On Metagame Dissonance, Daily Powers, and Logic

 

If WotC was to do a "4.5", shortening combat length should be near the top of their todo list, along with replacing skill challenges with something more fun, flexible, and well thought out, and giving every class distinctive noncombat capabilities. They could definitely do these things while keeping approx 100% of the 4e fans.



Well they where already trying that with Essentials.
But where restricted in what they could do as Essentials had to be fully compatible with 4th. 
Mand12 -
 Gatt:  I am unclear as to how quoting a section in the PHB qualifies as going to "great lengths" to justify martial daily powers.



I'd rather not go down that road at this point in time,  there are others arguing about that.  I'd prefer to explore the statement "People are complaining about things that are obviously false about 4th edition",  I would like to see a list of the most common things that that people complain about that are obviously false,  because I suspect that they're actually things that people have rationalized.   
 

If WotC was to do a "4.5", shortening combat length should be near the top of their todo list, along with replacing skill challenges with something more fun, flexible, and well thought out, and giving every class distinctive noncombat capabilities. They could definitely do these things while keeping approx 100% of the 4e fans.



Well they where already trying that with Essentials.
But where restricted in what they could do as Essentials had to be fully compatible with 4th. 



MM3/MV and later products shortened combat length by making monsters hit harder but easier to kill. 
They also did do some of the noncombat stuff I mention, and a little of it was backward compatible (like bards got to poach the skald's cool stuff as a free upgrade). 

There's also the seldom mentioned revisions to skill challenges in the rules compendium, though I feel they are much too limited. (and under-advertised)

I'll refrain from a bunch of my other comments about Essentials though. 
Complaints that are obviously false:

Encounter powers end as soon as the last enemy on the matt dies.

4e requires more grid use than 3e.

You cannot improvise in 4e.

4e has less focus on RP than other editions.

4e roles hinder character concepts.

4e introduced martial healing.

4e characters are "anime superheroes" (usually coupled with at level 1).

4e combats were not deadly.

4e classes all play the same.

Am I missing any? I sure I am.
a major 4e fan here

Complaints that are obviously false:

4e requires more grid use than 3e.

4e introduced martial healing.

4e combats were not deadly.

Am I missing any? I sure I am.




I think that BOTH 3e and 4e have alot of mini and grid use... 4e may be a bit more


4e didn't introduce martial healing, but they did buff it up and put it front an center

and finaly, 4e combats can be deadly, but it is FAR LESS deadly then any other low level D&D...        

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

I'd prefer to explore the statement "People are complaining about things that are obviously false about 4th edition",  I would like to see a list of the most common things that that people complain about that are obviously false,  because I suspect that they're actually things that people have rationalized.   


There are some things 4e players have to rationalize, or perhaps just accept and move on. 1:1 diagnals are just blatantly unrealistic, and purely a convenience for players at the table. Miss for half except vs minions is pretty gamey. Grabs can get a little silly sometimes because of being overly simplified. The failry recent errata such that people get a save if you try to teleport them into the air or into hindering terrain (but not if you try to teleport them onto an inconvenient piece of solid ground, or even into a dangerous zone) is pretty blatantly all about game balance.
These things do exist, and if you can't get over them you won't have a good time.

Some things are glaring calls for a simple house rule. For example, if someone wants to have a campaign where combats are 1/day or less, I usually recommend making a campaign rule that short rests take the time currently required for extended rests, and extended rests take substantial downtime in a safe place like a town. Because otherwise the effects of a battle never stick at all unless someone dies.

And some of the complaints are more the complainers rationalizing their opposition. Some people didn't like the asthetics of the power block formatting, or the use of jargon that makes most of the powers, feats, etc very clear and rarely ambiguous. (I'm not saying they disliked the lack of ambiguity, just that they disliked the asthetics of the wording that was used to avoid ambiguity.) It looked very different from what they were used to, and perhaps reminded them of things they saw in board game rulebooks or the like. Some people were very clear about this, while others turned it into "4e is a board game!" Because simply saying you don't like the presentation wasn't damning enough.

And many were a lack of contextual understanding. For example the idea that 4e level 1 characters were super powerful.
A 3.5 level 1 fighter could typically take down a kobold in 1 hit (possibly at min-damage with a 1h weapon). At CR 1/4, equal kobolds to PCs was considered an at-level fight, so they could be considered the equivalent of a standard monster in 4e terms. A level 1 fighter could endure an average of 5 or so hits from kobolds before going down, and would be hit probably around 1/4 of the time. So a level 1 fighter soloing 4 kobolds was a pretty reasonable proposition, though he would have some risk and probably would need some healing afterwards.

A 4e fighter could certainly solo 4 "kobold minions", but that's not an equivalent fight. The above fighter was soloing a full EL1 encounter for 4 PCs, so let's give the 4e fighter a level 1 encounter for 4 pCs: 4 kobold skirmishers.
The kobold skirmishers each have 27 HP, fairly close to the Fighter's (matchs a 12 Con fighter). If he's hitting at MBA level, say 1d8+5 it will take about 3 hits to down a single kobold. 1 shotting isn't impossible, but probably requires a 2h weapon, a daily or at least encounter power and a good roll. (Brute Strike at 3d8+5 probably won't cut it, but Brute Strike w/ a greataxe at 3d12+5 has a solid shot.) Since that's using up limited resources, he won't be able to keep doing it to take out the other 4.
The other problem is the kobolds are hitting the Fighter. 4 of them swarming the Fighter means they all get thier +1 per ally adjacent, and most have CA. They deal only 1d8 per hit, but get +1d6 w/ CA.
At 1d8 per hit, they'll need about 6 hits to down the fighter, which is about the same as the 3.5 fighter, but the bonus damage is likely to drop that down to 4-5 hits. While the Fighter's CC will limit shifting for marked targets, he has trouble marking multiple and will likely have kobolds shifting into flanks a lot. Also, while his AC may be a couple points higher, the kobolds have +5 higher to-hit before counting in flank or their swarm bonus.

In short, the fighter is going to die if he tries to solo an EL1 for 4 characters consisting of nothing but level 1 kobolds poking him with spears. All of his numbers have gone up substantially, but the world he is in has much bigger numbers.

It looks even worse comparing level 2 v level 2. The level 2 3.5 fighter has nearly doubled his HP and can easily take on even more kobolds. An EL2 for 4 characters would be 6 basic kobolds, and he can definitely chop through those no problem. (And with 3 feats by now, he probably has cleave and can murder them two at a time, but that's a different issue.) If he managed to buy full plate they may only be hitting him on nat 20s.
The level 2 4e fighter has gained 6 HP, enough for 1-2 more hits. (A hit with CA averages 8 damage.. ouch.) He probably still can't handle the level 1 encounter, but going up to level 2 encounter budget (25% more, so just one more kobold) is both less impressive and of course even more doomed to failure. His AC and attacks went up by 1, but kobolds are still landing a lot of attacks on him, especially with their CA and swarm bonus, and he still can't hit all that hard. His utility power might be a nice defensive one like spending a HS, but that's not likely to get him through the fight on its own.

So.. which of these is the "super hero"? 
Complaints that are obviously false:

Encounter powers end as soon as the last enemy on the matt dies.

4e requires more grid use than 3e.

You cannot improvise in 4e.

4e has less focus on RP than other editions.

4e roles hinder character concepts.

4e introduced martial healing.

4e characters are "anime superheroes" (usually coupled with at level 1).

4e combats were not deadly.

4e classes all play the same.

Am I missing any? I sure I am.



