Initial Thoughts: D&D 4th Edition

[Argonnite]

2) Diagonal meaaurements still only cost 1 point per square.  A 30 foot (oh wait, 6 square) circle (sphere) looks a lot like a square (cube) on the map.

I like this.  Now I don't have to carry around my stupid metal templates.  One encounter I ran had 3 cloudkills from the bad guys and 2 from the PCs.  I told the druid, "You better not be thinking about casting Entangle."

4) You add 1/2 level to EVERYTHING.  Every even level you need to update EVERY SINGLE entry on the fricking character sheet.  Annoying.  And...

I like this change too.  It means I don't have to write down as many derived stats on my sheet and can just calculate on the fly.  I still don't think anything in 4.0 will approach the bookkeeping headache of a 3.5 fighter going around with a power attack spreadsheet also taking into account possible Bull's Strength and enlargement.

[Krensky]

6) Even tables, barstools and chandeliers level up with you.  A first level character has a lower DC to swing from a chandelier, vault over a bar counter or flip a table over his companions head to provide cover than the 10th level guy.  You can never really get better at these things without getting a trained skill or focus.

That has to be about the dumbest thing (leveling inanimate objects) I've seen for a RPG since the Cyberknight (from RIFTS).

Heh.  Reminds me of the DCs as a function of TLs in many LSPY modules.

Some things should scale: Security measures, defusing a bomb, analyzing a photo. Others, like jumping onto a table or running across a slippery bridge shouldn't necessarily. I understand why 4e has all of these things scale with level (so the math is always consistent, which means a +1 is always worth the same 5%), but I don't agree with it in all places. Skills is one of them.

[Bill Whitmore]

6) Even tables, barstools and chandeliers level up with you.  A first level character has a lower DC to swing from a chandelier, vault over a bar counter or flip a table over his companions head to provide cover than the 10th level guy.  You can never really get better at these things without getting a trained skill or focus.

That has to be about the dumbest thing (leveling inanimate objects) I've seen for a RPG since the Cyberknight (from RIFTS).

Heh.  Reminds me of the DCs as a function of TLs in many LSPY modules.

Never cared much for those either and I was always glad it was limited to LSPY.

Whenever I adapted a Living Spycraft module for home use, they were the first thing to go, replaced with whatever rules would normally apply for the situation.  When the LSPY module listed a Canvas Area DC as 15 + TL, in my game it was nixed and replaced with the Canvas Area rules in the book under Investigation using DCs based on area covered.

It is also why I was glad to hear that Fantasy Craft has mechanics to bypass some of the Threat Levels on creatures.  I really don't want a party that thinks they have a shot at killing everything in the world because even that Great Wyrm is only TL 1 because they are all first level characters.

But to put some concrete numbers behind the skill DC gripe, imagine the following situation:

Group of level 3 characters is entering a dungeon.  To reach the dungeon, they need to bypass a 20 foot ravine.  After bandying about for a bit, they decided to grapple an overhanging ledge and swing across.  DM likes the idea, and doesn't want to kill his whole group so he makes it an easy athletics roll.  42 of the DMG lists easy rolls for 3rd level characters as 10, but you add 5 because it is based on a skill roll, so the final DC is 15.  Taking other precautions (like secondary ropes to limit falling to your death) they eventually make it across.

While in the dungeon, they gain 2 levels, and half a week later they make their way out of the place.  They get back to the same ravine and prep to swing back.  Now the base DC is 13, plus 5 for being a skill, so the new DC is 18 (instead of 15).  Having gained 2 levels, the PCs add 1 more to all of their skill checks.  This means that, barring the use of a feat to gain training or focus Athletics, I need a D20 die result of 2 more than I needed before because I gained 2 levels.

So now, DOING THE EXACT SAME TASK 2 LEVELS LATER, I am more prone to failure.

*shrug* whatevah

[Bill Whitmore]

2) Diagonal meaaurements still only cost 1 point per square.  A 30 foot (oh wait, 6 square) circle (sphere) looks a lot like a square (cube) on the map.

I like this.  Now I don't have to carry around my stupid metal templates.  One encounter I ran had 3 cloudkills from the bad guys and 2 from the PCs.  I told the druid, "You better not be thinking about casting Entangle."

4) You add 1/2 level to EVERYTHING.  Every even level you need to update EVERY SINGLE entry on the fricking character sheet.  Annoying.  And...

I like this change too.  It means I don't have to write down as many derived stats on my sheet and can just calculate on the fly.  I still don't think anything in 4.0 will approach the bookkeeping headache of a 3.5 fighter going around with a power attack spreadsheet also taking into account possible Bull's Strength and enlargement.

