Reaction to 4E Classic

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
redbeard		#21	[-]
Posts: 8 (03/02/09 17:00:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Mercutio01 wrote: People at RPG.net are skeptical, but unsurprisingly seem unwilling to help. Hey! I wouldn't have come over and registered if not for that thread. You're dissing my home, bud! __________________________________________ Running: 3.5 Playing: 1E AD&D. I'd rather be playing or running either 4E or Castles and Crusades. I guess that makes me an O.A.F. - Old-school Admirer of Fourth edition. But if the group is good, any system can make a good game.
Orcus		#22	[-]
Posts: 5148 (03/02/09 21:41:21) Demon Lord Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Show some love to our RPG.net friends A couple people seem to get what we are doing here. If they (anyone from RPG.net) want to come in and offer comments and ideas, I'd love that. All help appreciated. They, like some others, really like to whack at the magic missile post. I cant find another auto-hit power in 4E wizard or warlock powers. Just how bad is it to make magic missile autohit like the classic version? Hard to say, but worth discussing. The multiple times per encounter thing obviously has to go the way of the dodo bird. That obviously didnt work. I still think some people feel that because this is the site of a publisher that somehow I cant post anyting until it is at least written, edited, re-written, proofed, pdf'd and then posted from a pre-press pdf. EVERYONE starts with spitballing and at the whiteboard (or the blank page, whatever your preference). I just chose to take that conversation public. I think it will improve the process.
redbeard		#23	[-]
Posts: 13 (03/02/09 22:03:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Orcus wrote: I just chose to take that conversation public. I think it will improve the process. Thanks. But as you know, what is posted here will not be a substitute for playtesting. I think Pathfinder went too far with what they've read on their message boards (which, like this board, rpg.net or any other will be a self-selected audience) without enough playtesting. But then, I may just be an rpg.net hater Running: 3.5 Playing: 1E AD&D. I'd rather be playing or running either 4E or Castles and Crusades. I guess that makes me an O.A.F. - Old-school Admirer of Fourth edition. But if the group is good, any system can make a good game.
LibertonPC		#24	[-]
Posts: 5379 (03/03/09 16:25:56) Demonic Debator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I personally want to escape 4e. My 2 seconds of excitement wore off long ago. That's my reaction. I'm interested to read the NG products, but that's about it. *Psychos? Did they look like psychos to you? They were vampires. Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't care how &$#ing crazy they are.**
Elodan		#25	[-]
Posts: 70 (03/04/09 12:25:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Orcus wrote: Now this is an awesome post: ... We saw this problem with 3.X too, were some spells, magic items and character abilities were nearly directly ported from older editions but they simply no longer worked within the paradigm of the game. For example the web spell was the horrible over complex mess that it was in 3.5 because it was trying to hard to be an older edition spell and in older editions the game did not have conditions. If the spell had simply been 'your now suffering from the Entangled condition' for X period of time it'd be a good spell for 3.5. The Helm of Brilliance had the same problem, freaken awful magic item in 3.5 because it basically did not reference the paradigm of the current game. Interestingly enough that item would actually work really well in 4E where making its fireball ability into a daily power along with the rest of the suite of stuff it does would potentially make it a cherished magic item for a Defender, but again, adhering to its exact wording would not be the correct way to bring that item into 4E, instead distill it down to its components and then build it back up within the context of 4E. In truth one of my biggest concerns is that Clark is getting ahead of himself. He's a designer and he's seen some elements he does not like in 4E and nows were he'd like to take the game. All of these are fine and maybe even laudable but I have to wonder just how much he has played 4E - I mean its just not been out that long. I'm certain what he wants to do can be done but a lot of what I have seen from him feels as if its being thrown together without a full understanding of the rules as they are. A lot of the time I'm reminded of the plethora of house rules I put into my game when we converted to to 3.5 from 2nd. I felt I needed to the rules to preserve the look and feel of my longstanding homebrew and in many cases I was probably right...the problem was that I did not really understand the new system and those house rules broke things that had become fundamental to the game with 3.x. Now with my homebrew the fix is not so tough - I change the freaken rule and put up with my players b%#*~ing at me for wrecking their character because they had been using the rules as I made them and now I was jerking the rug out from under their feet. What Clarks doing is putting these into actual rule books - not so easy to simply change when one does finally get a deeper appreciation of the system. I hope he sticks more with adding supplementary stuff early on and moves and gives it some time to understand the games foundations before he makes the move to shifting those foundations because, at this point, I don't believe even design and development over at WotC really knows what they have created. It took years before some of the real paradigmn shifts in 3.x had sunk in. ... Although I'm stoked about this project, I do have to say I share these concerns. I think the fundamental question about this project is, how much affect to the rules have on "feel." I think the answer is going to be the same as the answer to the "what is the 1E feel" question; it's going to vary from person to person. There is a huge paradigm shift in 4E from what's come before. It took me a long time to adjust (I have threads detailing my experiences as a DM and player). I think a lot of the "feel" can be acomplished within the 4E framework. For example, once I looked at hit points and healing surges as vitality and wound points it just made sense (still need to fix the sleep for six hours = all better). Unearthed Arcana alternate type rules will also help (examples, the sleep = all better; the checkerboard). The definition of a fighter is different in 4E than what it used to be and I'm not sure you can shoehorn the old one into the new one. You could try making alternate builds, but I really believe that building alternate classes from the ground up that don't use the powers system will do a better job creating the old classes than trying to tweak the existing classes; especially where 4E reintroduced different rules for creating PCs is different than creating monsters/NPCs. Clark, feel free to ignore this question or PM me, but I'm curious as to how much 4E you've played and what irritations you've found. Large chance of death, small chance of success, what are we waiting for!