Thank you.  I can't say I disagree that those aren't true except the last one.  Unfortunately,  I think that one is an example of rationalization,  as the classes are all very similiar if not identical from my observations.  In many cases,  a Mage and a Melee are identical in function as the Mage has been scaled back to be equivalent in damage to a Melee (or the Melee has been pumped).  I suspect that except for the hardcore 4th edition fans who have the books memorized,  we could write the effect of the power and people would be hard pressed to identify it as a martial or magical power.

@Istaran

Thank you.  On this topic...

And some of the complaints are more the complainers rationalizing their opposition. Some people didn't like the asthetics of the power block formatting, or the use of jargon that makes most of the powers, feats, etc very clear and rarely ambiguous. (I'm not saying they disliked the lack of ambiguity, just that they disliked the asthetics of the wording that was used to avoid ambiguity.) It looked very different from what they were used to, and perhaps reminded them of things they saw in board game rulebooks or the like. Some people were very clear about this, while others turned it into "4e is a board game!" Because simply saying you don't like the presentation wasn't damning enough.



Is that rationalizing their opposition,  or is that a valid complaint?  If I didn't like the Jargon,  that doesn't make my complaint demonstrably false,  I can't be false in that instance.  Similiarly,  is disliking lack of ambiguity demonstrably false?  That again seems to me to be a subjective issue.

On the topic of "4e is a board game",  I've seen people who have never played an RPG literally mistake it for a board game,  I got into a weeks long arguement with a poster on the Mass Effect forums who was dead serious in insisting that "D&D is a board game and video games shouldn't try to emulate it".  (Which ended up highly entertaining as I corrected him,  first politely,  then a bit less than polite...)From an inexperienced person's perspective,  if they've only seen combat,  4th edition does look very much like a board game.       
  
I do agree with the remainder of your post though,  especially your fine explanation of why the "Super powered 1st level characters" complaint isn't accurate,  though I suspect that alot of that has to do with us older players having a knee-jerk reaction to the 1st level character's sheet and thinking of it in 1st-3rd edition terms.  I could see how people would make that mistake if they didn't know enough to also inspect the math and see if it had scaled as well.
I'd prefer to explore the statement "People are complaining about things that are obviously false about 4th edition",  I would like to see a list of the most common things that that people complain about that are obviously false,  because I suspect that they're actually things that people have rationalized.   


There are some things 4e players have to rationalize, or perhaps just accept and move on. 1:1 diagnals are just blatantly unrealistic, and purely a convenience for players at the table. Miss for half except vs minions is pretty gamey. Grabs can get a little silly sometimes because of being overly simplified. The failry recent errata such that people get a save if you try to teleport them into the air or into hindering terrain (but not if you try to teleport them onto an inconvenient piece of solid ground, or even into a dangerous zone) is pretty blatantly all about game balance.
These things do exist, and if you can't get over them you won't have a good time.

Some things are glaring calls for a simple house rule. For example, if someone wants to have a campaign where combats are 1/day or less, I usually recommend making a campaign rule that short rests take the time currently required for extended rests, and extended rests take substantial downtime in a safe place like a town. Because otherwise the effects of a battle never stick at all unless someone dies.

And some of the complaints are more the complainers rationalizing their opposition. Some people didn't like the asthetics of the power block formatting, or the use of jargon that makes most of the powers, feats, etc very clear and rarely ambiguous. (I'm not saying they disliked the lack of ambiguity, just that they disliked the asthetics of the wording that was used to avoid ambiguity.) It looked very different from what they were used to, and perhaps reminded them of things they saw in board game rulebooks or the like. Some people were very clear about this, while others turned it into "4e is a board game!" Because simply saying you don't like the presentation wasn't damning enough.

And many were a lack of contextual understanding. For example the idea that 4e level 1 characters were super powerful.
A 3.5 level 1 fighter could typically take down a kobold in 1 hit (possibly at min-damage with a 1h weapon). At CR 1/4, equal kobolds to PCs was considered an at-level fight, so they could be considered the equivalent of a standard monster in 4e terms. A level 1 fighter could endure an average of 5 or so hits from kobolds before going down, and would be hit probably around 1/4 of the time. So a level 1 fighter soloing 4 kobolds was a pretty reasonable proposition, though he would have some risk and probably would need some healing afterwards.

A 4e fighter could certainly solo 4 "kobold minions", but that's not an equivalent fight. The above fighter was soloing a full EL1 encounter for 4 PCs, so let's give the 4e fighter a level 1 encounter for 4 pCs: 4 kobold skirmishers.
The kobold skirmishers each have 27 HP, fairly close to the Fighter's (matchs a 12 Con fighter). If he's hitting at MBA level, say 1d8+5 it will take about 3 hits to down a single kobold. 1 shotting isn't impossible, but probably requires a 2h weapon, a daily or at least encounter power and a good roll. (Brute Strike at 3d8+5 probably won't cut it, but Brute Strike w/ a greataxe at 3d12+5 has a solid shot.) Since that's using up limited resources, he won't be able to keep doing it to take out the other 4.
The other problem is the kobolds are hitting the Fighter. 4 of them swarming the Fighter means they all get thier +1 per ally adjacent, and most have CA. They deal only 1d8 per hit, but get +1d6 w/ CA.
At 1d8 per hit, they'll need about 6 hits to down the fighter, which is about the same as the 3.5 fighter, but the bonus damage is likely to drop that down to 4-5 hits. While the Fighter's CC will limit shifting for marked targets, he has trouble marking multiple and will likely have kobolds shifting into flanks a lot. Also, while his AC may be a couple points higher, the kobolds have +5 higher to-hit before counting in flank or their swarm bonus.

In short, the fighter is going to die if he tries to solo an EL1 for 4 characters consisting of nothing but level 1 kobolds poking him with spears. All of his numbers have gone up substantially, but the world he is in has much bigger numbers.

It looks even worse comparing level 2 v level 2. The level 2 3.5 fighter has nearly doubled his HP and can easily take on even more kobolds. An EL2 for 4 characters would be 6 basic kobolds, and he can definitely chop through those no problem. (And with 3 feats by now, he probably has cleave and can murder them two at a time, but that's a different issue.) If he managed to buy full plate they may only be hitting him on nat 20s.
The level 2 4e fighter has gained 6 HP, enough for 1-2 more hits. (A hit with CA averages 8 damage.. ouch.) He probably still can't handle the level 1 encounter, but going up to level 2 encounter budget (25% more, so just one more kobold) is both less impressive and of course even more doomed to failure. His AC and attacks went up by 1, but kobolds are still landing a lot of attacks on him, especially with their CA and swarm bonus, and he still can't hit all that hard. His utility power might be a nice defensive one like spending a HS, but that's not likely to get him through the fight on its own.

So.. which of these is the "super hero"? 



Your 4e group at level 1 is smart to run away from the most basic group  of Orcs from the first MM... In fact its damn near certain tpk.  

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I think that BOTH 3e and 4e have alot of mini and grid use... 4e may be a bit more


My personal experience was the 3e had more annoying diagnal counting and such, where you had to carefully scrutinize the map to see what was and was not possible (like who you could catch in/exclude from a fireball). In 4e I found there was more actively engaging with the grid, such as movement/forced movement, forcing enemies into dangerous terrain/zones or out of favorable ones, etc.
In that sense I can see how it'd be easier to drop the grid for 3.5, especially if you had a habit of dropping the grid from earlier games. 
 
and finaly, 4e combats can be deadly, but it is FAR LESS deadly then any other low level D&D... 