Never needed templates before, just had to remember the second diagonal covers 10 feet instead of 5.  It wasn't hard to do and if 4e said every second diagonal counts as 2 squares, it wouldn't bug me either.

The power attack spreadsheet wasn't any more complicated than the wizards or clerics spell sheets.  As a fighter it gave me something else to decide every round than which guy to attack, I had to assess the difficulty of the target based on equipment he was using and previous attacks I had made (since our GC didn't give us exact ACs).

I DO like that the calculations are simple enough to make on the fly, I DON'T like that the calculated numbers really don't mean anything to what my character can do.

Now, I don't hold up 3.5 as the holy grail of perfect gaming.  It has a lot of problems too that need a solution, but 4th edition isn't it.

[Wolverine]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I like 4.0's take on Skills... in terms of DnD. Back in 3/3.5 they weren't really that big a thing. Well, they were, but most classes didn't get nearly enough points to take the ones they needed (unless you were a human with decent Int). I remember playing Fighters who needed help doing most everything because he only had Int 10.

Now that you just pick of a number of skills from a considerably shortened list it seems a lot easier to be skilled in a variety of areas. I'm sure Fighters will still be gimped, though.

[Argonnite]

Never needed templates before, just had to remember the second diagonal covers 10 feet instead of 5.  It wasn't hard to do and if 4e said every second diagonal counts as 2 squares, it wouldn't bug me either.

The power attack spreadsheet wasn't any more complicated than the wizards or clerics spell sheets.  As a fighter it gave me something else to decide every round than which guy to attack, I had to assess the difficulty of the target based on equipment he was using and previous attacks I had made (since our GC didn't give us exact ACs).

I DO like that the calculations are simple enough to make on the fly, I DON'T like that the calculated numbers really don't mean anything to what my character can do.

Now, I don't hold up 3.5 as the holy grail of perfect gaming.  It has a lot of problems too that need a solution, but 4th edition isn't it.

Templates and power attack calculations were always pet peeves of mine.  The cloudkills in that extreme example move.  Also not having the templates bog down play in less extreme encounters because they come on, come off (via dispel or other effects), move, etc.  Sure, I got good at drawing templates out, but it's still slow when you have a PC group who had just used their 5 tan Bags of Tricks and cast animal growth on all of them itching to hit the bad guys with cloudkills, murderous mists, and entangles.

The wizards and clerics in my games would nod off while the fighter figured out his power attacks.  The effort for wizards and clerics would be front-loaded when they decided what spells to prepare for the day; not so for the fighters.  If I were at a table where I knew the fighter's math skills weren't top notch I would be in for a painful session.  I've played with many different fighters at different conventions.  One time a player with a Professional Engineer license brought his power attack spreadsheet printout and told me, "Don't enlarge me; I didn't do that math."

[Psion]

2) Diagonal meaaurements still only cost 1 point per square.  A 30 foot (oh wait, 6 square) circle (sphere) looks a lot like a square (cube) on the map.

I like this.

I hate it. I don't need geometrical fantasy with my gaming fantasy.

[Argonnite]

2) Diagonal meaaurements still only cost 1 point per square.  A 30 foot (oh wait, 6 square) circle (sphere) looks a lot like a square (cube) on the map.

I like this.

I hate it. I don't need geometrical fantasy with my gaming fantasy.

I don't understand this comment.  To me this 4th edition method is more geometry-less and more abstract, kind of a throwback to 1st or 2nd edition where players only cared about ranges and rough compass directions.  I GM Shadowrun without a map or grid, but when I deal with ranges they're effectively a square, not some approximation of a circle or sphere.

[Psion]

I hate it. I don't need geometrical fantasy with my gaming fantasy.

I don't understand this comment.  To me this 4th edition method is more geometry-less and more abstract, kind of a throwback to 1st or 2nd edition where players only cared about ranges and rough compass directions.

As I recall, 1e/2e:
1) tolerated use of hex grids, and/or
2) 1e had scales in inches, and expected players to measure their movements and didn't require a grid. Further,
3) when it comes to geometry, the games weren't more abstract. If you fireballed in a room too small for it, the periphery of the blast expanded until it filled the whole 33,000 cubic feet that the fireball was supposed to fill!

Not that I want to go back to #3, just sayin... I'm enough of a simulationist that I want the game to represent fireballs as spheres, etc. I never had any problem with the old diagonal rule and find the price the game pays to cater to those few who have problems with this too dear in terms of my suspension of disbelief.

I don't want more abstract. As it stands, 3e was already too abstract and I was already house ruling to make some more abstract elements more believable.

