nope. everything i've seen about the game so far makes me very uneasy. its basically an MMO on the tabletop, which i'm not digging. unless its really spectacular i'll be passing on it.
Joined: Thu Aug 03 2006, 03:08 Location: Missoula Posts: 247
From everything I have read they are making things much easier on the DM but they seem to be sacrificing the 'feel' of D&D to accomplish it. I will certainly pick up the main books but I don't see converting over completely.
I kiinda think it's going to accomplish what they want though, I think it will be able to draw in a lot of new players. On the other hand I don't think the online DDI is going to amount to anything.
Joined: Sat Mar 24 2007, 03:26 Location: Missoula Posts: 33
Having played a few 4th ed games at DDXP, I can say that it looks to be lots of fun. The most fundamental change is doing away with "saving throws" the way we understand them. Now you have 4 different defenses (ac, will, ref, fort) and different attacks target different defenses. So your standard sword attack still targets AC, but turning undead may target will instead. It simplifies that combat mechanics A LOT. It also makes casters totally different in terms of spell choice etc.
Simpler rules will definitely bring more people to the game, which I think is good for the industry.
And shorter combats are definitely the case now, which I appreciate as well because it lets you focus more on roleplaying and problem solving.
In a nutshell there are fewer crunchy bits, and more custom options. I doubt that there will be "prestige classes" given the way the powers work, but there will almost definitely be advanced powers that work in much the same way as tactical feats work now (or any other feats that require a handful of pre-reqs to get).
Essentially, it is a skill-tree system. You choose a path and can continue down it as far as you want, or start going down a new one.
Death and dying rules are also much better. You dont have to take a -4 to subdue people (shouldnt it be easier to know someone out than to kill them?) Instead when you deal the "final blow" the DM asks you whether you want to knock them out or kill them. Good guys have negative 1/2 their max hit points before they are dead (so your 32 hit point fighter dies at -16). Bad guys do not have that at all; they simply die at 0.
Everyone has a little bit of healing now, which I find pretty gawdawful from a realism point of view. It is the only mechanic I find cheesy thus far. Clerics can make every ally heal thier Healing Surge value, or you can spend an action to healing surge yourself. [theres more to it than that, but it gives you the basic idea]. I fully agree that this makes it very much video game like, and it is the one aspect of 4th edition I would do away with if I could. But that will vary by person I suppose; I am generally a fan of low-hit-point games where the threat of death is serious enough to force people to role play cautiously. DnD has really never been that way once you got past 5th level, so we shouldnt really expect that to happen now.
I have already ordered all the 4th edition materials, and expect to be running a weekly home game, as well as some public events at the muse if there is sufficient demand. My myspace blog has the schedule. If anyone is interested they can reply to me offline and I'll see what I can do. http://www.myspace.com/blaisepittman
Blaise, a friend of mine who has been playtesting 4E said much the same thing about healing so they changed the term bloodied to winded and considered all damage but the last to be superficial.
A cosmetic change only but he felt it worked for his group to get their heads around the dwarf's constant healing surges.
Joined: Sat Mar 24 2007, 03:26 Location: Missoula Posts: 33
Not a bad suggestion at all. Definitely makes more sense than fighters being able to suddenly heal thier own gaping chest wounds through force of will.
I like what I have right now and if WOTC is going in the same direction they have been I doubt I'll be impressed. 3rd ed felt to me more like it was centered on ROLL playing instead of ROLE playing. One system to rule them all. Funk Tastik
Joined: Sat Mar 29 2008, 10:38 Location: Missoula Posts: 58
I would say that Role playing in and of its self doensn't need any rules to guide it, but its nice to have something to back it up. I couldn't imagine anybody writing a role-playing game 100% role-playing because for the most part everyone should know how to do that to some extent. Some People's Kids!
I would say that Role playing in and of its self doesn't need any rules to guide it, but its nice to have something to back it up. I couldn't imagine anybody writing a role-playing game 100% role-playing because for the most part everyone should know how to do that to some extent.