Rush Fan.spocksbeard		#26	[-]
Posts: 1 (03/10/09 11:00:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	JRRNeiklot wrote: davrion24 wrote: I actually prefer the classes be unbalanced than the 4e approach. I want the rationales to make sense from the character's point of view, and not be done for the players' POV, which is how I view balancing the classes. Bring back some of the archetypes that the original system had, like the apprentice magic-user. Wizards were weak at low-levels and virtually god-like at high levels. The balancing factor is that very few aspiring archmages would live to make it to such high levels (unless the DM cupcakes the encounters). In a world of wizards and knights, class balance shouldn't be possible, other than each one should be equally fun to play. A fighter shouldn't be able to equal a fireball with any kewl powerz, that's the wizard's schtick. On the other hand, the wizard shouldn't be able to face down a schoolyard bully, at least not without magic. Boy, you guys must be reading my thoughts. I agree.
Orcus		#27	[-]
Posts: 5201 (03/10/09 14:48:26) Demon Lord Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Elodan wrote: Clark, feel free to ignore this question or PM me, but I'm curious as to how much 4E you've played and what irritations you've found. I wouldnt ignore it. I want this kind of feedback. I've played a good bit of 4E. And in fact I am starting up a new 4E campaign when the PHB2 comes out. I tend to agree with you. The presentation of 4E is off-putting, but when you play the game most of the stuff you are used to doing is still there. Combats are more fun, but they take longer. Its like playing 1E with a party full of wizards. You spend each round for every player looking up the rule, like looking up the wizard spell. Sure, some you know after a while (the at-wills, usually). But the dailys I found we were always having to read. They are easy to ajudicate, it just takes logner than "I shoot my bow." I dont like all the jumping around the grid. I dont like the eladrin racial power. I like the idea of more movement in combat, but the switching places and the teleporting and the hard enforcement of the grid was too much. Plus, it all seems combat. I miss the roleplaying. Maybe that is just the fault of the first adventures. I ran the published ones and the Dungeon online adventures. I thought those were all pretty poor--which says Necro needs to make some 1E feel adventures and maybe that is enough. Clark
Orcus		#28	[-]
Posts: 5202 (03/10/09 15:25:31) Demon Lord Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I also felt some of the design choices were forced--every class had to have the near exact same number of powers. That seems like it is taking the idea of balance to an extreme. Heck, even in MMOs classes arent that extreme for "balance." I dont like the "role" for PCs, I do for monsters but not PCs. For example, it doesnt matter if you have a controller, striker, leader, blah blah blah. That isnt how successful parties are made. That might make for a good raid, but not for a successful adventure. You need: 2 PCs for the muscle, 1 PC for the magic, 1 PC for the evil and healing, 1 PC for the tricks and traps. That makes a successful party. On top of that, you want one of your PCs to be valuable in the city and one in the wilderness. That means you usually have a fighter, cleric, mage, rogue and then one extra guy--ranger or druid or paladin or second fighter or bard. A successful party isnt based on roles, it is based on being able to overcome the obstacles that a party normally faces--monsters, traps, magic stuff, hidden secrets, evil, people you have to convince with diplomacy or other interpersonal skills, and you have to deal with travel in the outdoors. If you can do those things, your roles arent really that important. That is the reason the classic party is a fighter, cleric, mage, rogue and then another guy for muscle. 4 isnt enough. I always disagreed with 3E for that, I always designed for 5 or 6 in a party as I think that is the optimum mix. Parties of 7 or more take too long to get around the table to be your turn again and that can get boring. 4 or less just dont cover all the needs--usually lacking muscle. A party with just one front line combat character just isnt good enough. Now that second guy can be a paladin or a combat cleric or a ranger. I always found the best was: fighter, cleric who could fight and heal, wizard, rogue, ranger or paladin, bard or druid (if no ranger). Last Edited By: Orcus 03/10/09 15:30:55. Edited 2 times.
