Major Design Choices of 4e D&D

[Mask_De_H]

Eh, the guy likes Padded Sumo. We most certainly do not. We should let bygones be bygones because remember folks, most people don't play DnD like we play DnD.

Not allowing players to one-shot is not really a betrayal of player trust Frank, no more than having pro wrestling kayfabe as a betrayal of the viewer's trust. If the dude wants to elongate his combats, it's no skin off my back.

Besides that, we have a case study of the effect of 4e design choices right here. It's easy to run and difficult to fuck up the balance without a modicum of dumpster diving, which most people can't be arsed to do. It's a game you don't have to analyze too hard to really grok. That is antithetical to what we do here, as shown by the numerous threads we've had that show the game goes to shit under any sort of scrutiny and exploitation.

Thus people like it, and get confused and angry when we don't. And then we get AE and friends.

[souran]

The problem with 4E is that it's impossible to really create a trivial battle. While yes, you can make things easy, you'll never make things actually fast. Even easy battles are a grind.

This is somewhat true.

unless you go for push over easy all minions dice fest trivial battles are work. It does take more time to fight than if you just wanted to wastefest somebody for the purpose of proving you can.

[RandomCasualty2]

Another main issue that really kills 4E for me is that any monster fortress can be impregnible if you train your monsters not to try to be heroes. When heroes show up, don't stand and fight one room at a time. They should just fucking run and warn everybody. You're in fact better off with a bunch of cowardly goblin sentinels who just run away and yell "ALARM" at the first sign of danger instead of standing and fighting. Due to the fact that it's hard to kill things before they can retreat, that tactic will almost always end up with the monsters getting away and bringing several rooms worth of cavalry.

And the PCs really have no counter to this tactic.

[souran]

Hey, I owned 3.0 on the first day. Played it for years. Got tired of save or suck.

I also play wargames, minis games, computer games, even mmos.

At one time I really liked to do a lot of the stuff I see on these boards. I still think franks stuff on the wish based based economy is a hell of a write up.

However, the thing when I got about half way through college when I was running multiple different games and groups each week I discovered a secret.

That vast majority of your players don't give a crap about your world history. They don't really care economy, or if people can fall from heights that ought to be fatal and survive. They do care if you start changing the racial properties around and they love to save or suck badguys but hate to have it happen to them.

So I just kinda stopped. I also discovered that things that made it easy for me to run increased my enjoyment of the game. Additionally, even the hard cores had more fun proving that they were more badass than people who didn't care as much when there were not competing aginst my ability to find something to make that character get bent over.

Its the reason why I know think that connans hyborea is a better world than middle earth. Just by saying a places name you have all the contextual clues you need to get an image of whats its people are like.

How did I know a new edition was needed: when players started asking to play descent instead of dnd.

[souran]

Another main issue that really kills 4E for me is that any monster fortress can be impregnible if you train your monsters not to try to be heroes. When heroes show up, don't stand and fight one room at a time. They should just fucking run and warn everybody. You're in fact better off with a bunch of cowardly goblin sentinels who just run away and yell "ALARM" at the first sign of danger instead of standing and fighting. Due to the fact that it's hard to kill things before they can retreat, that tactic will almost always end up with the monsters getting away and bringing several rooms worth of cavalry.

And the PCs really have no counter to this tactic.

Yeah but this has been true as far back as gaming goes. This was true back when I was 7 years old and playing heroquest.

If you have one monster go get ALL the other monsters in the dungeon of course you are going to kill the pcs.

If you forced the players to fight every non tree monster in the sunless citadel in room 1, or even room 100 you would still probably kill them all. If the balrog had stood in the door to durin's tomb you would have a balrog who owned the one ring.

All DND fights are slightly contrived. Hell all roleplaying fights are contrived. Basically nobody ever did a lot of dungeon fighting that players do. There is no truely accurate real world analogue.

[MGuy]

I actually do run games where the pcs have to make quick work of the cowards before they can set off the alarms. But I think RC's comment was more about how you couldn't stop this from happening.

[Roy]

Or you get the PCs to get the fuck out, because the enemies are behaving as if you are invading their home. Which you in fact are.

