My thoughts after 1st look at 4E

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:41 pm

Antonio,

My apologies if you did not intend, but just placing "Humpty dumpty.." at the top of a response sure sounds as if you're calling me that and suggesting my thoughts are just cracked egg shells strewn about that cannot be put back together again.

You're initial response was very detailed and a clear rebuttal to why you like things I did not, and I then merely said it's probably a matter of tastes and politely said I disagreed.

But where this then went to was an assertion that my thread and thoughts were somehow to be dismissed because I hadn't "objectively" looked at this system and come to the same conclusions as you.

I dislike the term "build" because it is associated with the focus of the RPG on how powerful you can make a character and WHAT that character can DO, which is merely (for me) a pov about an RPG that isn't in line with my tastes (and AGAIN and AGAIN, like in so MANY posts above, this is just me stating MY preferences...). It is a term that didn't emerge in D&D until 3.5, and migrated in DIRECTLY from computer game character generation and building.

Ok, so this is how "flame wars" and hurt feelings and all that start.... I realize that we get very proprietary over our likes and dislikes, but I'd hate to get to the point where we can't simply say "I didn't like it" and feel free to share that opinion.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:57 pm

Oh, and just so I don't come off as a curmudgen here (which scares the hell out of me being only 38)... I like the weapon images in Chapter 7 of the 4e PHB and wish the C&C PHB had provided imagery of armor and weapons in its equipment section like this.

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Realmsbard · Post by **Realmsbard** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:01 pm

Sounds like they have snatched some things from Savage Worlds?
_________________
Listen to the song. For in the tale there may be truth.

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:01 pm

Far from me to offend you. It was just a literary reference to the lack of understanding on my part. That's all.

Regarding my post, I actually posted the things I saw in the book, in an attempt, as I said, to complement your opinions. Actually, I did not speak much about what I do not like of what I reported (and there are things I do not like!) I think usually people is not interested about what one might like or not; rather, about what is actually written in the book, considering that many people here do not have the books. So, I tried to answer Serleran's questions as objectively (with numbers and facts) as possible. "Mooks" mechanics are an example. I like them. Some might not. But the "fact" is that they work in a certain way. I guess trying to remove one's own opinions on a subject helps people who want to form their opinion on whether they might like something or not.

So, I fully agree everyone is entitled to his own opinion. That's why you will not see a thread of "why I like 4e". I guess people has better things to do than reading my likes and dislikes. But if I can make a description of what is in a book, it might actually be of service.

Cheers,

Antonio

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:02 pm

seskis281 wrote:
Oh, and just so I don't come off as a curmudgen here (which scares the hell out of me being only 38)... I like the weapon images in Chapter 7 of the 4e PHB and wish the C&C PHB had provided imagery of armor and weapons in its equipment section like this.

Actually, THOSE are things I do not like at all!
They seem quite bland to me.

Actually, the whole graphics aspect of the books does not impress me at all. I prefer the simple style of C&C.

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:03 pm

Realmsbard wrote:
Sounds like they have snatched some things from Savage Worlds?

More than some And not only from SW! They surely gave a look at True 20, Castles & Crusades and some other games.

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:22 pm

rabindranath72 wrote:
Far from me to offend you. It was just a literary reference to the lack of understanding on my part. That's all.

Regarding my post, I actually posted the things I saw in the book, in an attempt, as I said, to complement your opinions. Actually, I did not speak much about what I do not like of what I reported (and there are things I do not like!) I think usually people is not interested about what one might like or not; rather, about what is actually written in the book, considering that many people here do not have the books. So, I tried to answer Serleran's questions as objectively (with numbers and facts) as possible. "Mooks" mechanics are an example. I like them. Some might not. But the "fact" is that they work in a certain way. I guess trying to remove one's own opinions on a subject helps people who want to form their opinion on whether they might like something or not.

So, I fully agree everyone is entitled to his own opinion. That's why you will not see a thread of "why I like 4e". I guess people has better things to do than reading my likes and dislikes. But if I can make a description of what is in a book, it might actually be of service.

Cheers,

Antonio

That's cool... and my regrets for taking it the wrong way.

Quote:
Actually, THOSE are things I do not like at all!

They seem quite bland to me.