JeffB		#29	[-]
Posts: 356 (03/10/09 15:46:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Judging 4E by piss-poor WOTC adventures is like judging 1E by the railroading piss-poor DL modules or 2E by Terrible Trouble at Tragidore/The Avatar Trilogy. That has not been a strength of WOTC/TSR since around 1982 or 1983 AFAIC. C'mon Clark- you started your own company cos you know all adventures that came post-gygax sucked Try some of the 4E Goodman mods Clark- really good stuff. Founding Father of O.A.F.- Old school Admirers of Fourth edition "Maybe I'm just getting too old to want to have to deal with a heap o' rules and the steaming heap o' rules lawyers who go with them."-Gary Gygax "D&D was meant to be a free-wheeling game, only loosely bound by the parameters of the rules." Tim Kask, Foreword, Eldritch Wizardry 1976
DaveMage		#30	[-]
Posts: 2149 (03/10/09 16:02:52) Wilderlands Pathfinder Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Orcus wrote: That is the reason the classic party is a fighter, cleric, mage, rogue and then another guy for muscle. 4 isnt enough. I always disagreed with 3E for that, I always designed for 5 or 6 in a party as I think that is the optimum mix. I agree on party size - the problem is finding enough players on a consistent basis. The larger the number of players, the harder to coordinate the game when everyone can meet. (At least, after College. In College and before, it's much easier. )
Grummond		#31	[-]
Posts: 60 (03/10/09 20:31:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	FWIW, Necro is offering exactly what I'm looking for. I'm a dedicated 4E DM that hasn't bought a single WotC adventure because the all suck. I believe 4E classic has a hope of living up to everything 4E promised to be. Converted O.A.F. Grummond's First Law: Never let the DM draw the battlemap.
Narfellus.okayyourturn		#32	[-]
Posts: 35 (03/11/09 04:57:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	While i don't believe that the H1 series is total crap (i had a lot of fun running KotS, but i had to spice it up and trim some things out) i do think they could have been better written. Also, a lot of the page count is devoted to large stat blocks and maps, which is something absent more or less from 1e. Back then, you usually had 1 b/w map of the whole complex, and then 1 sentence of condensed stats from the MM. And often a smaller font type too, but maybe i'm wrong about that.
meomwt		#33	[-]
Posts: 1148 (03/15/09 13:13:53) Mighty Eater Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Orcus wrote: I dont like the "role" for PCs, I do for monsters but not PCs. For example, it doesnt matter if you have a controller, striker, leader, blah blah blah. That isnt how successful parties are made. That might make for a good raid, but not for a successful adventure. You need: 2 PCs for the muscle, 1 PC for the magic, 1 PC for the evil and healing, 1 PC for the tricks and traps. That makes a successful party. On top of that, you want one of your PCs to be valuable in the city and one in the wilderness. That means you usually have a fighter, cleric, mage, rogue and then one extra guy--ranger or druid or paladin or second fighter or bard. A successful party isnt based on roles, it is based on being able to overcome the obstacles that a party normally faces--monsters, traps, magic stuff, hidden secrets, evil, people you have to convince with diplomacy or other interpersonal skills, and you have to deal with travel in the outdoors. If you can do those things, your roles arent really that important. That's one of the core parts of 4E I don't like: the character "roles" are defined by their ability in combat. No, no, no. Combat is only one part of RP - information gathering, wilderness survival, trap foiling, house-breaking, arcane knowledge, divine intervention: all of these things make up a role-playing game. There's a post over on ENWorld, by one of the vangiard of 4E, bemoaning the over-emphasis of combat in Pyramid of Shadows. 4E seems to be combat all the way. Though I haven't played 4E so I can't comment on how it all pans out. It's just my impression from seeing some products. Orcus wrote: Meomwt is a cool guy. ----------------------------------- Accuracy is our watchwurd.