MOON 1-1, one of the very first LFR adventures, had about a 50% TPK rate in our area, and the rest were universally pretty darn close (such as every PC in the combat having had their second wind triggered by a heal check while unconscious at some point, and some are down again and rolling death saves). This was an EL 3 encounter.

What I have seen, though, is that
a) it's far more likely you'll be at the edge of death without actually dying than previous editions.
b) if it's not a TPK, PCs only rarely die.

Personally I find A to be one of the selling points of 4e. I didn't appreciate in 3.5 the way you tended to go from "oh, I'm fine" to "oh... I'm dead" without any chance for anyone to react in between.     
Complaints that are obviously false:


Not all of these are false actually.


Encounter powers end as soon as the last enemy on the matt dies.


I believe the actual statement is about encounter duration powers, and by the rules the wording is rather ambiguous. It says that the powers end at the end of the encounter or after 5 minutes, whichever comes sooner. If you rule the encounter to be simply the battle, then by a strict reading the powers duration does end at that point. I'm not sure why this matters though, given that if the encounter is over, nothing important is happening. So this one always felt like a nitpick to me more than an actual complaint that got in the way of the game.


4e requires more grid use than 3e.


This is actually true, if you measure grid use as in time. Simply because 4E combats take longer, you'll spend comparatively more session time looking at the grid playing 4E than you would playing 3E.


You cannot improvise in 4e.


Untrue. Although improvisation is heavily discouraged, simply becuase there's very rarely a reason to do it. Though to be fair, 3E really discouraged improvisation as much, if not more than 4E did, since 3E woiuld slap you with tons of penalties if you tried something like disarming without a feat. 


4e has less focus on RP than other editions.


This is true actually, again because of longer combats. Every minute you are spending moving figures around a battle grid is a minute you're not spending interacting with NPCs. By strict percentage, running the same adventure in pre-4E versus 4E, you will spend a greater percentage of your time in combat (aka not-roleplaying) than you will in prior editions.


4e roles hinder character concepts.


Actually I'd say this is more or less true. In 4E, you couldn't make an offensive battle cleric that didn't cast healing spells. Every cleric was forced to be a healer. So in some cases, it did give you fewer options than prior editions.


4e combats were not deadly.


They aren't deadly when you compare them to prior editions, especially 3E, which was the save-or-die spam edition. One botched roll could outright kill you in 3E, where as in 4E, a single attack couldn't even drop you, and even when you got dropped you had layer after layer of healing to burn through before you were truly threatened. 

Of course you can still die in 4E, but 4E is a lot less swingy, so there are many situations where you feel 100% safe, compared to 3E, where you always had a bit of worry. This isn't to say you can't have tough encounters in 4E, but the main difference is that trivial encounters in 4E will always be trivial, where as in AD&D a 10th level party against a bunch of ghouls can turn deadly real fast if a few people botch saves, even though it's supposed to be a pretty easy encounter.

That's what people mean when they say 4E is less deadly. And it's actually another permutation of "combats are too long", since the reason 4E is considerably less swingy is because combats take so long. The more rolls, the more of an advantage goes to the side with the numerical edge, and the less of a chance of an upset.

Am I missing any? I sure I am.



You're missing "All skill DCs auto-scale with your character level. The lock you picked at level 1 at DC 15 becomes DC 18 when you're level 5!"
Is that rationalizing their opposition,  or is that a valid complaint?  If I didn't like the Jargon,  that doesn't make my complaint demonstrably false,  I can't be false in that instance.  Similiarly,  is disliking lack of ambiguity demonstrably false?  That again seems to me to be a subjective issue.


Disliking jargon, or presentation is totally legit. But a lot of the 4e edition war came down to people having legit dislikes and then turning them into things like "4e is a board game/mmorpg/not true D&D" etc, and often going from there into personal insults at anyone who dared to like it. 
Probably because saying "I don't like the way the way these powers are presented" doesn't feel powerful enough as an expression. I don't know.
On the topic of "4e is a board game",  I've seen people who have never played an RPG literally mistake it for a board game,  I got into a weeks long arguement with a poster on the Mass Effect forums who was dead serious in insisting that "D&D is a board game and video games shouldn't try to emulate it".  (Which ended up highly entertaining as I corrected him,  first politely,  then a bit less than polite...)From an inexperienced person's perspective,  if they've only seen combat,  4th edition does look very much like a board game.       


Doesn't this apply pretty equally to 3.5/PF though? Or for that matter, playing any previous edition of D&D with the grid as the rules direct? Or most other RPGs?
I do agree with the remainder of your post though,  especially your fine explanation of why the "Super powered 1st level characters" complaint isn't accurate,  though I suspect that alot of that has to do with us older players having a knee-jerk reaction to the 1st level character's sheet and thinking of it in 1st-3rd edition terms.  I could see how people would make that mistake if they didn't know enough to also inspect the math and see if it had scaled as well.


Yep. And people who are willing to discuss or even try for themselves can quickly gain context and realize that no, you haven't become super powered. In fact in context you've generally become less powerful, except that high level martials have risen to the reduced level of high level casters.
Thank you.  I can't say I disagree that those aren't true except the last one.  Unfortunately,  I think that one is an example of rationalization,  as the classes are all very similiar if not identical from my observations.



The classes look similar yes. They have a same structure, a same format for powers, and gain them at the same rate. Of course by that criteria 3e P(and 5e) only has 2 classes. Casters and non casters. You can format them to look similar and have all spells formatted exactly the same as eachother as well.

I doubt you would argue that 3e and 5e classes all play the same though.

In my experience, all 3e weapon users play the same. They all follow the 5-ft step and full attack trick. In my experience all 3e casters play the same. They all 5-ft step (or move) and cast a spell that ends the fight. In 4e all classes, even ones of the same role all play differently. No rationalizing going on here. A fighter plays very differently from a paladin, swordmage, or warden despite them all being defenders. That is of course because 4e is much more tactically focused and that did contribute to combats taking longer. 5e has returned the there being no "in play" differences between most classes.

In many cases,  a Mage and a Melee are identical in function as the Mage has been scaled back to be equivalent in damage to a Melee (or the Melee has been pumped).  I suspect that except for the hardcore 4th edition fans who have the books memorized,  we could write the effect of the power and people would be hard pressed to identify it as a martial or magical power.



Umm lol wat? Seriously go read through the list of wizard at will attacks alone! Here are some examples.

The wizard can make a burst of cold that hits all enemies in a small burst that does cold damage and slides the enemies all over.

*The wizard can charm a creature forcing him to move away or attack an ally.

*The wizard can create a wall of wind that pushes away and slows nearby enemies.

*The wizard can create a pillar of lightning that damages any foe who approaches it.

*The wizard can blast a small group of enemies with thunder pushing them all away a significant distance.

*The wizard can blast a foe with an unerring bolt of force.

*The wizard can create daggers of force that damage a foe and then harm anyone who enters their space.

*The wizard can create a ray of frost that damages and slows a target.

*The wizard can deal slight damage to a large group of enemies and cause them all to flee in terror.

Compare that to fighter at-wills.

*The fighter can make an attack that deals extra damage but makes him vulnerable to attacks.

*The fighter can make an attack that does very little damage but knocks a foe prone.

*The fighter can make an attack that pushes a large size or smaller foe 5 feet.

*The fighter can make an attack that cleaves into a second target for minor damage.

So what can you tell from this right away? Well for 1 thing spells do elemental damage and fighter attacks do not.
For another spells can hit many more enemies at once than fighter attacks.
Another thing you can tell is that spells can make zones and conjurations while fighter attacks cannot. Another thing you can tell is that spells tend to apply status conditions with their attacks while most fighter attacks do not.
Another is that spells produce effects that weapon attacks never could (such as fear, illusions, mind control, etc).