Actually, the whole graphics aspect of the books does not impress me at all. I prefer the simple style of C&C.

Serl hates the art and graphics too, but I like it (for the most part, excluding the aforementioned Dragonborn). I love C&C's style and simplicity, but I like having these sort of visual images to show to players who may not know what the hell a Falchion is lol. I dislike the anime-influenced stuff being used for Pathfinder alot, and the dungeon-punk drift that overtook and overwhelmed 3.5 I despised. I was never a fan of 2e art. I liked Otus stuff way back, and love some of the newer pieces he does for Goodman Games.

I think I should reiterate something from the start - this looks like a fun game in its own right. I freely admit to being a little grognardish and stuffy on what the stupid name means or doesn't mean - and there have already been way too many "wars" on messageboards about "roleplaying" vs. "rollplaying," whatever the hell all that really means.

I think we can both agree that there is a different paradigm at play here - that 4e is designed to have characters that are built more powerfully from the get-go (as you put succinctly 4e 1st = 3e 3rd... what would that be in C&C or AD&D, the 4-6 range depending on class?) For some, that is a good thing, for others not so much.

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:30 pm

There is one big reason I do not like 4E, it is still too complex. How complex it is in comparison to 3E, I don't really know, but I am betting its still close over all. Even so, it still isn't even close to being as simple as my game, so I am not interested in running 4E. Playing, yes. Stealing ideas, yes.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:33 pm

As for ripping off Savage Worlds, maybe a little. Some of the WOTC guys wrote in a blog last year(?) that they were playing the Savage Worlds campaign, 50 Fathoms. As for borrowing, who knows? I see things in Savage Worlds(-2 for each action taken, exploding dice, etc) that go back to West End's Star Wars D6 for sure, if not some other game. And, bennies for rerolling, etc. could be likened to hero points from the James Bond RPG, or others. So, everybody borrows a little bit. While I'm at it, if I haven't said it before, Savage Worlds is a great game. And, so is C&C. And, I'm sure I'll enjoy D&D 4th to a degree, but probably not as much as those systems.

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:34 pm

seskis281 wrote:
I think we can both agree that there is a different paradigm at play here - that 4e is designed to have characters that are built more powerfully from the get-go (as you put succinctly 4e 1st = 3e 3rd... what would that be in C&C or AD&D, the 4-6 range depending on class?) For some, that is a good thing, for others not so much.

Definitely a different paradigm, although it is not so easy to assess the extent of the changes. Whereas it is true that at 1st level, 4e characters are more powerful (and probably they would be approximately equivalent, in terms of "resilience" to 5th level C&C/AD&D characters), there is a "flattening" of the power curve. For example, a Wizard does not get fly until 16th level! At 16th level, the characters are supposed to be "paragons", which is well beyond the "heroic". Spellcasters get comparatively a hugely lower number of spells than any previous version of D&D.

Heroic level play, from what I can see, is quite gritty. For example, you cannot expect to find any weapon stronger than +2 until 11th level. So, even a +1 weapon is quite a treasure.

A vorpal blade is a 30th level item, meaning that only epic level characters should have it. All rings start from 14th level, and even a lowly potion of healing is a 5th level item.

So, as you can see, the focus has been drastically shifted from the "wondrous" of 3.x to the more mundane. This is perhaps the aspect I like most; the possibility of running "balanced" campaigns without having perforce to dish out loads of magic items (like in 3.x, where it was supposed that at level X you had to have at least Y magic items, or you could not do practically anything).

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:39 pm

Treebore wrote:
There is one big reason I do not like 4E, it is still too complex. How complex it is in comparison to 3E, I don't really know, but I am betting its still close over all. Even so, it still isn't even close to being as simple as my game, so I am not interested in running 4E. Playing, yes. Stealing ideas, yes.

Well, I literally fled from 3.x, and now I am gladly playing 4e. Most of the complexity I did not like most was related to how monsters and NPCs were handled, how feats worked, and how skills were assigned (skill points, synergy etc.).

