How 4th Edition Has Made Me a Better DM
-
When it comes to gaming over the past two and a half decades I’ve easily spent 97% of my gaming time behind the Dungeon Master’s screen, not in front of it. Hell, even when I attend gaming conventions I spend most of my time running games, not playing in them (I also spend a lot of time making fun of LARPers but that’s different story). The point is, over the past few years I felt that as DM my “art” was as evolved and perfected as it was going to get. And to be honest I felt pretty good about that, some might even say cocky about it. But then along came a little game called Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition.
Since its release last year D & D has made me rethink about the way I run a game. In fact the game has forced me to look at several aspects of the DM’s job in a new light. How I prepare for a game session, my adventure and campaign design, the methods by which I actually run the game, and how I interact with the players have all been subjected to reevaluation and evolution. I’ve long been a believer that change is good, although sometimes difficult, and that nothing can improve without analysis, examination, an open mind, and most importantly a willingness to change. Having said that here is a quick overview of ways 4th Edition has made me a better Dungeon Master.
Adventure and Encounter Design
In the past I have usually felt good about my adventures, at least form a story perspective. The players in my group have always seemed excited about what was happening and engaged in the storyline. In fact an interesting and compelling storyline has sort of been my trademark as a DM. But the truth of the matter is that I had to rely on an interesting story “carrying” the adventure. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but more often than not the rules of the game were a liability not an asset when it came to the story. I was forced to constantly tweak and adjust things on the fly and hope that it didn’t break up my momentum or derail the story. Sometimes it worked (usually with a little creative licensing) and sometimes it just didn’t.
4E has changed that for me. Don’t get me wrong though, I still adjust things on the fly when necessary but overall I have a much greater level of confidence when it comes to designing encounters that serve their function in relationship to the story we’re telling. The encounter building rules in 4E are outstanding. The idea of using XP as a “budget” to build with coupled with the assumption of more combatants, has lead me to quickly and easily create encounters that are not only exciting, but ones that serve my story as well. Over the past several months each of the encounters I’ve designed has served its purpose beautifully. Not only that they have each been much easier, and more enjoyable, to design then they were in the past.
I now feel much more confident that my encounters serve the story and drive it forward with intention and purpose, not by accident and coincidence.
Rule Calls and Abstraction
For the most part I’ve always been fortunate with the way my players accept my decisions when I have to make a “rules call”, partially because I try and strive for consensus, but also because I’m lucky to have gamed with some outstanding players. Only once or twice over the years has a decision generated some sort of conflict at the table.
With 4th Edition rules framework I feel that it’s now much easier to quickly adjudicate a situation with fairness and consistency. If I need quick “numbers” for a situation, page 42 of the DMG is absolutely invaluable. For doing something unusual in combat I’ve found that the “actions” concept (standard, move, minor) really helps me figure out how much a character can do. Additionally the move to more abstraction within the game has also helped.
Recently I had a player want his character to throw his sword up in the air, draw and throw a dagger at an enemy, than catch the falling sword. This is a perfect example of actions and abstractions. First of all tossing the sword up in the air. I figure if dropping a sword is a free action than tossing one up a couple of feet should be a minor action. Secondly drawing and throwing the dagger. No need for a decision here, because of the Quick Draw feet it’s already a standard action for the character. And finally catching the sword. My initial thought was for some sort of acrobatics check, but than I though no. This is a great move that looks cool and captures the spirit of the character; I don’t want that screwed up because of a stupid roll. Then it became obvious to me, it’s a minor action, the same as picking up an object. Why? Because of abstraction. So long as the end result is the same (the weapon is back in his had) who cares if he bent over to pick it up or simply held out his hand and had the hilt land perfectly in it. The player wasn’t looking for any sort of mechanical or situational advantage by doing the maneuver he just wanted to look cool. I can’t encourage enough of that sort of thing.
Game Management
I don’t even know where to begin with this topic. In every possible way I’ve improved my technique for running a game. From the new format for monster stat blocks to keywords, everything is simply easier. One of the things I quickly noticed was how infrequently we were referencing the rule books in game, even in the first month of playing. I’ve got to thank the powers format for that, all of the rules right there on the power card. Now that we’ve been playing for several months the books only come out to level up or when the players are “equipment shopping”.
I also have changed the way I organize an encounter. I use an abbreviated one-page layout based on how the published adventures look. It’s a simple format and it is very DM friendly. Speaking of encounters I also find myself utilizing monsters and NPC’s better. I’ve shifted gears and taken a more synergistic, team approach to how the heroes’ enemies interact. Having the opponents work together not only makes a combat more exciting but builds an additional level of verisimilitude into the action.
There are dozens of other little in which my game has improved but these are the core ones. The designers have impressed me with their dedication to making a DM’s life easier and I think this is rewarding players everywhere.