None of this 'lulz, the MOBs haven't spawned yet, so the enemies in the next room don't attack you until you open the door because they aren't there yet'. You know, like what happens with 4.Fail, and that instantly breaks the system if you don't.

Ya know, I smited some imbeciles over on GitP about this, by illustrating a very basic small dungeon where the enemies were organized and would attempt to gather reinforcements if not stopped. One of the key points there was that 4.Fail characters could not prevent enemies from retreating or sounding alarms because they could not kill the enemies fast enough. And no, minions don't work because admitting you had to gimp the enemies heavily to make it work in 4.Fail is admitting it doesn't normally work in 4.Fail.

[RandomCasualty2]

I actually do run games where the pcs have to make quick work of the cowards before they can set off the alarms. But I think RC's comment was more about how you couldn't stop this from happening.

Yeah, considering 3.5 attacks are so lethal, it's hard to really manage a retreat to warn everyone as battles are over with quicker. Not to mention you've got spells like wall of stone and dimensional anchor to prevent things from running.

There's no real way to beat that tactic in 4E.

[Voss]

Its the reason why I know think that connans hyborea is a better world than middle earth. Just by saying a places name you have all the contextual clues you need to get an image of whats its people are like.

And as much as I like Conan in general, I have to say this:

Yep, the racist overtones really do make stereotyping easier.

Though honestly, middle earth has the same thing.
Rohirrim= Anglo Saxons
High Men= Anglo-Saxons who have seen the 'light', ie, Christianized AS.
Everybody else in northwestern ME is a 'dwindled' version of these two groups.
Easterlings and Southrons are blacks and arabs, depending on how far south or east you go. And yes, they are explicitly inferior to the white people according to the text: superstitious, cowardly and easily dominated.


And actually, D&D matches up pretty well with counter terrorism and special forces squads. I've listened to some pretty detailed descriptions of room to room building clearance that transitions over to D&D terms fairly well: break down the door, toss grenade, anything still moving gets a shotgun/submg burst to the face, with priority on anyone bolting for the next door.

[souran]

Or you get the PCs to get the fuck out, because the enemies are behaving as if you are invading their home. Which you in fact are.

None of this 'lulz, the MOBs haven't spawned yet, so the enemies in the next room don't attack you until you open the door because they aren't there yet'. You know, like what happens with 4.Fail, and that instantly breaks the system if you don't.

1 Room encounters in 4e are bad and boring. They say so in the dmg. They did articles on how it was different.

Yes, I have had parties see the two orc guards in the first room and go "oh time to have everybody unload with encounter powers" then they had to end up using daily powers because the encounter is larger than 1 room (shocking!)

Then the pc run away becasue the dungeon is a no extended rest zone. because as you pointed out you have invaded their home and they are not going to stop looking for you so you can get your spells back.

This is remarably similar to what happens in 3.whatever except that the fight was more fun for me and for my group that likes tactics

Ya know, I smited some imbeciles over on GitP about this, by illustrating a very basic small dungeon where the enemies were organized and would attempt to gather reinforcements if not stopped. One of the key points there was that 4.Fail characters could not prevent enemies from retreating or sounding alarms because they could not kill the enemies fast enough. And no, minions don't work because admitting you had to gimp the enemies heavily to make it work in 4.Fail is admitting it doesn't normally work in 4.Fail.

So you designed an encounter that is hard in 4e. Thats little different than giving the monsters some significant edge in 3.whatever and not adjusting the challenge rating. Players should expend daily powers, or move the the most tactically advantageous point of your dungeon.

Also, your point on minions totally misses the mark. If you are not going to use them where they should be used whats the point? Do you not like extras in white wolf either? Look, if you make one side play chess with all regular pieces and then you let the other side play with all knights, bishops and queens that game breaks down as well. Is chess fail?

Again, yeah I can easily design 2nd through 4th edition deathtraps, even combat deathtraps.

Here is the thing, if you stat it they will kill it is still true in 4th edition, somebody can build the group to beat your dungeon.

I will admit that if your view of dungeon diving is that the players should play like seal team six then you need a few differnt abilities. More powers on more people that prevent movement, or restrict getting away.