So, if these are taken as "reference points", 4e is way simpler than 3.x

If you refer to other aspects, I cannot tell. But those were the major stumbling blocks for me not liking 3.x

Just to be more specific. Creating an NPC of whatever level now requires just a few minutes, not the tens of minutes of 3.x

Also modifying monsters is quite easy, and the monsters stat blocks are really simple to read and use "as is" on the fly, much like it is possible with AD&D and C&C.

sieg · Post by **sieg** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:43 pm

rabindranath72 wrote:
Now, if you choose to be a Trickster Rogue type of character, your primary attribute is Dexterity, so your special abilities will be based on Dexterity.

ACK!!!! Those !@#$ at WizBro stole my system from Victorius! Namely, modifiers to hit/save depend on your base template's major attribute (Sorta class based but not exactly).

I'm gonna SUE!

I blame Steve since V! hasn't been able to be published yet.
(plus, he's probably not reading this thread so its safe. )
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:07 pm

rabindranath72 wrote:
Well, I literally fled from 3.x, and now I am gladly playing 4e. Most of the complexity I did not like most was related to how monsters and NPCs were handled, how feats worked, and how skills were assigned (skill points, synergy etc.).

So, if these are taken as "reference points", 4e is way simpler than 3.x

If you refer to other aspects, I cannot tell. But those were the major stumbling blocks for me not liking 3.x

Just to be more specific. Creating an NPC of whatever level now requires just a few minutes, not the tens of minutes of 3.x

Also modifying monsters is quite easy, and the monsters stat blocks are really simple to read and use "as is" on the fly, much like it is possible with AD&D and C&C.

I thought the 3E core books were pretty simple too. So I am sure the 4E core books seem simple as well. Plus with 3E I created NPC's and modified monsters in minutes. I only noted what I knew I would need for the combat. I only detailed NPC's for the role I was creating them for. An approach that 4E has embraced. I applaud their genius!

I also have minions/mooks/whatever. I have had them for over 20 years. I just didn't give them one HP, I gave them enough to survive two average hits from the fighters or one average damaged fireball, if they make their save.

I guess that is a degree of game mastering genius they aren't capable of, so went with 1 hit point.

I am going to keep my eye on 4E, even play it with nwelte, but it certainly isn't going to become my new fantasy game of choice.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:43 pm

What is holding me off 4e isn't anything in the books. I am holding back to see how dependent the system will be on the Digital Initiative and other books. I know WOTC has designed 4e to have new Player Handbooks, MM's and DMG's added on over time. Something I am not happy with and something that holds me off buying. As it looks now the DI isn't needed to play but I fear it will be.

Even though 4e gets a passing vote from me now I doubt it will stay that way as time moves on.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:22 pm

rabindranath72 wrote:
Overall, now monsters are more dangerous.

Hell yeah they are. even with extra abilities at 1st level, my players have been subjected to some serious abuse fighting "lowly" kobolds.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:14 am

seskis281 wrote:
Hey DD... I think it really is a matter of perspective and our own tastes...

I totally agree with ya there. RPG's are entertainment, and what people are entertained by and enjoy is a highly subjective area and that's cool by me.

Oh...I almost forgot to mention too....

Dragonborn are teh win!

Ok, not really but they are easily converted to draconians. And that makes them cool by me.

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:04 am

I think, when it all comes down to it, is that my biggest letdown was, as I read, the realization that material coming out for this edition would take a good bit more work in conversion if I want to import... I can grab a B/X mod, a 1e mod and run with my C&C game with no major problem. 2e is not far, and d20 stuff isn't that difficult (mostly just scaling - skill checks transfer to SEIGE checks when needed easily, otherwise don't need). 4e is so strongly re-aligned as to make any material released pretty much dependent on running as 4e - which makes sense from the marketing pov, and fits with the other moves and decisions WotC is making here, but makes it less attractive to those of us who were looking at the system as a potential additive game resource rather than as a primary system.

I'm sure I'm not giving the game a fair shake... and after today I pulled out the PHB and spent more time with it tonight. Ok, so I need to play it to really know, but I can safely say I still am not jumping with excitement for it. Unlike others, I really am not looking to run multiple systems... I like C&C as my core, and am looking only to add a sci-fi game (Star Siege hopefully if it's good, if not I'll modify Star Frontiers).

Yeah, it's all pretty subjective.... funny thing is I wasn't expecting to react so strongly on this. I really do think it's all about just having fun with whatever game one plays. Something just struck a nerve this time for me...