To a great degree that is true. After all role playing out an encounter can be resolved verbally easily enough while combat or more physical actions are best abstracted.
But what do you do when the player has the social and verbal skills of week old road kill? Ever had a player with a severe stutterer try to portray a charismatic scoundrel? It's not much different than watching a 300 pound 5'6" player demonstrating his acrobat's tumble attack.
Most rules sets seek to help players transcend who they are, even if it only to be who they think they are. That is why skills like Diplomacy and Sense motive were included in 3.x. They received relatively scant mention though and were obviously second fiddle in a game edition that championed itself as "back to the dungeon".
What I would have liked to see for 3.x and wish 4E would do (but hold out little hope) is for there to be a better structure for interaction only encounters. Of course it can all be left to DM fiat - that is how I do it with a mix of roleplaying with skill checks to see how successful the PC is at the task, but in a system that tried very hard to empower the players and remove "mother may I" abilities the D&D social system remains decidedly old school.
Joined: Sat Mar 29 2008, 10:38 Location: Missoula Posts: 58
I guess from what I heard is that in 4E they tried to fix social encounters by having players talk then roll a skill check and then talk more than another skill check. Basically forcing characters to talk their way through things with the dice to back them up rather than in 3.X where your dice are backed up by your talking. (I feel like I was just talking in circles... never mind) Anyways 4.0 has you roll multiple times to see if you can win someone over instead of just once in 3.X.
I have a lot of Golden moments with my group when it comes to social encounters, but then every now then someone says something like "You have a nice shirt, can you help me out" they roll diplomacy check roll a 14 add 18 or some other crazy number and to me that isn't how things should work. 4.0 will probably work better... well at least a little bit better.
I think that the social interactions and social progressions/contests are more up to how the DM wants to handle them than the stats on the sheet. If they (Wizards) are putting a system in place that has players/NPCs rolling a die for a social check after every few lines of conversation then it seems like there is going to be more time spent rolling, calculating, and referencing to see how far you've progressed in the contest than actual conversation - much like the video games where you select the proper conversation options to win the target to your side.
As a DM I tend to avoid having players throw dice for things like diplomacy or intimidate unless they, as a player, have done something to warrant the check. For example, a player in one of my games made a fairly fierce speech to a captive while trying to coax some information out of him. It was something where the captive could have been to the breaking point so I had him roll an intimidate check (to which I also applied a circumstance bonus). He ended up with a low 20's result and the captive cracked. Some of the other players were even a little taken aback by the normally quiet, level-headed fighter suddenly exploding in anger.
Would the encounter have played out the same if they would have said "Tell us what we want to know!" and thrown a die? No. Am I going to change how I do things because the mechanics change, asking for more rolls spaced throughout the roleplay? Nope. Players will only be able to fall back on social skills if they have done something to warrant the roll. I know that some people have issues with things like this, saying that not everyone is a social genius, but I've only had one complaint in my games (so far) from a player that made a socially geared character but only wanted to roll dice. One Year, where I attempt to cure (or at least curb) my "Corvus Disorder". "If there is no struggle there is no progress." --- Frederick Douglass
I'm not saying you're approach is wrong , unusual or even different from my own kinetic, just that in a game system that sought to codify everything else and empower players versus the DM, that this one aspect of play really was glossed over.
Joined: Sat Mar 24 2007, 03:26 Location: Missoula Posts: 33
Yes, fourth edition has a system for what you are all talking about. I believe they call it "Skill Challenge". The use ive seen it for thus far is trying to escape from an overwhelming city militia. Running/hiding/bluffing etc. are all reasonable ways out the encounter, so you go around the table telling the DM what you are going to do. You choose the challenge level as the player (easy/moderate/challenging). After a set number of successes, you escape. Choosing a more challenging approach means you get more successes, bet also means you can botch. Choosing an easy approach negates the change of a botch, but also means it will take you longer to escape. It still very much encourages role playing, but it allows for people to get around things in a myriad of ways. Your charismatic leader may bluff his way out of trouble, while your sneak thief may hide on a rooftop. The flexibility was the best part of it.