Leave a Comment
January 5, 2009 at 8:37 am
D&D 4e gives you better tools to be a DM than previous games. Our DM has taken his game to the next level with 4e. Like you, he’s always been really good at storytelling. But now he has better tools to tell his story with.
I think it gives you more time to focus on the story and roleplaying, since you spend less time trying to fix a broken system or inventing rules on how to do something.
Great article, John.
January 5, 2009 at 9:09 am
Your sword-in-the-air example is something that every GM should take note of. My immediate instinct would have been to make it a Dex or Acrobatics check. It can be a braver call sometimes to NOT ask for a roll. Of course, it all depends on the feel of the game and the situation at hand.
SuperSooga’s last blog post..Lessons learned from Inheritance
January 5, 2009 at 11:16 am
One of my other players made the point that I might have had him make a roll becuase there was a chance to fail. I simply decided that if he rolled a 1 on the attack roll (a roll he was making anyway) then that would be the perfect time for a nice cinematic “failure”.
Same idea but I’m not slowing anything down by making additional rolls. And again this is one of the ways I like to reward “good” roleplaying and players adding to the excitement.
John Lewis’s last blog post..Spycraft Version 2.0 Is d20 Modern On Steroids
January 5, 2009 at 3:30 pm
@John – great post John. We are experiencing the same in the 8 sessions we’ve played of 4E so far.
@Samuel – I agree. We not only get more game in because of shorter combats, but it feels like I have more brain cycles to focus on story and roleplaying with the new edition.
Johnn Four’s last blog post..Happy New Year!
January 5, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I’ve got to agree that 4e is great for players and for DM’s as it really lets you both get more out of the game. The system, as a whole, is very refined and while I have my gripes about certain aspects I really can’t knock the overall polish and intuitive design.
I’ll just echo the others when I say that not having a roll involved in your example is not only a bit unexpected but I would venture to say it’s rather smart.
As Sam was saying our DM is really doing an amazing job preparing for our games and I truly look forward to every single session. It’s the first time I’ve been able to enjoy 4e even without seeing the character development that I would prefer.
January 5, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Speaking of intuitive design and polish I continue to “discover” things in 4E that were not initially apparent to me.
For example, just tonight I realized that a fighter has no limits to how many creatures he could potentially have marked in a round. With ANY creature attacked (whether successful or not) the fighter can choose to mark it. Now that is granting that “stickyness” quality of a defender.
John Lewis’s last blog post..How 4th Edition Has Made Me a Better DM
January 6, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Seconded. As a GM, I absolutely love how light preparation is in 4e. And how applicable the DMG is to actually running a game.
January 7, 2009 at 7:59 am
@ John – I don’t have my books with me, but my group found a ruling that has us playing with one mark only at a time. Perhaps we are wrong? I think it’s either a mark expires on the fighter’s next turn, or it explicitly says one mark only at a time.
Could someone verify?
Also, I’d love to hear more discoveries in 4E as you make them, John.
January 7, 2009 at 8:10 am
Each class that can mark has different requirements and limitations. The paladin’s divine challenge is a minor action and only allows one marked creature at a time, the paladin must “engage” the marked creature by the end of his turn, and if he fails to engage he cannot mark again next turn.
For the fighter it is all dependent on who he attacks. Anyone the fighter attacks (whether he hits or misses) can be marked, and the mark lasts until the end of the fighter’s next turn. So the only way you can mark multiple opponents is with a power that allows you to attack multiple enemies (but all of the marks still expire at the end of your next turn). Anyone thinking multiclass wizard with Thunderwave?
John Lewis’s last blog post..Gaming (and Laughter) the Best Medicine
February 1, 2009 at 5:24 am
I really like the “plug-and-play” philosophy behind combat encounter design in 4E. Our group doesn’t do alot of combat. I’d rather spend more time working on the politics of a campaign then making sure combat isn’t too easy or brutal. 4E helps me do that a great deal.
February 1, 2009 at 11:34 am
Something I’ve noticed is that combat seems more “stable” from my side of the DM’s screen. What I mean by that is that how difficult an encounter plays out really seems to be more a factor of the characters approach to it. I’ve designed encounters that played out either tougher or easier than planned but it was because the characters entered the encounter more or less prepared.
I like that a lot. Putting success or failure firmly in the hands of the players / characters. The way it should be.
John Lewis’s last blog post..Show Me The Gaming Props!
February 1, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@John: What do your player do to get more intel on encounters before they trigger?
What do they do to be better prepared?
Johnn Four’s last blog post..When Good Ideas Linger Too Long: Compacting plotlines
February 1, 2009 at 2:42 pm
The commenter formerly posting as Nick Garcia.