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:53 am

I can see why. 4e is radically different and I am not sure that is a good thing. Hell, the inner grognard I'd like to kill popped up a couple times reading through it. In the end there will be some things I take from it: Some form of Healing surge, The new planes ideas, and I just have to do something with that 1/2 level addition. However it boils down to time and money for me. I only have time for one game. C&C is that game and can take monkeying with easier.

I just don't have the time nor money 4e requires to play. I see this being a big thing for those of us that have the time and money to follow it. I wish them well however I don't see myself involved no matter how impressed I was with the initial game.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:59 am

Julian Grimm wrote:
I just don't have the time nor money 4e requires to play.

The way 4e is being done, i can definitely see how, from a marketing standpoint, that it is trying to eke out maximum consumer cash.

I have a set gaming budget each month. Should I go full hog into 4e, it will take away a portion of my budget that I will spend on other games. I'mnot mad at WotC for wanting to do that, but neither do I think I'll give up my other RPG purchases to get 4e "bells & whistles" options.

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:05 am

I never have, nor will start now, to spend money on a system more than is required by the core books. I am fine with what I have. If other books come out and I feel they REALLY add something to the game, I will buy them. Otherwise, I am fine as is, even if WotC should stop printing the game tomorrow.

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:27 pm

rabindranath72 wrote:
I never have, nor will start now, to spend money on a system more than is required by the core books. I am fine with what I have. If other books come out and I feel they REALLY add something to the game, I will buy them. Otherwise, I am fine as is, even if WotC should stop printing the game tomorrow.

I think that's the gnawing fear... because I felt the same way with 3.0 when 1st released. The problem came when my players started collecting every expansion and d20 splat book and hauling them in, arguing more about what I should allow them to do because they had an "official" book that said so, even after I had said "Just core" (which I counted as PHB and 1st set of 3.0 class supplement books).

I do owe you guys and the thread a debt here, because it certainly has made me look more closely into the rules than I did in my 1st read after my initial bad reaction. While the system still seems very incompatible with transfer/import of future material designed for the games (i.e. mods etc.), like Julian there are things I am intrigued with.

The biggest is the concept of "at-will" abilities gained at varying levels. Certainly a few already exist in C&C as described in Class Abilities, so this concept really isn't that alien and could satisfy a desire I've had to "reward" players with heroic abilities as they progress. I had actually started this a bit several weeks ago before I even picked up the new ed. when, after completing a major chunk of the Campaign (A4 followed by a major attack by the Witch Queen on the town of Botikinburg), I had my group meet a powerful wizard and his cadre who rewarded the players by granting "one special ability they've always wanted" - ex. a wizard can cast cantrips at will, anytime, after 5th level, a cleric could cast Cure Light wounds at will 1/each battle separate from spell slots, etc. Just thoughts, will probably work on a set of house-rules on this soon.

I really like the idea of a level modifier involved with initiative. For some reason I'd never thought of this, but it's so simple it makes sense. I think I'm going to set an "Initiative Modifier" stat that is calculated at each level as (Dex Mod + Wis Mod + 1/2 Level, rounded down). So a level 3 character with Dex +2 Wis 0 would be 2+0+1 for a Initiative mod of +3.

Oh, and one thing I commend - I think 4e has done a very good job simplifying skills into more bundled and streamlined section. I don't need to import, because the SIEGE engine covers all of this even more simply, but kudos to making it better for those playing from what 3.x did... it's actually quite close to the condensed skills house rules I came up with when I first started playing around with 3.0.

I still hate Dragonborn. Maybe this one thing is what sent me off so badly. I don't like the idea of all racial mods being bonuses, no negatives or drawbacks. I'm not buying into the healing surges, tho I see why Julian and others could be intrigued.

So whatever moments of misconstruence may have occured, thanks to those responding to my thoughts here!
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:46 pm

seskis281 wrote:
I really like the idea of a level modifier involved with initiative. For some reason I'd never thought of this, but it's so simple it makes sense. I think I'm going to set an "Initiative Modifier" stat that is calculated at each level as (Dex Mod + Wis Mod + 1/2 Level, rounded down). So a level 3 character with Dex +2 Wis 0 would be 2+0+1 for a Initiative mod of +3.