Really at its core this is a simulationist arguement. I will readly admit that 4th edtion is the LEAST simulationist DND. It uses more handwaving than ever before to establish things. Do the monsters always react by going to go get more of their buddies till they can bring overwhelming odds. Well, if you always wanted to tpk then yes. Again, this was true in every edition of D&D I played. Why doesn't the lichlord of castle "wherethepcsgotostealstuff" not just always show up and defend his home in room 1. Dungeons are contrived. He's busy with his spell and cannot be bothered or whatever.

3rd edition is the "everything and the kitchen sink on paper edition" but realistically its got a lot of things that are just terrible.

4th edition is the "everthing is boring till you are rolling the dice edition" on paper 4e characters do not have the charm of their 3e counterparts. However, they use more of their abilities, and even those crappy +1 feats turn out to be more useful when everything is always scaling.

[souran]

And as much as I like Conan in general, I have to say this:

Yep, the racist overtones really do make stereotyping easier.

Though honestly, middle earth has the same thing.
Rohirrim= Anglo Saxons
High Men= Anglo-Saxons who have seen the 'light', ie, Christianized AS.
Everybody else in northwestern ME is a 'dwindled' version of these two groups.
Easterlings and Southrons are blacks and arabs, depending on how far south or east you go. And yes, they are explicitly inferior to the white people according to the text: superstitious, cowardly and easily dominated.

Hmm, i didn't mean this so much as Stygia = egypt and not like islamic egypt but lets build us a pyriamid egypt
cimmera / Valahalla -> norse
Aquilonia -> france with late roman or late midevil overtones
Cathay -> china
Corinthia -> greek
etc.

And actually, D&D matches up pretty well with counter terrorism and special forces squads. I've listened to some pretty detailed descriptions of room to room building clearance that transitions over to D&D terms fairly well: break down the door, toss grenade, anything still moving gets a shotgun/submg burst to the face, with priority on anyone bolting for the next door.

The point at which they go weapons free and start kicking in doors is the part where things stop being the like the plan and the exact point we are aruging over in the "how easy is it to get away" portion of this threat.

[Roy]

Irrelevant Strawmen are Irrelevant. Try again next time.

[violence in the media]

This is remarably similar to what happens in 3.whatever except that the fight was more fun for me and for my group that likes tactics

What is with this meme? Why is it that every 4e apologist has the notion that longer battles = MOAR TACTICZ?

Is it because 4e fighters have a wider selection of differently named powers to use instead of the 3e fighter hunting for the full-attack position? Does a game of positioning count as tactical or not? Does it only count when you use a power to force an enemy to move? Is forcing the enemy to move via your own position somehow less tactical? How does this balance with 4e spellcasters having less options than their 3e counterparts? If 3e battles lasted 12 rounds, would they achieve the MOAR TACTICZ state?

I'm not saying that there aren't, or can't be, tactics in 4e. I'm saying that the notion that 4e has a monopoly on such things is idiotic.

[mean_liar]

Fighters have more options in 4e. Pretty much all characters other than the 3e spellcasters have more options.

Balance is still a problem, but I don't think 4e battles are less interesting tactically from the non-spellcaster perspective.

[Roy]

3.x = auto attack via 'I full attack.'

4.Fail = auto attack via 'at will spam.'

Granted in the latter case you're going top down with dailies and encounters first, but it drags on for so many rounds that you'll be spamming the same moves over and over for as long or longer anyways.

'But Roy, hurk durk you can move!' you might be nerd raging right now. But all that means is you're doing the Murder Tango, it in no way changes anything.

I picked up a 4.Fail module and flipped through it, counting up the total HP of all enemies there. I didn't count the ones that most likely would not be enemies such as random civilians, and I didn't account for random encounters. I did include any combats that come as a result of failed 'skill challenges' as the unedited rules for that translate to You Fail, therefore you will get into those fights.

You're expected to flail your way through nearly 3,000 HP, 2,803 to be exact.

...

This is a level 1 module. You finish around 2.5 to 3. In other words, it gets far worse from there.