For this reason I said the fact that all classes play the same is a myth. The fighter clearly has different capabilities than the wizard. Sure with 1000s of powers there will be some similarities, but for the most part it is stunningly obvious what kind of class you are in 4e. Compare that to 3e (or 5e). It is almost impossible to tell a fighter, a paladin, a ranger, or a barbarian apart in terms of how they play at the table. Don't even get me started on the casters. They not only share a large chunk of spells, but even spells they don't share are almost identical to eachother.
Complaints that are obviously false:
4e requires more grid use than 3e.
4e characters are "anime superheroes" (usually coupled with at level 1).
4e combats were not deadly.
4e classes all play the same.


I think the above are very arguable.  I believe without houseruling it was nearly impossible to avoid the grid in 4e.  Powers are easily associated with anime whether you agree or not.  But it's arguable.  I am very certain 4e combats where not deadly.  I can personally vouch for that one.  Maybe it was my group.  There was a class symetry that made the feel the same in play.  So it's arguable.  I'm sure you could claim a technicality on that point and I'd agree.  They are not EXACTLY the same.  But it's not unreasonable if you feel they play far too similarly.

If you think your list is "obvious" then yeah I can see why there are a lot of arguments.  I may agree or disagree with whether they are true but there is enough there to argue about it.


You cannot improvise in 4e.
4e has less focus on RP than other editions.
4e roles hinder character concepts.
4e introduced martial healing.
Am I missing any? I sure I am.


These are so subjective I suppose anyone could argue but I think it's more a failing of the DM if they are true than a failure of the system.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Complaints that are obviously false:

Encounter powers end as soon as the last enemy on the matt dies.

4e requires more grid use than 3e.

You cannot improvise in 4e.

4e has less focus on RP than other editions.

4e roles hinder character concepts.

4e introduced martial healing.

4e characters are "anime superheroes" (usually coupled with at level 1).

4e combats were not deadly.

4e classes all play the same.

Am I missing any? I sure I am.


Those are all partial reasons why I stopped playing 4e and stopped spending money on it after 18 months of going hard core.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Complaints that are obviously false:
4e requires more grid use than 3e.
4e characters are "anime superheroes" (usually coupled with at level 1).
4e combats were not deadly.
4e classes all play the same.


I think the above are very arguable.  I believe without houseruling it was nearly impossible to avoid the grid in 4e.  Powers are easily associated with anime whether you agree or not.  But it's arguable.  I am very certain 4e combats where not deadly.  I can personally vouch for that one.  Maybe it was my group.  There was a class symetry that made the feel the same in play.  So it's arguable.  I'm sure you could claim a technicality on that point and I'd agree.  They are not EXACTLY the same.  But it's not unreasonable if you feel they play far too similarly.

If you think your list is "obvious" then yeah I can see why there are a lot of arguments.  I may agree or disagree with whether they are true but there is enough there to argue about it.



Well for many groups 4e and 3e required about the same amount of grid. Yes 4e relied heavily on grid, no it wasn't 100% necessary (we have done a few encounters without it).

Sure 4e PCs feel more awesome at level 1 than they have in past editions, but when you get right down to what they are capable of in game the 4e PCs are actually less powerful. Especially at high levels.

Sure some people had bad DMs who couldn't kill PCs in 4e. Same is true of 3e. A good DM in 4e can make encounters very deadly. I should know as I have lost more PCs in 4e than in any other edition of D&D (and I have played more 3e than 4e).

I already gave a statement above about classes playing the same. I agree that they look the same on paper, but in play there are far more differences between two 4e PCs than there are between any two classes in 3e.


You cannot improvise in 4e.
4e has less focus on RP than other editions.
4e roles hinder character concepts.
4e introduced martial healing.
Am I missing any? I sure I am.


These are so subjective I suppose anyone could argue but I think it's more a failing of the DM if they are true than a failure of the system.



4e had more rules for RP than any other edition. 4e was also the first edition to have concrete rules for exp for non-combat situations.

Yes 4e combat took a while which could mean groups could RP less because of it, but if your group devoted an equal amount of time to RP and Combat no matter what edition, 4e actually offered more in the way of RP opportunities.

4e had more rules for RP than any other edition. 4e was also the first edition to have concrete rules for exp for non-combat situations. 



2e certainly had some but they were quite complex ... and so well fiddly it makes feats seem easy. (track exactly the number of locks you pick... the spells you cast etc.).

Not that I consider any of that rules for roleplay...  
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


Yes 4e combat took a while which could mean groups could RP less because of it, but if your group devoted an equal amount of time to RP and Combat no matter what edition, 4e actually offered more in the way of RP opportunities.



It's funny but it shows your viewpoint bias.  Nothing wrong with your viewpoint either just you don't realize how others might view it.   The very existance of these rules is probably a negative for a lot of roleplayers.  They would say these rules detract from roleplay or hinder it.   I'm on the fence.  I'm not going to say any rule is a hindrance.  I think skill challenges didn't work for me but they could work for someone.  Again your second list really was so dependent on playstyle.

My point for the original response was that it was debatable and thus not "obvious".  Hopefully I made that point.  I didn't mean to get into the details as thats not the purpose of this thread.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.


Yes 4e combat took a while which could mean groups could RP less because of it, but if your group devoted an equal amount of time to RP and Combat no matter what edition, 4e actually offered more in the way of RP opportunities.



It's funny but it shows your viewpoint bias.  Nothing wrong with your viewpoint either just you don't realize how others might view it.   The very existance of these rules is probably a negative for a lot of roleplayers.  They would say these rules detract from roleplay or hinder it.   I'm on the fence.  I'm not going to say any rule is a hindrance.  I think skill challenges didn't work for me but they could work for someone.  Again your second list really was so dependent on playstyle.

My point for the original response was that it was debatable and thus not "obvious".  Hopefully I made that point.  I didn't mean to get into the details as thats not the purpose of this thread.




For once (not really I think but our times in agreement are small) I'm going to sort of side with Emirikol.

I found 4E to be the easiest  RPG to roleplay in ever, it clicked for me. My wife however, shares the viewpoint often expressed that she feels restricted in roleplaying while playing 4E (her preferred edition is 2nd). Now we've never been able to clearly communicate why we feel the way we feel to each other (I keep coming away from our conversations feeling like she wants more freedom to game the DM and I don't think that is quite it). Part of it may be the feeling that combat isn't RPing (a feeling I do not share). Maybe its the fact that roleplaying can lead to mechanical resolution (at DM discretion, a discretion I frequently exercise myself as I don't like people trying to get around their character's mechanical weaknesses by 'roleplaying', I feel that is the antithesis of what 'being in character' means).

I'm not sure what the answer is. i_smile_alot once told me that I encourage the players to metagame as I would suggest tactics and let them know ahead of time what level of encounters where coming down the pike so they could make genre based decisions (I feel). I told her about how, even if I just say "I hit it with my sword" due to time constraints, in my mind's eye, my character really raced across the warehouse floor, beat aside the enemy leader's blade with his longsword, halfsword gripped it so that I could wrestle him to the floor and impaled him to the ground, when I would move, power attack, action point while in poised assault stance. I see similar things for everyone's character.
 
4e had more rules for RP than any other edition. 4e was also the first edition to have concrete rules for exp for non-combat situations.