If toying with the idea of using this for C&C, why not stick with the existant mechanic inherent within the Siege Engine? Instead of the 1/2 lvl, go for the full character level. Everything else in C&C permits you to do that (so to speak).

Another point to consider would be monsters. Would they also get their HD to initiative? How many HD does a Gelatenous Cube have again?
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:51 pm

400 (d100).

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:15 pm

serleran wrote:
400 (d100).

that would be The Blob

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:17 pm

moriarty777 wrote:
If toying with the idea of using this for C&C, why not stick with the existant mechanic inherent within the Siege Engine? Instead of the 1/2 lvl, go for the full character level. Everything else in C&C permits you to do that (so to speak).

Another point to consider would be monsters. Would they also get their HD to initiative? How many HD does a Gelatenous Cube have again?
M

I toyed with adding BtH to initiative. For monsters, it is either the HD, or if the creature is slow (like the Cube) nothing at all.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:33 pm

Quote:
If toying with the idea of using this for C&C, why not stick with the existant mechanic inherent within the Siege Engine? Instead of the 1/2 lvl, go for the full character level. Everything else in C&C permits you to do that (so to speak).

There are several things to ponder here, each having certain ramifications (and why C&C opted to not do such a thing, as it had come up in development...)

1) if level is added, rogues and low-XP classes (also, those with typically lower BtH progressions) will tend to win initiative: this implies speed on behalf of the class - this has certain advantages, of course

2) if BtH is used, fighters will tend to "go first" which implies "not losing one's cool in battle - keeping calm" (or whatever), but this also means that the fighter will tend to kill (at least at low levels) whatever is being faced - this, too, has its advantages, especially relating to protecting less-armored comrades like the wizard

3) not everything in C&C adds level - SR checks, AC, BtH, Encumbrance, and so forth. Combat is not a SIEGE Check (though there are instances where a check is made in combat.)

So, if I were to think of something like this, I'd probably go with "If Dexterity is Prime, the character gains a +2 bonus to Initiative." This flat bonus is not too high that it will quickly overshadow another non-Dex Prime, and is still a significant bonus - it also opens up a lot of options regarding Prime allocation and follows a pre-established scheme, namely, encumbrance.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:17 pm

I don't bother with adding level to initiative.

One: Its extra book keeping, especially for the CK.

Two: Monsters would get their HD. So by and large the level of the PC's and the HD/level of the monster/NPC's would largely cancel each other out anyways. So no real difference from rolling just a d10, so no real worth to use it and have the extra book keeping, especially for the CK.

The only reason I have considered it is to give the players the false illusion that they are "fast". Which they wouldn't be.

The only modifier I have considered giving is DEX. However I cannot see a 18 DEX allowing anyone to go 3 seconds faster than anyone else. In every fight I have ever been in, whether a fist fight or tournament fight, its a difference of fractions of seconds, not whole seconds.

Then again, the only reason I can go with 10 second rounds (the C&C default, hence the use of a d10 for initiative) is because of the moves. Whether its BtB at 15 feet and then attack, or my house rule of 30 feet then attack. That moving can take up to 3 or 4 seconds. Maybe a couple of seconds longer if they are in heavy armors such as plate.

However, when they are engaged in hand to hand the 10 second duration takes a LOT of imagined feinting, dodging, blocking, etc....

Personally, over all, I think I would be happier with a 6 second combat round and 10 rounds per minute.

Since I am not looking for a high level of realism in my fantasy I haven't really worried about it much.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Post by **Fiffergrund** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:25 pm

A couple of questions for those that own 4E:

Are the terms "build" and "mook" actually used in the text?
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:30 pm

I hope so. Also, I hope there are rules for leveling mooks, so they can build into something non-mook, like, a threat, or challenge, or maybe, even a mook hazard. C'mon! Get into the spirit of the fluff, Fiff!

Post by **Fiffergrund** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:43 pm

The mook thing is kind of funny based on recent events, but I also detest the "build" terminology.

I think both terms in a gaming context represent the antithesis of "roleplaying". If the book incorporates them as standard lingo, then the culture is too far removed from where I'd enjoy it.

Make it a video game, and I'd probably love it. I love crunchy video games. I like my roleplaying games to have a different flavor.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back