redbeard		#34	[-]
Posts: 54 (03/15/09 14:52:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	meomwt wrote: That's one of the core parts of 4E I don't like: the character "roles" are defined by their ability in combat. No, no, no. Combat is only one part of RP - information gathering, wilderness survival, trap foiling, house-breaking, arcane knowledge, divine intervention: all of these things make up a role-playing game. Please look up skill challenges in the 4E DMG. Or read as far as Page 9 in the players handbook: Encounters come in two types. ✦ Combat encounters are battles against nefarious foes. In a combat encounter, characters and monsters take turns attacking until one side or the other is defeated. ✦ Noncombat encounters include deadly traps, difficult puzzles, and other obstacles to overcome. Sometimes you overcome noncombat encounters by using your character's skills, sometimes you can defeat them with clever uses of magic, and sometimes you have to puzzle them out with nothing but your wits. Noncombat encounters also include social interactions, such as attempts to persuade, bargain with, or obtain information from a nonplayer character (NPC) controlled by the DM. Whenever you decide that your character wants to talk to a person or monster, it's a noncombat encounter. True, character roles are their roles in combat, but the rest of the book is quite clear that combat is not the only activity. Imagine a 3.x fighter in a social encounter. The 4E is much more versatile in a social skill challenge. meomwt wrote: 4E seems to be combat all the way. Though I haven't played 4E so I can't comment on how it all pans out. It's just my impression from seeing some products. Those two qualities of not having played 4E and feeling that it is all combat seem to coincide an awful lot. Sorry for the snark. I am sick of edition wars. Running: 3.5 Playing: 1E AD&D. I'd rather be playing or running either 4E or Castles and Crusades. I guess that makes me an O.A.F. - Old-school Admirer of Fourth edition. But if the group is good, any system can make a good game.
meomwt		#35	[-]
Posts: 1150 (03/16/09 00:36:04) Mighty Eater Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I'm not trying to start an Edition War - if you look for some of my other posts on 4E, you'll find that I think there are some good things in there. However, a 1E character is not defined by a combat role: assassins are sneaky killers for hire, priests are conduits of faith for their deity (which means spiritual guidance for the laity) and wizards are learned men who study arcana and cast spells. These roles do not depend on being a Martial Striker or a Divine Controller. Perhaps it is a fault of the 4E adventures I've seen - admittedly, all WotC originated - whic make it seem that the game is combat oriented. In which case, it may be the products which meed to be changed and not the system. Orcus wrote: Meomwt is a cool guy. ----------------------------------- Accuracy is our watchwurd.
Narfellus.okayyourturn		#36	[-]
Posts: 41 (03/16/09 07:26:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	meomwt wrote: Perhaps it is a fault of the 4E adventures I've seen - admittedly, all WotC originated - whic make it seem that the game is combat oriented. In which case, it may be the products which meed to be changed and not the system. I'm currently adapting a 1e Dungeon adventure to 4e. It is taking much longer than expected, mostly because combat is longer and the battleboards are all laid out, but there is a degree of tactical fun that we really enjoy in those detailed combats. But it still includes roleplaying, investigating, disabling traps, and coming up with solutions on the fly that have always been the hallmark of D&D. There are some very notable changes, namely that the PCs don't have access to fireballs and flying like they would have in the past, but i don't think that makes it any less fun, just different (well, maybe slightly less fun; i miss old school magic!). When i ran KotS i had to cut some combat encounters and add some weird roleplaying encounters because, yes, it was slanted heavily toward combat.
Puggs		#37	[-]
Posts: 39 (03/16/09 07:48:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There are two factors at work here that make things far better than what they appear, in my opinion. (1) Every edition previous to 4e also had roles, they just weren't defined as such. (2) Roles in 4e are fairly blurry once you get past the class features. In 1e, most classes had a definitive role in combat that didn't vary all that much. Fighters, Rangers, Paladins: Defenders. Clerics, Druids: Leaders Wizards, monks: Strikers, Minor Controllers Illusionists: Controllers Thieves, Assassins: Strikers, sorta Of course, these roles were never stated anywhere near as bluntly as they are in 4e. But you never saw a thief that would stand in the frontline taking damage intentionally. Fighters, Rangers and Paladins simply couldn't match the damage output of a wizard or a backstabbing thief. In other words, roles were already in place, they were merely implicit instead of explicit. Most classes in 4e, meanwhile, do have quite a bit of variation. Clerics can become pretty good strikers if they forsake healing. Fighters can put up pretty good damage if they don't go with a shield and invest in a slew of defensive powers. Warlocks can function fairly well as minor controllers if you pick the correct powers. What it comes down to is, in my opinion, a case of emphasis rather than content. Take away the titles and I doubt you'd see much of an issue, with a couple of exceptions- the paladin and swordmage class features being the notable exceptions, in my book.