So basically you start out doing like... 5 DPS and are expected to flail your way through that huge pile of HP. And later, the Padded Sumo gets far worse. Sure there's four other clones, but you're still in for a long grind. Shame you can't toggle auto attack on and go get a sandwich like you can in WoW though.

[MGuy]

My experience thus far with 4e (which is the only thing you can play at the local game store) has been less than satisfying tactically. You basically do what you would do in any mmorpg. Get your DPS to hit every turn, your Healer heals or gives temp hp, your tank gets in front of bad guys and says attack me! Leaders can be largely ignored and aren't really ever necessary to do anything.

ALL fights boil down to this. Each and everyone with no real differences between. No matter what the battle conditions are, rain sleet or snow, you'll be fighting in this fashion. Oh and you can only die from massive, brain hemorrhaging stupidity. Fancy tactics aren't really required. Fighters get more options? Its more like everyone now does the same shit with different tags put on it. You're a defender? You're going to tank no matter what defender class you are. You're a "striker" guess what you're going to be doing... I use my daily then encounter then at wills... You're a healer? I spend healing surges to do this and everyone near me gets to spend healing surge or gets temp hp. Oh yeah and i have a crappy at will that really doesn't do anything but I can use it at a range. Not really any more tactical than 3.5 just bland.

[Username17]

Fighters have more options in 4e. Pretty much all characters other than the 3e spellcasters have more options.

Balance is still a problem, but I don't think 4e battles are less interesting tactically from the non-spellcaster perspective.

I hear this meme a lot. Seems like it's only true at high levels.

A 3.0 Fighter can at first level Power Attack, regular attack, charge, disarm, sunder, trip, bullrush, and grapple. There are even reasons to do all of these things.

A 4e Fighter can Tide of Iron, Cleave, Spinning Sweep, Comeback Strike, charge, grab, push, and regular attack.

It's the same number of options, but the 4e version of it ha some of his options on limited use. And the 3e Fighter also has a bow, which constitutes a whole world of opportunity that the 4e Fighter basically does not have.

So yeah, most builds of Fighter hyper specialize so that they only have a couple of valid options at higher level, but a 3e Fighter actually starts life with substantially more options than a 4e Fighter does. Indeed, if a Fighter takes the Elusive Target route, that's 3 4e style "options" in one feat. It's actually not even hard for a 3e warrior to keep up in options with a 4e warrior and still retain their ability to spam their optios limitlessly. Seriously. At 30th level, a 4e character can have 2 at wills, 4 encounter powers, 4 daily powers, 7 Utility powers, an Action Surge option, a basic melee attack, a basic ranged attack, a grab, a push, and a charge. That's as many as 23 options.

A Tome Fighter or a Tome Monk get up in the morning, rub sand out of their eyes, and have about twice that many options. A high level Book of Nine Swords character similarly has a huge number of options compared to those 23. But even a regular 20th level Fighter can walk in with substantially more options than that. Fighter is a terrible class, but seriously we're talking about numbers of options here and all he has to do is get to 23. So he has 18 feats. Now for fairness, despite the fact that we claimed as options the completely bogus basic grab and push for the 4e character that we only count combat maneuvers that a character has the "improved" version of and despite the fact that we give the 4e credit for every Utility power that we don't call as an option things like Mobility and Cleave that are triggered automatically and are not chosen. Still, not that hard.

• Mobility
  Point Blank Shot
  Precise Shot
  Cleave
  Dodge (+1)
  Expertise (+1)
  Power Attack (+1)
  Rapid Shot (+1)
  Improved Bullrush (+1)
  Improved Sunder (+1)
  Improved Trip (+1)
  Shot on the Run (+1)
  Spring Attack (+1)
  Manyshot (+1)
  Whirlwind Attack (+1)
  Elusive Target (+2)
  Combat Brute (+2)
  Shock Trooper (+3)

So that's 18 feat related options. And you can combine them. So for example, an Improved Trip attack is a touch attack, so you can Expertise for 5 on that. But seriously even without that, the character also has Basic Melee, Basic Ranged, Full Attack Melee, Full Attack Ranged, and Charge. So yeah... 23 options right out of the box.