I didn’t mean to imply that I carebear all combat encounters so that the players can defeat them. I’ll design one or two combat encounters per session, those will generally be within the guidelines of the DMG, all within reason for the parties level, some easier, some harder. However, if they go looking for a fight that’s “off-script”, then all bets are off. If they go picking on the man-at-arms, and he’s levels ahead of them, they will probably wipe.
February 1, 2009 at 3:43 pm
For the most part I was thinking of simple resource management; healing surges, hp, daily powers, and not charging in already bloodied and down to 1 healing surge.
That being said though I do like to include clues, hints, and general foreshadowing of encounters. I tend to build adventures that share strong themactic elements. Sometimes the players pick up on it and sometimes they only figure it out in retrospect.
I’ve also noticed that the players at my table make use of Arcana, Dungeoneering, Nature, and Religion skills to give them insight into creatures strengths, weaknesses, skills and abilities. This element of the game often times helps prepare them.
John Lewis’s last blog post..Injuries and Wounds in Dungeons and Dragons
February 2, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Agreed on skills use. My players use their knowledge skills a lot during sessions.
Johnn Four’s last blog post..When Good Ideas Linger Too Long: Compacting plotlines
February 5, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Something I keep track of on my “info screen” is my players passive Arcana, Dungeoneering, Nature, and Religion. Actually I just jot down the highest one in the party. This allows me custom tailor my descriptions as I go based on what the party “knows” right off-hand.
John Lewis’s last blog post..Getting Players Emotionally Invested in the Campaign
February 7, 2009 at 11:21 am
I found 4e to do the exact opposite for my games. It has actually forced my players to disconnect from their characters even more. The style of combat the game enforces is a really bland perform your role kind of system. Not too mention the lack of any kind of option for non-combat characters like several of my regular players prefer to portray.
As a DM it was the same prep time as for a 3e game for me. Nothing about it felt particularly streamlined to me.
February 8, 2009 at 10:20 am
I hear that off and on at cons and with some other gaming groups and I’ve made a couple of observations:
Bland Combats: Your absolutely right. If you and your group CHOOSE to simply roll a die, announce a result, then announce damage; wham, bam, thank you DM. Then I imagine it’s pretty dry. I love the fact that WOTC simply gives you the mechanical nature of a power; that way it’s up to the DM and players to “color it”. My players give great roleplaying descriptions each time they use a power, and they rarely use the same exact description twice.
That’s just one of several ways 4e encourages more roleplaying from you instead of letting the mechanics of the game do the roleplaying for you. Remember that the more abstraction, the more opportunity for roleplaying. As you eliminate abstraction (with things like hit location charts or crit tables) you remove roleplaying opportunities from the game.
Non-Combat Characters: I’m not sure what exactly you would want for your non-combat characters. Regardless of class, race, and powers anyone can choose not to fight. Unless of course what your players want is to give up combat ability for increased mechanical advantages outside of combat. Of course now that requires more “mechanics” in your non-combat encounter and to me that is just another death nail in the roleplaying coffin. Dice rolls substituting for roleplaying.
Besides if you want to play a non-combatant take a look at the warlord. Here’s a class that can select two at-will powers that don’t cause any damage to the enemy (Commander’s Strike and Opening Shove). In fact leader classes all have a nice selection of non-damaging powers. Additionally with the increased number of feats in the game your non-combatant can bulk up on a ton of skills and increase thier effectiveness with Skill Focus.
Like I said 4e opens more doors for roleplaying then it closes. Unless of course you want mechanics to substitute for creativity instead of augmenting it.
John Lewis’s last blog post..RPG Props: The Village of Dusk
February 8, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Wow..John that reply was extremely arrogant. For your information I prefer rules light games that give bonuses for good roleplaying. I have never been one to substitue mechanics for creativity as you so cavalierly assumed. I was only stating how I and my group experienced 4e. For us it did not encourage or aid our roleplaying in any way. It actively hindered us in fact. It really did feel to us more like we were playing World of Warcraft instead of D&D. You might not agree or even accuse me of not knowing how to roleplay again instead of simply hearing someone’s experiences that contradict your own. If you like the new system fine. If it helps you roleplay fine. But do not expect everyone to have the same reaction or experience with the game that you did.
And I have looked at the Warlord and like every other 4e class it’s abilities all center around combat. Whether they deal damage or not. That is one of my big dislikes of 4e. That 3/4 of the characters I want to play I can’t even make. When a game works that way for me I find a new game.
February 8, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Sorry if I came across as arrogant and made assumptions about you and your group specifically. One thing I have always felt is that any RPG is only “good” or “bad” in so far as it serves the needs of any particular group or individual player.