Ifuritasfan		#38	[-]
Posts: 328 (03/17/09 10:51:11) Ghast Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Puggs, I think that your classification of 1st edition characters into 4th edition roles is actually kinda shallow because it only views their roles in terms of one note of combat. When I say "One note" what I mean is this... you're defining combat to be basically straight forward head to head combat. It's combat at its most basic. But if 20+ years of D&D have taught me one thing, it's that only newbies or people that have let the enemy dictate the field of combat use that sort of combat. In 1st edition Fighters filled many roles. In early levels, where a fighter's pure striking power and better to hit rolls made them the kings of combat. They nearly never filled the role of defender. They were pure assault with mages serving as flank support and rear guards. Clerics saw double duty as both support and auxilary assault specialists (They had 2nd best combat capabilities to fighters) and thieves served as defenders of the mages, and as flanking forces, As levels advanced, fighters took on more of a coup de gras role, The Mages would soften the enemy up from range while fighters would lob missile fire on opponents, and then if close combat took place the fighters would charge in and break the morale of the weakened enemy forces... as would thieves... while clerics served in a defensive capacity and as a 2nd wave of shock in combat. As levels kept going up, roles kept changing. Fighters became less a sort of shock troop, and gravitiated toward defensive roles of the spellcasters. However it all depended on who and what you faced. For Magic resistant monsters, Fighters took a lead role in trying to tie up the monster while clerics and mages worked on buffing the fighters so that they could fight the monsters that more or less left the spell casters impotent. In 4e however, fighters serve the same role from level 1 to level 21, as do most of the other classes. In some people's opinion this "static" role is perferable. To me I find it too restrictive. It's my opinion that 1st edition was far more open ended about the role of characters in the party. But that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Puggs		#39	[-]
Posts: 41 (03/17/09 12:19:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	GAH. Just had a two page reply eaten. lfuritasfan, let me sum up what I was trying to convey in much shorter form: (1) My intent in classifying each 1e class to a "role" was an effort to show just how inconsequential roles can be. A fighter in 1e COULD have been a defender his entire career, but he didn't have to be. (2) Contrary to the perception you hold, role is no more important in 4e than it was in 1e. You can make a damage-dealing fighter that can keep up with the striker classes. Clerics and rogues can shield more squishy people behind them if you build them for that job. You'll never have a fighter that can act as a combat healer, but you couldn't do that in 1e either. (3) If you still want to hold to the "role" mentality (which is essentially an abstraction used to help newcomers quickly get used to their characters) then I'll make the argument that role is quite fluid. A barbarian fighter that swung his Zweihander at 1st level for boatloads of damage can choose to put down his sword, heft a shield and become an excellent bastion of defense within a couple levels. If anything, role is more fluid in 4e than in 1e, because most "roles" that any one class can take are usually effective throughout the entire range of levels. In even shorter form, roles are for the most part an abstract concept meant more as a learning tool than as a character limiter. A couple of class mechanics are rather ham-handedly handled in order to allow a class to fill a certain "role" (divine challenge and swordmage aegises in particular), and even those aren't so horrible. Classic 4e can completely toss away the entire concept of role, since it is clearly not meant as a beginner's product. Including them wouldn't change much- if anything- in terms of mechanics, though.
Orcus		#40	[-]
Posts: 5214 (03/17/09 22:49:55) Demon Lord Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	redbeard wrote: Those two qualities of not having played 4E and feeling that it is all combat seem to coincide an awful lot. Sorry for the snark. I am sick of edition wars. Redbeard, I dont think its an edition wars thing. We are discussing in this forum what parts of 4E need some addressing. Why is there this disconnect for older edition players with 4E. I've played 4E quite a bit and I am starting a new campaign either this weekend or next. I dont think it is unfair to say that 4E defines things in large part by how things play out on the battle mat. Yes, that includes skill challenges. But moreso, in my view, combat. I think the ranger not even having a tracking bonus (or many other examples) really shows what I mean. Now, when you look under the hood of 4E does it still work? Yes. But its this way 4E has of defining things that is off-putting to older edition players. We cant decide what needs to be addressed without discussing this. So I dont think its edition wars. Its just addressing an issue--what is it about 4E (good or bad) that causes this disconnect. And I think this "defined by what you do on the battlemat" phliosophy is a sound comment. That said, I dont want to discourage you. You have offered a ton of great insight here. Please keep it up!

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Reaction to 4E Classic

Quick Reply