I myself am looking forward to a system that prevents me from ending every encounter with an intelligent foe by rolling a 65 diplo. check (easy to do with all the magic stuff out there). It makes sense if you are Doctor Who or Captain Kirk I suppose (ever notice how they stop bad guys mid-zap to chat). But still it was a bit wonky.
Joined: Tue Aug 01 2006, 11:28 Location: Please....step onto the plastic. Posts: 291
I am most definitely reserving judgment until I see 4th in print, in stone so to speak, and have time to assess. What I have seen so far has made me guardedly optimistic, but I have been fooled before (new WOD). WP "Do your duty, no matter what may come." --Jacques de Molay
"The best blade is the unseen one." --Drow Elven Proverb
I have been playing D&D for a while now, and I for one will be glad to have a new edition out just to wipe the slate clean of grossly twinky supplements. There's literally Hundreds of prestige classes, and many of the aren't worth taking more than just one or two levels in. I feel that it's all very unnecessary and that a lot more character personality and uniqueness is found by describing the same mechanic in different ways for different characters, rather than adding a bunch of mechanics that don't always take other supplements into account and weren't thoroughly balanced.
In addition, I feel that social interaction should be mainly the province of role-playing, but that die-rolling balances it. It evens things out for both for the socially anxious guy playing the bard and the silver tongued player having his 6 charisma dwarf talking his way past the guards. The question of the timing of the commencement of hostilities is one upon which you must meditate most deeply. Once your decision is arrived at, it must be pursued with the utmost energy. Commander Puretide - The Thirty Seventh Meditation on the Way of the Warrior
Yes, fourth edition has a system for what you are all talking about. I believe they call it "Skill Challenge". The use ive seen it for thus far is trying to escape from an overwhelming city militia. Running/hiding/bluffing etc. are all reasonable ways out the encounter, so you go around the table telling the DM what you are going to do. You choose the challenge level as the player (easy/moderate/challenging). After a set number of successes, you escape. Choosing a more challenging approach means you get more successes, bet also means you can botch. Choosing an easy approach negates the change of a botch, but also means it will take you longer to escape. It still very much encourages role playing, but it allows for people to get around things in a myriad of ways. Your charismatic leader may bluff his way out of trouble, while your sneak thief may hide on a rooftop. The flexibility was the best part of it.
I myself am looking forward to a system that prevents me from ending every encounter with an intelligent foe by rolling a 65 diplo. check (easy to do with all the magic stuff out there). It makes sense if you are Doctor Who or Captain Kirk I suppose (ever notice how they stop bad guys mid-zap to chat). But still it was a bit wonky.
My definition of role-play might be a little different, but I'm not certain the "skill challenge" system encourages role-playing so much as lets the player choose the rolls they are best suited to succeed at (ie, electing the skill they have the highest rating in). What I mean is that if I'm playing the charismatic leader and have nothing in the way of sneakiness to get me out of a situation I'm definitely going to elect a social roll to get me out of a tight spot. But how does that encourage the player to take on the role of the charismatic leader? Does it force me to stand my ground and make a vindicating speech? No, it forces me to look at my sheet and decide where I have the most points before rolling a dice. It lets the players tailor an encounter to their strengths, true, but this is more like a video game approach than a table-top RPG system in my eyes.
That said, I think that the social side of the game is really up to the people playing the game. If everyone is content throwing dice to resolve conflicts then that's absolutely cool for them. My own personal point is that I would probably not make use of a system like this, and that I kind of expect role-playing - "In roleplaying, participants adopt and act out the role of characters, or parts, that may have personalities, motivations, and backgrounds different from their own. Roleplaying, also known as RP to some, is like being in an improvisational drama or free-form theater, in which the participants are the actors who are playing parts, and the audience." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing ] If your silver-tongued player took on a 6 Charisma character then I would expect that player to adopt the role rather than use Cha as a dump for a low stat so they could max the important ones. If someone is socially awkward and wants to play a charismatic character, then I would expect them to, at the very least, try to give themselves openings for using their high social skills.