4e didn't make there be more options. Seriously, there are less options. They just put them in red and green boxes to make the remaining options more noticeable.

-Username17

[MartinHarper]

And the 3e Fighter also has a bow, which constitutes a whole world of opportunity that the 4e Fighter basically does not have.

Well, the 4e fighter certainly should have some form of ranged weapon. If they have secondary Dex they might pick up a bow, but otherwise they'll take some form of thrown weapon. Sure you can build a 4e fighter with no ranged options, but that's sub-optimal. The same goes for most melee characters, I think.
That doesn't

They just put them in red and green boxes to make the remaining options more noticeable.

This is one of the things I like about 4e: the mechanics are mostly structured to make it obvious what your level-appropriate options are. By contrast, a novice player in 3e might not ever do more with their level one Fighter than move and attack, because the other options aren't in pretty coloured boxes.

[violence in the media]

They just put them in red and green boxes to make the remaining options more noticeable.

This is one of the things I like about 4e: the mechanics are mostly structured to make it obvious what your level-appropriate options are. By contrast, a novice player in 3e might not ever do more with their level one Fighter than move and attack, because the other options aren't in pretty coloured boxes.

Why does this sound like you're saying that it's ok for the spellcaster players to have to go read the magic section, but that the fighter players shouldn't be required to read the combat section?

[RandomCasualty2]

So that's 18 feat related options. And you can combine them. So for example, an Improved Trip attack is a touch attack, so you can Expertise for 5 on that. But seriously even without that, the character also has Basic Melee, Basic Ranged, Full Attack Melee, Full Attack Ranged, and Charge. So yeah... 23 options right out of the box.

4e didn't make there be more options. Seriously, there are less options. They just put them in red and green boxes to make the remaining options more noticeable.

Honestly, not really. While 3E technically had more choices, most of them weren't real options, simply because 3E required such a degree of specialization most of the time. Basically it wasn't about getting a breadth of shit you could, but being really good at one thing. It's the flaw of a bonus accumulation system. You could be a tripper and collect a bunch of bonuses on your trip attacks, by having an improved trip weapon, the improve trip feat, and so on.

But at that point, that's basically your staple attack. And that was the problem in that there was generally always an obvious choice that overrode your other ones. So while technically your fighter could grab two daggers and dual throw them, if you weren't specialized for that, you'd never do it, because it sucked that bad.

But it's not really so much that 3E has more options, so much as those options actually feel more powerful, because the game is RLT. You actually have less ToB manuevers than you do 4E powers at higher levels, but when you get a new power, you're pretty much thinking "Eh" and when you get a new level of maneuvers, it seems awesome as hell because of the power curve.

So the new shit you're getting is way way more impactful in 3E to the battle, where as in 4E, you may not really notice most of the time, since the game is about adding small bonuses, as opposed to just one strike annihiliation attacks.

[Username17]

This is one of the things I like about 4e: the mechanics are mostly structured to make it obvious what your level-appropriate options are. By contrast, a novice player in 3e might not ever do more with their level one Fighter than move and attack, because the other options aren't in pretty coloured boxes.

That's reasonable. Presentation is a matter of taste. An option you don't realize you have is just like an option you don't have for all the difference it makes.

But it's objective fact that when 4e put everything into colored boxes they also took a lot of the customizability and combinatability out. Our example 3e Fighter can for example Many Shot during a Shot on the Run, or Expertise during an Improved Trip during a Spring Attack. Or Directed Improved Domino Rush to Improved Trip multiple enemies and take a Heedless Charge bonus attack as an Improved Sunder to Sundering Cleave a fallen foe who just had a hafted weapon cut in half while they were on the ground. The 4e character gets to take his attack that knocks a dude prone once per encounter and that's all he can do that phase. If he wants to Power Attack that's a separate and non-combinable maneuver.

So from the standpoint of a 4e character, a 3e character actually has hundreds of options. And considering how "not that interesting" a 3e fighter is, that makes me really sad.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

So from the standpoint of a 4e character, a 3e character actually has hundreds of options. And considering how "not that interesting" a 3e fighter is, that makes me really sad.