Yes 4e combat took a while which could mean groups could RP less because of it, but if your group devoted an equal amount of time to RP and Combat no matter what edition, 4e actually offered more in the way of RP opportunities.



I've never really been one to think that RP needs rules. At worst RP rules can destroy roleplaying in the game world, like 3E's diplomancer did.

At best, RP rules are simply a "Make a check" use at a critical juncture to see how an NPC reacts, which is more or less what 2E did.

4Es RP rules come somewhere in the middle. Social skill challenges in particular tend to devolve into roll-playing and not role-playing, because they're just throwing skill checks at the NPC until something happens. Overall I feel this tends to detract from the game. Not as much so as 3E's rules, since at least 4E allows the DM some judgment as how an NPC reacts to your roll, as opposed to the 3E diplomancer "Your archenemy is magically your friend for no reason" BS.

I feel the essence of roleplaying is talking in character, and interacting with the NPC as though he was a real individual with goals, motivations and personality.

RP rules tend to all too often turn NPCs into obstacles that you just toss dice at. Sometimes it's helpful to have a "Do I think he's lying to me roll" or a charisma check to handle a borderline case, where the DM feels that the character's persuasiveness and charm was important. But I've always felt this should be a supplement that is called on when needed, not a core resolution mechanic.   


Encounter powers end as soon as the last enemy on the matt dies.


I believe the actual statement is about encounter duration powers, and by the rules the wording is rather ambiguous. It says that the powers end at the end of the encounter or after 5 minutes, whichever comes sooner. If you rule the encounter to be simply the battle, then by a strict reading the powers duration does end at that point. I'm not sure why this matters though, given that if the encounter is over, nothing important is happening. So this one always felt like a nitpick to me more than an actual complaint that got in the way of the game.


 

wel as i stated many times before take up a DMG look in the index at the section when does a encounter end it is on page 41
An encounter ends when the monsters are dead or have fled and the characters take a short rest to regain hit points and encounter powers.

We It was refered to many times but people keep bringing it up gets realy frustrating after a while.




 4e has less focus on RP than other editions.


This is true actually, again because of longer combats. Every minute you are spending moving figures around a battle grid is a minute you're not spending interacting with NPCs. By strict percentage, running the same adventure in pre-4E versus 4E, you will spend a greater percentage of your time in combat (aka not-roleplaying) than you will in prior editions.


This is true actually, again because of longer combats. Every minute you are spending moving figures around a battle grid is a minute you're not spending interacting with NPCs. By strict percentage, running the same adventure in pre-4E versus 4E, you will spend a greater percentage of your time in combat (aka not-roleplaying) than you will in prior editions.


The focus on rp ias the same, you can RP equaly in 4th and editions that came before it.
But you will have to get used to the new pace of the game.




Huh since when did roleplay turn off in a fight scene... not where I come from 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

4e had more rules for RP than any other edition. 4e was also the first edition to have concrete rules for exp for non-combat situations.

Yes 4e combat took a while which could mean groups could RP less because of it, but if your group devoted an equal amount of time to RP and Combat no matter what edition, 4e actually offered more in the way of RP opportunities.



I've never really been one to think that RP needs rules. At worst RP rules can destroy roleplaying in the game world, like 3E's diplomancer did.

At best, RP rules are simply a "Make a check" use at a critical juncture to see how an NPC reacts, which is more or less what 2E did.

4Es RP rules come somewhere in the middle. Social skill challenges in particular tend to devolve into roll-playing and not role-playing, because they're just throwing skill checks at the NPC until something happens. Overall I feel this tends to detract from the game. Not as much so as 3E's rules, since at least 4E allows the DM some judgment as how an NPC reacts to your roll, as opposed to the 3E diplomancer "Your archenemy is magically your friend for no reason" BS.

I feel the essence of roleplaying is talking in character, and interacting with the NPC as though he was a real individual with goals, motivations and personality.

RP rules tend to all too often turn NPCs into obstacles that you just toss dice at. Sometimes it's helpful to have a "Do I think he's lying to me roll" or a charisma check to handle a borderline case, where the DM feels that the character's persuasiveness and charm was important. But I've always felt this should be a supplement that is called on when needed, not a core resolution mechanic.   




I personally agree with you,  but I've seen why those rules are in place.  A fair number of gamers,  especially younger gamers who grew up with video games,  tend to have serious problems with role playing.

The younger generation who grew up thinking CRPGs are RPGs (Most especially the Bethesda ones),  have a really hard time with roleplaying,  and really try to just play the character sheet.  Their basis for Roleplaying are games like Mass Effect where decisions are meaningless and good/evil is a lightswitch you flip at will,  or Bethesda games where "Roleplaying" is waiting for the quest giver to point your magic compass at a treasure or hand you experience for fetching something.

So I can understand why they're present,  especially today guidelines and assistance is usefull for nudging players on the right path.  But honestly,  I prefered the old ways of roleplaying not needing rules.       
The classes look similar yes. They have a same structure, a same format for powers, and gain them at the same rate. Of course by that criteria 3e P(and 5e) only has 2 classes. Casters and non casters.

Except that the D&D Next classes do not all "have a same structure, a same format for powers, and gain them at the same rate". Commpare any of the class advancement tables.

You can format them to look similar and have all spells formatted exactly the same as eachother as well.

You could, but they aren't.

In my experience, all 3e weapon users play the same. They all follow the 5-ft step and full attack trick. In my experience all 3e casters play the same. They all 5-ft step (or move) and cast a spell that ends the fight.

In my experience (OD&D and AD&D, since I never played 3rd Edition D&D), most weapon users engaged in melee combat (the exeptions being ranged weapon specialists, when there was enough room to remain at range), using many different tactics to get the most advantageous position against the enemy. Casters usually stayed out of melee, whether to inflict individual damage to enemies or use Area of Effect spells to control the battlefield.

Most melee characters played differently, due to their individual strengths and weaknesses. The same could be said about spellcasters, depending upon their spell selections.

In 4e all classes, even ones of the same role all play differently. No rationalizing going on here. A fighter plays very differently from a paladin, swordmage, or warden despite them all being defenders. That is of course because 4e is much more tactically focused and that did contribute to combats taking longer. 5e has returned the there being no "in play" differences between most classes.

4th Edition D&D classes all just chose a power to use during combat. Each power did some type of damage and, possibly, some additional effect or condition. Whether the damage type was different, or the effect was different, doesn't make the play different: similar choices (structurally), similar results (mechanically). No rationalizing going on here.

Complaints that are obviously false:

Encounter powers end as soon as the last enemy on the matt dies.

4e requires more grid use than 3e.

You cannot improvise in 4e.

4e has less focus on RP than other editions.

4e roles hinder character concepts.

4e introduced martial healing.

4e characters are "anime superheroes" (usually coupled with at level 1).

4e combats were not deadly.

4e classes all play the same.

Am I missing any? I sure I am.



Thank you.  I can't say I disagree that those aren't true except the last one.  Unfortunately,  I think that one is an example of rationalization,  as the classes are all very similiar if not identical from my observations.  In many cases,  a Mage and a Melee are identical in function as the Mage has been scaled back to be equivalent in damage to a Melee (or the Melee has been pumped).  I suspect that except for the hardcore 4th edition fans who have the books memorized,  we could write the effect of the power and people would be hard pressed to identify it as a martial or magical power.



Uh, no. Not even close. The difference between 3E and 4E is that the Fighter does less damage, and the Wizard does less damage. The difference between a 4E Fighter and a 4E Wizard are many.