I'm not saying that I completely remove those skills from the game, but I don't allow "Hey, nice shirt!" <roll for diplomacy to get the NPC on their side> "35!"... There has to be an opening for the roll.
Now, after all this ranting and raving, I am not completely writing 4th Edition off. I just don't think of it as the one game to rule all others. I've been lucky enough to sit in on one playtest, and I will be attempting to get in on one of the ones run at MisCon for a little more experience. I'm also not opposed in playing the system over a long standing campaign to really give me a feel for the other facets of the game. I just don't have my hopes up very high and will probably, as stated, look towards other systems I feel have more going for them.
[ Edited Fri Apr 11 2008, 05:49 ] One Year, where I attempt to cure (or at least curb) my "Corvus Disorder". "If there is no struggle there is no progress." --- Frederick Douglass
Joined: Sat Mar 29 2008, 10:38 Location: Missoula Posts: 58
What I really want out of 4th edition is a faster combat system. Role-playing aside, that is what I really want from it. My 3.5 game is really slow in combat since we are now 9th level. Some People's Kids!
Joined: Sat Mar 24 2007, 03:26 Location: Missoula Posts: 33
I was just saying theres now a better "mechanic" for skill related things. I am firm believer that the mechanics of any game system are just pegs to hang your role playing on. Sometimes, if there are too many rules, the roleplaying gets lost in the crunchy bits.
And for the record, I HATE when DMs tell you that you cant do what the skill says you can do. I consider that tantamount to cheating. If the game is stupid enough to give me a skill that says i can turn people to pudding with any roll higher than a 1 while im wearing this rainbow tunic, well thats how it works. In a home game, your dm shouldnt let that ever happen, but for organized play the rules need to be tightly written to prevent that from ever coming up. If your DM lets you make Pun Pun (google that for a funny abuse of the 3rd ed rules) he damn well better be ready for you to do what pun pun does.
I think you missed my point. I'm not saying that a player can't do what the skill allows them to do, I'm saying:
... I don't allow "Hey, nice shirt!" <roll for diplomacy to get the NPC on their side> "35!"... There has to be an opening for the roll.
Exactly like limiting the mechanics so there's no Pun Pun in the group, I limit how much players can default to the dice in a social encounter - regardless of how stupidly the game was written. I do get your point, though. The rules, as they are written, do not say that a player has to role-play before throwing dice so I may be imposing an unfair limitation on players who have a hard time in social situations or aren't as silver-tongued or quick on their feet as some of the other players. One Year, where I attempt to cure (or at least curb) my "Corvus Disorder". "If there is no struggle there is no progress." --- Frederick Douglass
Joined: Sat Mar 24 2007, 03:26 Location: Missoula Posts: 33
With you completely. It's why my diplomat characters always have high initiative modifiers, and why there is a -20 to the skill check if you make it "rushed" (ie six seconds of talk instead of 1 minute). But its still a stupid mechanic that I hope is completely gone in 4th ed. A twinked out charisma buffing marshall should be able to crack 40's on DC's by 10th level even with the -20 penalty. Hostile to Helpful in 6 seconds flat.
(Cha: 30 = +10 mod. Aura = +10 mod. Skill Focus: +3. Various skill synergies: +6. Greater Choker of Eloquence: +10. Circlet of Persuasion: +5. That's a +44. -20 for doing it on the fly = +24. 11 or higher means they go from hostile to friendly. If you have spells, toss in Friendly Face +5, Beguiling Influence +6, Divine Insight +5, and you have a +60, which means you push enemies to Helpful on a 10 or higher, even in 6 seconds. Thrown in some mindbender telepathy and you need not even talk.)
Joined: Sat Mar 29 2008, 10:38 Location: Missoula Posts: 58
Would having a Cha check that basically influenced NPC's initial attitude towords you work. Like for instance a character walks into the tavern and a few people take notice to this person and may even try to get their attention. Wouldn't work on monsters or anything. Some People's Kids!