That's mostly because there's an obvious option, so people generally don't bother taking other shit. Like if you took shock trooper, you're going to take leap attack to make your uber charge better. You're not going to take some other feat to expand in another direction.

I mean honestly, I've never seen any 3E fighter that even comes close to having the feat list you provided above. Everyone I've played with always goes dumpster diving to help their one true specialty.

4E did the nice thing of making your options actually worthwhile. Where 3E basically just handed you a ton of crap that required a feat to even be marginally useful, and even then was something you'd rarely if ever use. I mean I've never seen anyone Bull Rush or Overrun in a 3E game. Ever. Trips I've only seen used by dedicated trip specialists. Really nobody ends up taking stuff like Improved Sunder or Improved Disarm, because it just doesn't come up enough to be useful.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Honestly, not really. While 3E technically had more choices, most of them weren't real options, simply because 3E required such a degree of specialization most of the time. Basically it wasn't about getting a breadth of shit you could, but being really good at one thing. It's the flaw of a bonus accumulation system. You could be a tripper and collect a bunch of bonuses on your trip attacks, by having an improved trip weapon, the improve trip feat, and so on.

You mean like how in 4E every melee ranger picks Jaws of the Wolf/Attacks on the Run/Blade Cascade and minor action encounter attack powers or how rogues only pick minor action encounter attack powers or powers that impose a status condition?

I mean, really. Here's the best level 1 ranger encounter attack power.

Off-Hand Strike Ranger Attack 1 (Martial Power)
A weapon in your off-hand allows for a quick attack.
Minor Action Melee weapon
Target: One Creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC (off-hand weapon)
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage (off-hand weapon)

And here's the best level 23 ranger encounter attack power, which means that it's the best encounter power in the ranger's arsenal--though a strong case can be made for Disruptive Strike (gained at level 3, PHB), or Death Rend (gained at level 27, PHB)

Off-Hand Strike Ranger Attack 23 (Martial Power)
With your off-hand weapon, you casually send a foe to the floor.
Minor Action Melee weapon
Target: One Creature
Attack: Strength vs. Fortitude (off-hand weapon)
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you knock the target prone.

Am I missing something here? Our hero went from a newbie greenhorn ranger to an epic-level asskicker. I mean, that's what the PHB says. I am level 23 and my character is supposed to be legendary.

But all my best encounter attack power has now over what it had at level 1 is about 5.5 extra damage, an average of +1 or +2 to attack. Oh, and it knocks the target prone, too.

Let's be frank with ourselves. 4E didn't add more options. It repackaged feats as powers and crowed about how much more the fighter had to do.

[mean_liar]

RandomCasualty2's comment is really the crux of 3e non-casters: you have to specialize after whatever level everything starts getting Large.

For whatever reason I didn't consider ToB when I complained about tactical options in 3e. I'd basically say that's the 4e mechanic and is probably better than 4e; the other classes of 4e are trying to be ToB warriors and 4e does a decent job of pulling it off.

Where 4e really drops the ball is with the enemy HPs and their strange limits (being locked into attributes and their corresponding weapon choices).

And using Tome to discuss 3e is Oberoni, hardeharhar. Now leave the forum and never come back.

[Username17]

Seriously: put up or shut up. I understand that the 4e Fighter has more colored boxes, but you said he had more options. Where are these extra options? What are the extra options? What does a 4e Fighter actually do at any level that constitutes more options than a 3e Fighter of comparable level?

Pick a level. Make a character. Stop fucking handwaving. I threw down a perfectly reasonable character using the PHB and Complete Warrior only who had a fuck tonne more options at 20th than any 4e character is capable of having ever. Now I'm totally willing to concede that in fact no one gives a shit what happens at maximum level, so pick some level people actually play at. Any level. Now show me what those fucking options are that 4e characters supposedly have.

Looking through the powers list it appears that a majority of these "options" are the ability to inflict an extra d8 of damage once per combat. Not only do 3e characters have comparable abilities, but we seriously didn't even care about them or consider them to be options. So why am I suddenly supposed to take them seriously as unique options now that they have a colored box around them?

-Username17