would also have a similarly high AC.

 

Are there penaties? Not really - but when you reach a damage level of 50% of your HP, you become "bloodied". There are many maneuvers, spells, feats, and abilities that trigger off that condition. For example, Tieflings get +1 to all attack rolls against bloodied foes, because they as a race can sense your weakness. Some Monsters have powers that trigger when they become bloodied - Dragon breath goes off when the dragon becomes bloodied, to the extent of interrupting initiative order and allowing the Dragon an immediate breath attack at that instant. There are, of course, more examples.

 

I am unaware of a "you are bloodied, take -1 or -2 to all actions" rule.

[joshuaslater]

Sounds like 4.0 won't be winning me over. I'm glad people are still roleplaying, whatever system they use.

 

For me however, I don't even need a pencil to record the damage in a fight. We use wound markers (Gale Force 9) and other cool ones for various things in the game. I just look at my model with whatever marker is next to it and know what's going on. It's cake. If I have a Shaken marker, indicated by some cool atomic yellow markers I found, for shooting stars/seein' stars, I know what I've got to do next. Wounds, I know what penalty corresponds to each one. Minus one for each wound indicated. SW also has fatigue that can affect characters in exactly the same way. If you've trekked across the desert without water for a day and then fight the baddies, it translates very well to the obstacles the heroes are facing.

 

There's only three wounds per character in Savage Worlds. I don't miss hit points!!

[Reaperbryan]

I'm a big fan of Savage Worlds. It was my favorite system pre-4e. and I'd be hard pressed to call 4e my favorite now, but because it has so many classes and races and tricks I haven't tried yet, it's certainly getting all of my attention these days.

[Erk]

Savage Worlds does sound neat. I'll make a point of checking it out next time I visit my FLGS.

[joshuaslater]

The beauty for me is that 4th edition'll be there if we ever tire of Savage Worlds!! 'Course, we played 3.0/3.5 for a good stretch, so by the time we change, it'll prolly be 5.7 or some such thing.

 

I actually got so bummed out by 3.5 that I quit roleplaying for a long time and just played tabletop games. I'm finding SW to be the greatest merger of tabletop and roleplaying yet.

 

Maybe down the road another game will come along and replace everything, and we'll all be slaves under the Lord of the Rings.....nah, couldn't happen.

[chronoplasm]

For me however, I don't even need a pencil to record the damage in a fight.

 

Me neither. I have little glittery star stickers that I put on the bases of the minis to indicate damage. They peel off pretty easy.

[SOldcorn]

Sounds like 4.0 won't be winning me over. I'm glad people are still roleplaying, whatever system they use.

 

For me however, I don't even need a pencil to record the damage in a fight. We use wound markers (Gale Force 9) and other cool ones for various things in the game. I just look at my model with whatever marker is next to it and know what's going on. It's cake. If I have a Shaken marker, indicated by some cool atomic yellow markers I found, for shooting stars/seein' stars, I know what I've got to do next. Wounds, I know what penalty corresponds to each one. Minus one for each wound indicated. SW also has fatigue that can affect characters in exactly the same way. If you've trekked across the desert without water for a day and then fight the baddies, it translates very well to the obstacles the heroes are facing.

 

There's only three wounds per character in Savage Worlds. I don't miss hit points!!

 

Now while I don't mind savage words as a rule set, what you have just described sounds more like what I expect to see on a warmachine table than an RPG. I am not that keen on figures in RPGs but I know some games, SW and DnD as a couple, need them, but counters. For me that is just something else to spoil the illusion of the fight. Although if you keep the counters if front of you where they are more discreet I would have less of a problem with it.