4E Fighters usually deal medium damage but occasionally get an extra attack or stop an adjacent enemy from moving. They also can deal auto damage or have a more accurate attack or a more damaging attack. They are also tough and can take multiple hits. They also have encounter and daily powers that do nothing on a miss, but are not expended (reliable keyword). Their powers not sustained.

4E Wizards usually deal area damage, cause status effects, or both. Even with their at-will powers. They focus on causing the enemy to move where they want (by causing them damage if they don't) or hindering them and making it easier to kill them for other party members. They are not tough and can't take as many hits as a Fighter. They also have encounter and daily powers that do a lesser effect on a miss. They also have many powers that are sustainable (meaning they last until the Wizard stops spending actions to concentrate on them).

They play completely differently. The only similarity is their power resource recovery structure. That's pretty much it. You can do this comparison to nearly any two classes and come up with similar results that they are completely different.

@Istaran

Thank you.  On this topic...

And some of the complaints are more the complainers rationalizing their opposition. Some people didn't like the asthetics of the power block formatting, or the use of jargon that makes most of the powers, feats, etc very clear and rarely ambiguous. (I'm not saying they disliked the lack of ambiguity, just that they disliked the asthetics of the wording that was used to avoid ambiguity.) It looked very different from what they were used to, and perhaps reminded them of things they saw in board game rulebooks or the like. Some people were very clear about this, while others turned it into "4e is a board game!" Because simply saying you don't like the presentation wasn't damning enough.



Is that rationalizing their opposition,  or is that a valid complaint?  If I didn't like the Jargon,  that doesn't make my complaint demonstrably false,  I can't be false in that instance.  Similiarly,  is disliking lack of ambiguity demonstrably false?  That again seems to me to be a subjective issue.

On the topic of "4e is a board game",  I've seen people who have never played an RPG literally mistake it for a board game,  I got into a weeks long arguement with a poster on the Mass Effect forums who was dead serious in insisting that "D&D is a board game and video games shouldn't try to emulate it".  (Which ended up highly entertaining as I corrected him,  first politely,  then a bit less than polite...)From an inexperienced person's perspective,  if they've only seen combat,  4th edition does look very much like a board game.

     
 
No, if you walked in during combat and left before it ended the worst you could take from it is that it might be some kind of war game. Board game doesn't even come into the picture. That's if the players don't role play while doing combat. Which my group does all the time.

I do agree with the remainder of your post though,  especially your fine explanation of why the "Super powered 1st level characters" complaint isn't accurate,  though I suspect that alot of that has to do with us older players having a knee-jerk reaction to the 1st level character's sheet and thinking of it in 1st-3rd edition terms.  I could see how people would make that mistake if they didn't know enough to also inspect the math and see if it had scaled as well.



I think most complaints about 4E are knee-jerk reactions.

Don't feel bad, the first time I picked up 3E I made the same mistakes with knee jerk reactions...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Complaints that are obviously false:


Not all of these are false actually.



Yeah, actually they are.


Encounter powers end as soon as the last enemy on the matt dies.


I believe the actual statement is about encounter duration powers, and by the rules the wording is rather ambiguous. It says that the powers end at the end of the encounter or after 5 minutes, whichever comes sooner. If you rule the encounter to be simply the battle, then by a strict reading the powers duration does end at that point. I'm not sure why this matters though, given that if the encounter is over, nothing important is happening. So this one always felt like a nitpick to me more than an actual complaint that got in the way of the game.



No where does it say 'which one comes first'. In fact PHB page 278 second colum paragraph at the bottom says:

"Unless a description says otherwise, you can sustain a power with a sustained duration for as long as 5 minutes. However, you can't rest while sutaining a power. So you can't regain the use of your encounter powers or second wind until you stop sustaining a power.
Rituals (see Chapter 10) can create effects that last for hours, days, or years."

Its there in plain black and white. There is also the DMs 'say yes, but' rule which would allow you to make some kind of check to sustain the power longer.

4e requires more grid use than 3e.


This is actually true, if you measure grid use as in time. Simply because 4E combats take longer, you'll spend comparatively more session time looking at the grid playing 4E than you would playing 3E.



4E has long combats we all agree and none of us like it, however 3E used the grid for the same number of rounds and for the same number of combats.

You can also play 4E with less combats or shorter combats (filled with minions or very few monsters) and have more socialization and exploration time. So this one is subjective to individual DMs and adventures at best.


You cannot improvise in 4e.


Untrue. Although improvisation is heavily discouraged, simply becuase there's very rarely a reason to do it. Though to be fair, 3E really discouraged improvisation as much, if not more than 4E did, since 3E woiuld slap you with tons of penalties if you tried something like disarming without a feat.



4E encouraged improvisation with the DM rule 'say yes, but...' and page 42. 3E didn't even come close to that.


4e has less focus on RP than other editions.


This is true actually, again because of longer combats. Every minute you are spending moving figures around a battle grid is a minute you're not spending interacting with NPCs. By strict percentage, running the same adventure in pre-4E versus 4E, you will spend a greater percentage of your time in combat (aka not-roleplaying) than you will in prior editions.



This is based on play style. My players and I role play during combat so our games are role play 100% of the time. Others may shut off the RP as soon as combat starts, but again that's a play style choice.


4e roles hinder character concepts.


Actually I'd say this is more or less true. In 4E, you couldn't make an offensive battle cleric that didn't cast healing spells. Every cleric was forced to be a healer. So in some cases, it did give you fewer options than prior editions.



You could make a very offensive cleric without healing spells using the multiclass or hybrid system or just use a divine caster class that didn't use healing spells (I may be wrong but wasn't that the Avengers whole thing?). This is more people not willing to cross out a name and write another one.


4e combats were not deadly.


They aren't deadly when you compare them to prior editions, especially 3E, which was the save-or-die spam edition. One botched roll could outright kill you in 3E, where as in 4E, a single attack couldn't even drop you, and even when you got dropped you had layer after layer of healing to burn through before you were truly threatened.

 

Yeah, tell that to my players whom I've TPK'd 3 times before level 9, and they came pretty close several other times.

Of course you can still die in 4E, but 4E is a lot less swingy, so there are many situations where you feel 100% safe, compared to 3E, where you always had a bit of worry. This isn't to say you can't have tough encounters in 4E, but the main difference is that trivial encounters in 4E will always be trivial, where as in AD&D a 10th level party against a bunch of ghouls can turn deadly real fast if a few people botch saves, even though it's supposed to be a pretty easy encounter.



We call that bad design when a low level enemy can take down high level groups. Its not predictable and its misleading to design that kind of encounter because the 3E (or 2E for that matter) CR system wouldn't take that kind of thing into account.

So the problem is not 4E isn't deadly. Its 4E allows you enough time to react to deadly and previous editions did not. You fail a beholders Flesh to Stone gaze in 4E and you know you are about 2 saves away from certain death and can take actions to prevent that. 3E and before you fail the save you're gone, no reaction, nothing.

That's what people mean when they say 4E is less deadly. And it's actually another permutation of "combats are too long", since the reason 4E is considerably less swingy is because combats take so long. The more rolls, the more of an advantage goes to the side with the numerical edge, and the less of a chance of an upset.



Well I wish they would explain it like you did, because then we can get somewhere.

Am I missing any? I sure I am.



You're missing "All skill DCs auto-scale with your character level. The lock you picked at level 1 at DC 15 becomes DC 18 when you're level 5!"



Nope, doesn't happen. There are charts for how hard a lock is to pick based on the quality of the lock. The DC by level chart is for DMs to have an idea of what should challenge a level X character, not thisis the only thing that a level X character will ever encounter and bump the DCs up to this amount.