[Argonnite]

I guess my friends and I were just ghetto 1st edition players then.  The most detailed measurement or geometry we ever did was just using graph paper, and that was just for mapping purposes so we could remember how to exit the dungeon.  No one wanted to get stuck with mapping duty.  Combat was very abstract.  There was a marching order and declarations of relative distances and directions between each other and the bad guy.  I've been in Spycraft sessions run just as abstractly.  I try to sample as many other RPG systems at conventions and most of them, especially the so-called Indie games, tend to be even more abstract.  Regardless, I almost always had fun (except when it comes to the Hero System whose loyal followers are too curmudgeonly for me).
 

[dpmcalister]

I'm about two-thirds of the way through the PHB (my wife bought it for me on Saturday as a surprise). I'm not impressed though, everything seems to be the same. Two different feats that serve the, basic, same purpose (one for the rogue's sneak attack and the other for the ranger's quarry hunt (I think that's what it's called))? Why not just have one feat and say it can only apply to one of those abilities (as Weapon Focus does) and then have space for another, new, feat? That's just one example.

The main thing that gets me is, I'm two-thirds of the way through and haven't even reached the combat chapter!

There there's the little things, like [W] which they mention right from the beginning but don't actually tell you what it is until around page 270! I took a guess as to what it was and I was right but still. Also the index. When will WotC pay someone to create a proper index? The BSG book (which I noticed last night was a certain Mr Patrick Kapera in it's credits ) has around 6 pages (in a small font size) for a book that has less pages (but not by much admittedly) than the PHB which as a single page index!

Unfortunately for me, the majority of my group seem to have fallen in love with 4e (they played the demo on Saturday) and when we played 3.5 last night couldn't stop saying how quickly, or more easily, things would have been if it was a 4e scenario

Maybe it's time to find a new group...

[Desertpuma]

Sounds like it is time to either convince them or move on to me....

[TheTSKoala]

I'm about two-thirds of the way through the PHB (my wife bought it for me on Saturday as a surprise). I'm not impressed though, everything seems to be the same. Two different feats that serve the, basic, same purpose (one for the rogue's sneak attack and the other for the ranger's quarry hunt (I think that's what it's called))? Why not just have one feat and say it can only apply to one of those abilities (as Weapon Focus does) and then have space for another, new, feat? That's just one example.

The main thing that gets me is, I'm two-thirds of the way through and haven't even reached the combat chapter!

There there's the little things, like [W] which they mention right from the beginning but don't actually tell you what it is until around page 270! I took a guess as to what it was and I was right but still. Also the index. When will WotC pay someone to create a proper index? The BSG book (which I noticed last night was a certain Mr Patrick Kapera in it's credits ) has around 6 pages (in a small font size) for a book that has less pages (but not by much admittedly) than the PHB which as a single page index!

Unfortunately for me, the majority of my group seem to have fallen in love with 4e (they played the demo on Saturday) and when we played 3.5 last night couldn't stop saying how quickly, or more easily, things would have been if it was a 4e scenario

Maybe it's time to find a new group...

Easy and quick?  I'm with the Puma.. if your group wants to go the easy and quick route and you're more the detailed and interactive type of guy, time to re-evaluate.

[LordKruelos]

I messed around a bit last night with a couple friends over some tasty adult beverages, testing out the combat system and general other stuff in anticipation of having to run this sucker for strangers Thursday.

1) Lacking a combat grid, we tried to do it ad-hoc -- using the edge of a matchbook as the length of a "square" ruler -- total and absolute failure.  4th edition seems to absolutely require a grid to play around with.

2) There was general frustration in the LACK of Opposed rolls.  Everyone hated the new "Saving Throw"

3) It's virtually impossible to kill people in 4E unless they are beyond unlucky.  To test how much they could take, my three friends with level 1 pre-gen characters took on a single Bugbear (level 5 Brute) after a few lesser encounters.  They did defeat it, but it managed to knock the dwarf Fighter to -12, and the Wizard to 0, which I would expect given the difficulty.  For the Dwarf to die, he would have had to have been knocked to a negative number equal to his  "bloodied" number -- half his max hit points.  That means that for a 1st level character to get killed, they have to take 49 hp worth of damage.  While clearly damage increases at higher levels, it looks like they kept one of my least favorite aspects -- the grinding through hit points for round upon round with really nothing special happening.

4) The best aspect was the addition of "minions" -- like glass-jawed NPCs in Spycraft, they go down with 1 hit, which got the players fired up (they liked the carnage) and gave them something else to swing at.

[MilitiaJim]

I don't really mind the extra 1st level hit points.  It makes it accidental TPKs less likely.  And I like the idea of abilities and powers that kick in at half hp.

But I haven't tried it out yet, so I don't know how it plays.

Does anyone think that wizards got really nerfed?