oh those, and fey step, (I think that was what it was called) and fight, and the seemingly endless mini magic missile type spells the mage was throwing out, the sword mage's insane amount of variable abilities... I dont really remember all they did just remember I was shocked that half the party had some means of "instant escape" that really couldent be countered, and some means doing everything.
Play 4th with the rules as written and the majority of parties are relatively easy to beat down in a 4-6 (which was the intent) encounter adventure day. Yes players are a bit tougher but monsters were no push overs.
I think what was hinted in 4E and what 13th Age brings out into the open is that you're supposed to throw unfair fights at PCs. 13th Age brings this better to light by outright removing EXP values for monsters and instead emphasizing the relevance of their levels. Since story is the greater emphasis in 13th Age, the DM is no longer required to make players level up based on the amount of EXP they get, and the DM is only presented fair fights to show what a baseline "fair" combat encounter would be like, where PCs are threatened without actual risk of TPK.
Seems like a design vs. development conflict occurred in 4E's development, hence minions getting EXP and what not, even though several monsters later presented themselves as being able to produce high level 0 EXP minions.
Personally I'd try to find some other use for EXP rather than as an incentive for killing monsters rather than defeating or avoiding them. Sadly though, the abuse and misuse of EXP for leveling in CRPGs (including MMORPGs) will likely stay with us for decades to come, since it's a simple, straightforward and mechanically efficient means of keeping tabs on our progress as PCs without having to resort to DM intervention (as far as I can tell), even though it's part of the problem involving grinding, treadmill play and ignoring of objectives and story. After all, which is more rewarding when you defeat a dragon: the fact that you defeated the dragon, gold, magic items or EXP? (I'd more likely hear the last three as an answer, more than the first one... which I really think is kinda disappointing).
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
I once read an article of his about his $120 flop Ptolus, about how he had a group of players wandering around the city and when one guy was flipping out at a Polymorphed Minotaur was rampaging, another player calmly reply, "Nah, It's Ptolus, man." And Mr. Cook praised Mr. Calm Gamer as 'getting the setting'. To me, that's a huge indication (and I admit I could be wrong on it) that he would rather have his settings full of magic and magic users.
Why would you say that Ptolus was a flop?
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome
Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012
DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
oh those, and fey step, (I think that was what it was called) and fight, and the seemingly endless mini magic missile type spells the mage was throwing out, the sword mage's insane amount of variable abilities... I dont really remember all they did just remember I was shocked that half the party had some means of "instant escape" that really couldent be countered, and some means doing everything.
Play 4th with the rules as written and the majority of parties are relatively easy to beat down in a 4-6 (which was the intent) encounter adventure day. Yes players are a bit tougher but monsters were no push overs.
While I completely agree that statistically 4e creatures were just as strong comparitively with 4e adventurers, there is a "feel" to 4e adventurers and their "listed" powers that make them feel more heroic. I think that's what they were going for when creating 4e. They did a good job at it too. So much so, it fooled many into thinking the characters they were playing were much stronger than their 2e character.
One thing though. In AD&D and 2e, the combat was much more swingy at lower levels. It wasn't as stable as 4e. That made those low level characters seem a lot more helpless than 4e characters.
I dont know about that pen, our 4e combats could last forever, an entire gaming session just to resolve one single combat was nuts, it wasnt so swingy (less back and forth) but it did take a very very long time (how many healing surges to you have left... um... 10 or so I think...ugg...)
did it seem heroic to you? it didnt to me, here I was playing what should have been the most "heroic" character class (paladin) and I felt like the bumbling idiot compared to the swordmage and the tiefling witch/rogue. I also hated the "challenge" mechanic, it seemed retarded to me that that a peon low level paladin can challenge some BBEG and if he didnt attack you he would take some severe negitives for being a coward...
and there were so many abilities that drove me nuts like that... not to mention the brooding "twilight" movie esque witch abilities which all sounded like a self loathing emo kid's poetry book... everything about 4e was off to me, the setting, high magic, character creation, the way the abilities were written and worked, the severly constrained and always controlled mechanics, the great deviation from previous editions which seemed to twist and pervert all of what was once good, understood, and rational... (what do you mean if I'm wearing boots of spider climbing the effect will run out and I'll fall in a minute or two and cant use them again till tomorrow) for me it was E v e r y t h i n g.
all of that added up to me as one big gigantic tremendous two year long fail I still feel severely bitter and betrayed about. Thats why it's so important to me that Next does not go down that same road.
then I get on here and people want to tell me the DM didnt understand the 4e rules or he sucked, (he was like a math professor or expert attorney with those rules and he would make an awesome DM using almost any system) or find some other nitpicky reason to justify my hatred of what they feel was a good set of rules.
its an exercise in pointlessness, I hate 4e where as you aparently love it, were never going to agree what was good or bad in it. The best we can do is push that Next have what both of us want as a rules module. That I can pay for and play the game I want, and you can do the same.
but the biggest fail that could happen for Next would be that in attempting to please both of us, they actually dont give either of us what we want in which case I guess you'd be playing 13th age and I'd enter a dark room and come out in a year or so with some alternate rules for pathfinder making it into the game I want to run.
it all comes down to the actual modularity of the rules and the only way to see how that plays out will be giving the designers the time to make it happen (while I suspect Hasbro is pounding on the door warning that the rent needs to be paid "or else!")
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
There originally was the want for a gritty, low magic, d20 game?
One of the ideas might be to "buy"(because we're not allowed to support piracy here) a copy of the d20 Modern Core Rulebook, d20 Past, and Urban Arcana (plus any others that sound good, really if you're going for it just get all of 'em). The compatibility with other d20 games (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder) can let you house-rule in things from those other systems more or less at will, the Action Points system can create moderately dynamic combat, and the low thresholds for death from massive damage make PCs and badass monsters a lot more kill-able. I can't say it will be perfect, but I can say that it should be a decent fit to what you're looking for.
Having played it there are a few key points:
1) This IS a variation on modern, there WILL be guns pushed at you. It is worth noting however that gun's aren't a game-breaker to melee combat that they could be, anything without repeating rifles (IE anything you might look at and say "It COULD be D&D...") is going to quickly go into melee combat anyway. 2) You are running action movie heroes. Character's won't kick through walls, but they can survive being thrown through one (with a little luck). 3) Balance between characters is a joke as the rules are written; Dex is king in a gunfight. Non-combat roles, subtly, and the 3.0 damage reduction system even this out surprisingly well in practice. 4) Having played it, Action Points were well loved by my D&D 3.5 group. It let them put skin in the game to do the things they wanted. 5) Magic is IN the game. Despite being "Real World" it clings heavily to magic for it's plots and stuff. For a Low-Magic game, that shouldn't be a problem though. 6) It's the use of Death from Massive Damage that makes the system "gritty" as I understand the term. Don't forget it during play or you'll be disappointed.