Again this is one of those internet memes that get repeated and repeated and shot down every time its brought up.

I think that if most of the 4E detractors would take the time to read the rule books and play a few sessions with experienced 4E players some of them might change their minds. At the very least they would know what they are talking about when they go to criticize 4E or explain what they don't like...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Complaints that are obviously false:

Encounter powers end as soon as the last enemy on the matt dies.

4e requires more grid use than 3e.

You cannot improvise in 4e.

4e has less focus on RP than other editions.

4e roles hinder character concepts.

4e introduced martial healing.

4e characters are "anime superheroes" (usually coupled with at level 1).

4e combats were not deadly.

4e classes all play the same.

Am I missing any? I sure I am.


Those are all partial reasons why I stopped playing 4e and stopped spending money on it after 18 months of going hard core.



Well if that's the case maybe you'd care to play with an experienced group for a few sessions so you can see how badly your DM botched the game you played...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
4e had more rules for RP than any other edition. 4e was also the first edition to have concrete rules for exp for non-combat situations.

Yes 4e combat took a while which could mean groups could RP less because of it, but if your group devoted an equal amount of time to RP and Combat no matter what edition, 4e actually offered more in the way of RP opportunities.



I've never really been one to think that RP needs rules. At worst RP rules can destroy roleplaying in the game world, like 3E's diplomancer did.

At best, RP rules are simply a "Make a check" use at a critical juncture to see how an NPC reacts, which is more or less what 2E did.

4Es RP rules come somewhere in the middle. Social skill challenges in particular tend to devolve into roll-playing and not role-playing, because they're just throwing skill checks at the NPC until something happens. Overall I feel this tends to detract from the game. Not as much so as 3E's rules, since at least 4E allows the DM some judgment as how an NPC reacts to your roll, as opposed to the 3E diplomancer "Your archenemy is magically your friend for no reason" BS.

I feel the essence of roleplaying is talking in character, and interacting with the NPC as though he was a real individual with goals, motivations and personality.

RP rules tend to all too often turn NPCs into obstacles that you just toss dice at. Sometimes it's helpful to have a "Do I think he's lying to me roll" or a charisma check to handle a borderline case, where the DM feels that the character's persuasiveness and charm was important. But I've always felt this should be a supplement that is called on when needed, not a core resolution mechanic.   




Another misunderstanding.

The 4E PHB says this about skill checks:

"The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstances call for it."

So its basically up to the DM when a skill check is called for.

page 258 PHB says:

"Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail."

Put the two together and what do you get? You get the DM asking you to describe your actions, if you don't describe your actions you don't get a roll. In other words you are factually incorrect. As most people that denigrate 4E for these kinds of reasons are...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The classes look similar yes. They have a same structure, a same format for powers, and gain them at the same rate. Of course by that criteria 3e P(and 5e) only has 2 classes. Casters and non casters.

Except that the D&D Next classes do not all "have a same structure, a same format for powers, and gain them at the same rate". Commpare any of the class advancement tables.

You can format them to look similar and have all spells formatted exactly the same as eachother as well.

You could, but they aren't.

In my experience, all 3e weapon users play the same. They all follow the 5-ft step and full attack trick. In my experience all 3e casters play the same. They all 5-ft step (or move) and cast a spell that ends the fight.

In my experience (OD&D and AD&D, since I never played 3rd Edition D&D), most weapon users engaged in melee combat (the exeptions being ranged weapon specialists, when there was enough room to remain at range), using many different tactics to get the most advantageous position against the enemy. Casters usually stayed out of melee, whether to inflict individual damage to enemies or use Area of Effect spells to control the battlefield.

Most melee characters played differently, due to their individual strengths and weaknesses. The same could be said about spellcasters, depending upon their spell selections.

In 4e all classes, even ones of the same role all play differently. No rationalizing going on here. A fighter plays very differently from a paladin, swordmage, or warden despite them all being defenders. That is of course because 4e is much more tactically focused and that did contribute to combats taking longer. 5e has returned the there being no "in play" differences between most classes.

4th Edition D&D classes all just chose a power to use during combat. Each power did some type of damage and, possibly, some additional effect or condition. Whether the damage type was different, or the effect was different, doesn't make the play different: similar choices (structurally), similar results (mechanically). No rationalizing going on here.




Same structure does not mean same play. Sorry. Go read the actual powers and then watch some videos of people playing on youtube or something. Then come back and post links to the ones you find where they all play the same...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Thank you.  I can't say I disagree that those aren't true except the last one.  Unfortunately,  I think that one is an example of rationalization,  as the classes are all very similiar if not identical from my observations.



The classes look similar yes. They have a same structure, a same format for powers, and gain them at the same rate. Of course by that criteria 3e P(and 5e) only has 2 classes. Casters and non casters. You can format them to look similar and have all spells formatted exactly the same as eachother as well.



This is not entirely accurate. There are several 4e classes that deviate from the power structure outlined in PHB1. Most of the Essentials ones, all the Psionic classes, a couple of others. This doesn't of course have anything to do with whether the classes play similarly, and in my experience they're extremely different. Even ones which nominally perform the same role.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

 
Same structure does not mean same play. Sorry. Go read the actual powers and then watch some videos of people playing on youtube or something. Then come back and post links to the ones you find where they all play the same...



Even the mechanical results of summoning a creature, creating a zone, maintenance of an effect and so on - dramatically different and involve different kinds of choices ... that go beyond initial casting decision.

Damage type has a real impact as martial types cant generally play rock paper scissors with the damage type to target a easier opening... spell casters can.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

No where does it say 'which one comes first'. In fact PHB page 278 second colum paragraph at the bottom says:


Rules compendium page 226.

"The effect ends at the end of the current encounter or after 5 minutes, whichever comes first"


4E has long combats we all agree and none of us like it, however 3E used the grid for the same number of rounds and for the same number of combats.

You can also play 4E with less combats or shorter combats (filled with minions or very few monsters) and have more socialization and exploration time. So this one is subjective to individual DMs and adventures at best.


You can, but by and large if you're measuring grid usage by time spent staring at the grid (which is a perfectly reasonable way of doing it), you're going to be doing that more when playing the same adventure under 4E as opposed prior editions. Again it's just a rephrasing/side-effect of longer combats.


4E encouraged improvisation with the DM rule 'say yes, but...' and page 42. 3E didn't even come close to that.


The reason I say 4E discouraged improvisation is mostly because 4E never nullified your existing powers, meaning that you rarely really had reason to think outside the box. Nothing was immune to sneak attack, energy resistances were really rare, all in all, I just never really felt the need to improvise in 4E. While it's true that the system absolutely had rules for improvising, and probably the best guidelines created for it of any edition, becasue almost all problems could be solved by just doing what you always do, there wasn't any pressing need to improvise.


This is based on play style. My players and I role play during combat so our games are role play 100% of the time. Others may shut off the RP as soon as combat starts, but again that's a play style choice.



The only real objective measure of roleplaying is the amount that the system distracts your concentration from RPing onto other things. The less distraction, the more RP potential, simply because you have more free time to use on roleplaying. 

I found it very difficult to RP during 4E combat becasue you've got to think tactically and try to remember all the status effects being tossed around. Maybe your groups can role play and also plot moves on a grid or keep track of when the daze on Troll #2 ends, but mine never could. It had a much higher concentration level required in combat, especially as the DM.

This is due to the fact that 4E was a lot more tactical than its predecessors, and whether the trade off of RP time for tactical time is worth it is another preference thing. But the raw time that you spend thinking about tactical issues is much higher in 4E compared to prior editions, and while thinking about that stuff, you're not thinking about roleplay.


You could make a very offensive cleric without healing spells using the multiclass or hybrid system or just use a divine caster class that didn't use healing spells (I may be wrong but wasn't that the Avengers whole thing?). This is more people not willing to cross out a name and write another one.


Well the avenger wasn't really a cleric. Sure he was divine, but he was a meleer, so his flavor was entirely different. While there may have been variant options in 4E, the classes were clearly a lot less versatile than their 3E counterparts. The roles did create a sort of expected playstyle for each class that did reduce the amount of options that class had.


Yeah, tell that to my players whom I've TPK'd 3 times before level 9, and they came pretty close several other times.


The ability to TPK doesn't make a system deadly or not deadly. Any system can produce TPKs if you throw on enough overwhelming force. What makes a system deadly is swinginess, or to put it another way, the amount of bad luck that it takes to kill you off. The more ways to save yourself that you get, the less deadly the system. The ultimate in deadliness is the save-or-die, where one bad roll kills you. All prior editions are objectively deadlier than 4E, though the argument could be made that this isn't a good thing, since the preferred level fo deadliness is a playstyle preference.

In real life, a gunfight is deadly, a fist fight isn't. This isn't to say you can't be killed in a fist fight, but it's highly unlikely one blow is going to kill you, and if you've got a strong edge in a fist fight, you'll probably win with no losses every time. In a gunfight, anyone can get off a lucky headshot and someone could die, even if one side has a big advantage in numbers. 


We call that bad design when a low level enemy can take down high level groups. Its not predictable and its misleading to design that kind of encounter because the 3E (or 2E for that matter) CR system wouldn't take that kind of thing into account.


Well, no, that's simply swinginess, and the CR system does take it into account, it's just that the more swingy the system, the less reliable the CR system. All the CR system is really telling you is who the favorite in the combat is and approximately how close the battle will be on average. But the deadlier the system, the greater the chance of an upset victory by the underdog, because it takes less bad luck on the part of the favored party to lose a fight.


So the problem is not 4E isn't deadly. Its 4E allows you enough time to react to deadly and previous editions did not. You fail a beholders Flesh to Stone gaze in 4E and you know you are about 2 saves away from certain death and can take actions to prevent that. 3E and before you fail the save you're gone, no reaction, nothing.


Right, this is why 4E is less deadly than 3E, because you have plenty more ways to save yourself, as opposed to "bang! you're dead!"

Now, whether you call that a problem or not is a matter of opinion. Part of the reason 4E was made the way it was is because people complained that 3E was too deadly for exactly the reason you mentioned: You could die from one bad roll. It's fine to make the argument that 4E's level of deadliness is better than 3E's, because that's a preference thing, but 4E is undeniably less deadly than its predecessors.


Nope, doesn't happen. There are charts for how hard a lock is to pick based on the quality of the lock. The DC by level chart is for DMs to have an idea of what should challenge a level X character, not thisis the only thing that a level X character will ever encounter and bump the DCs up to this amount.


Yup, which is why I suggested it as an addition to the list of untrue claims that are made about 4E. The DC scaling argument always bothered me as one of those claims about 4E that was flat out untrue.

This is a prime example of where words fail us.  One side will say X is true and the other will say X is false.   

That the classes played the same for many of us is unquestionable.  They did.  We played them.  That you felt the differences that did exist were enough is also unquestionable.

I don't think anyone is saying things were identical.  That is a lawyering tactic to say that is what is meant.   When you say classes play the same, you are saying that there is not enough differentiating them.   It is dependent on the group no doubt.   It was an issue with 4e for a lot of people.



 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

No where does it say 'which one comes first'. In fact PHB page 278 second colum paragraph at the bottom says:


Rules compendium page 226.

"The effect ends at the end of the current encounter or after 5 minutes, whichever comes first"




repeating again.

pick up a DMG look in the index at the section when does a encounter end it is on page 41
An encounter ends when the monsters are dead or have fled and the characters take a short rest to regain hit points and encounter powers.

so your base asumption that a encounter ends when the enemies are dead is flawed.

We It was refered to many times but people keep bringing it up gets realy frustrating after a while.


Well the avenger wasn't really a cleric. Sure he was divine, but he was a meleer, so his flavor was entirely different. While there may have been variant options in 4E, the classes were clearly a lot less versatile than their 3E counterparts. The roles did create a sort of expected playstyle for each class that did reduce the amount of options that class had.



Well, some 4e classes were less versatile than their 3e counterparts. I mean, less versatile than a 3e Cleric describes pretty much every class in evry edition - except possibly suppose the 3e Druid. It's quite plausible to argue that a class which can replace any other member of the party and do their job as competently is somewhat overpowered.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

No where does it say 'which one comes first'. In fact PHB page 278 second colum paragraph at the bottom says:


Rules compendium page 226.

"The effect ends at the end of the current encounter or after 5 minutes, whichever comes first" 



And the definition of an end of an encounter tells you....tadah generally when the monsters die AND they stop for a short rest.

Its the cool down of resting that ends the encounter duration effects.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

repeating again.

pick up a DMG look in the index at the section when does a encounter end it is on page 41
An encounter ends when the monsters are dead or have fled and the characters take a short rest to regain hit points and encounter powers.


He asked where it said "whichever comes first" and I gave a reference.

Based on the reading in the rules compendium, it definitely does seem like powers end when the game goes out of initiative. Yeah, maybe there's an obscure reference somewhere that contradicts it, but you can hardly blame non-4E diehards for not knowing that reference, because it's really not obvious at all and I'm pretty sure that reference isn't anywhere in the rules compendium. I haven't opened my original 4E DMG in forever and I'm not sure if that obscure part about encounters even transferred to the Essentials DMG, so I'm not even sure if that's technically the official ruling anymore post errata. Most of the original DMG is obsolete by now, so I don't really trust much of what's in there now anyway compared to the more recent rules compendium and essentials DMG. 

And you have to admit the wording is very confusing. Why would it say "when the encounter ends or 5 minutes pass, whichever comes first", if ending an encounter requires a short rest (which takes 5 minutes). That would indicate that the encounter can never end before 5 minutes, so why make it more confusing than it has to be and just say that it lasts for 5 minutes?

The wording on that is terrible, and the confusion that it brings is completely understandable.


Dwarf, all those complaints/myths about the encounters ending right away were made/propogated before the RC was printed. That means the only place that said when an encounter was over was the DMG. The DMG is pretty clear that it requires a short rest.
repeating again.

pick up a DMG look in the index at the section when does a encounter end it is on page 41
An encounter ends when the monsters are dead or have fled and the characters take a short rest to regain hit points and encounter powers.


He asked where it said "whichever comes first" and I gave a reference.

Based on the reading in the rules compendium, it definitely does seem like powers end when the game goes out of initiative.


Its one of the first three books not some silly splat book...  (or un-needed addon electronic or otherwise).

When you have people playing the mocking game again and again when they are flat out wrong with no excuses is drop it in dust bin eWar... and amounts to propogating ignorance. (not specifically referring to you - but I am going to hold some others to it)






  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

You're missing "All skill DCs auto-scale with your character level. The lock you picked at level 1 at DC 15 becomes DC 18 when you're level 5!"

I love this one; because nobody ever seems to think that maybe...just maybe, the lock you picked at level one should be using the "Easy" DC rating when you are level five instead of the "Standard/Normal" DC rating which should be reserved for locks that are meant to challenge you at that level.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

Sign In to post comments