I would also agree with you that finding a game that “works” for you is important. In fact it’s probally the most important thing in enjoying the experience. There are several good games out there that I don’t play because they don’t “work” for me in a way that is consistent with the stories our group is telling.
But I would also add that one of the core paradigms of 4e is that mechanics are primarily only needed for combat. It isn’t that 4e solely focuses on combat, it’s just that it assumes that combat is the primary area where rules and mechanics are needed. Whether by happenstance or design I agree with this philosophy. I don’t want or need rules for the parts of the game that I consider to be “roleplaying” elements of the game. Things like character back-story, personality, hobbies, quirks, and disadvantages are all elements of a game that I feel shouldn’t be reduced to mechanics, dice rolls, or some limited results on a finite table.
As a final note I would also point out that as an aurthor of a blog article, I am writing from my point of view. I do not assert that mine is the only point of view, nor do I want everyone out there to think as I do. In fact I love hearing contrary or counter-points to my own. But I also love commenting on them.
I apologize if the manner in which I engaged the debate with you seemed at all accusatory, demeaning, or arrogant, it certainly wasn’t meant to be.
John Lewis’s last blog post..RPG Props: The Village of Dusk
February 8, 2009 at 5:00 pm
4e is streamlined over 3.5e.
D&D is what you make of it, combat, roleplaying, or both.
If you don’t like a new version of the game, play the old version or find a new game.
February 10, 2009 at 1:27 am
Of all of the leaps and bounds that 4E has taken (for good and bad), ‘managing the game’ has been the biggest change for me. I look forward to 4E, maybe even initally more than my players, but because I like running it so much, my fun spills over to the players a little bit – making them like it more. We were actually thinking of playing D&D 2nd Edition, but when we found out about 4E, we waited. I think it was worth it.
February 10, 2009 at 9:48 am
try exalted an older game from white wolf. Read the stunts section. It will give you even more inspiration. I have included that in every other system I play.
It not only makes the game cool, it promotes player characterization, and it makes the whole session stick in the players heads as if they had seen it on TV, and when done well enough it is almost as if they had been there.
February 10, 2009 at 12:57 pm
In terms of what I strive for in a game you’ve hit the nail on the head: getting the session to stick in the players heads as if they had seen it on TV.
This is exactly the kind of thing we’re finding in 4e.
John Lewis’s last blog post..RPG Props: The Village of Dusk
March 17, 2009 at 4:46 pm
@ Guidance Can that be found anywhere online? I would be really interested to read that.
March 18, 2009 at 4:08 am
It is just one of the older White Wolf lines. I actually have seen it at my local hobby store, although I don’t know how much White Wolf actually promotes it anymore. I thought they dropped most of their lines except their really successful ones, like Vampire and Werewolf.
July 14, 2009 at 4:32 pm
There are a lot of things I don’t like about 4E, but as a DM, 4E is the best experience I’ve ever had. The simplicity of monsters and not having to figure out how feats interact with spells interacting with class features and items is a blessing. I like that my monsters have 2-5 options. It helps me focus more on storytelling and less on building encounters.
However, the exact reason 4E is so much fun (and easy!) to run is why I would never play the game. I don’t want my character to have just a couple options to choose from, I like having characters that can do almost anything – if they got it prepared today. I felt it helped me plan better and become more creative.
But, I’ve hit a good compromise. I’ve found a group of players who like to play the game, and I like to judge it. Simple!
July 14, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Good comments.
I’ve had a very different 4e experience than you. My players sometimes slow things down too much because of all the options they have and they are thinking about what they want to do.
Oh well, everyone is different.
John Lewis’s last blog post..Addressing Metagaming
July 15, 2009 at 7:13 am
Our 4E game combats go fast in general. There are exceptions. And like John, I have a player who makes slow decisions – regardless of editions.
John & Sam – you should do a new post and thread about how 4E has made players better. Thanks to home made power cards and whatnot, my players are more organized than in previous editions.
JohnnFour’s last blog post..Ask The GMs: An Epic Confusion, or how to stage a blockbuster finish
September 4, 2009 at 1:38 am
1. Fighters, rogues, barbarians, and rangers were not meant to have spells, which they call powers and hope no one will notice the similarities between the two.
2. Spells are not only for combat, and not always combat oriented, the best used spells are the ones that make the whole enemy squad slip and slide right off the edge of a cliff. You still defeated them, and much quicker without any harm to yourself. So why the need for injury and bloody dismemberment? Wizards have spent their entire life span just trying to make a spell that cleans their floors for them, or brings them their drinks, or greases their Gnomen cogs, or any number of “mundane” tasks that they do not want to do!
3. Gnomes are an ORIGINAL race from when Gary Gygax created the game. Just because he is dead and there have been many revamps since then does not mean taking them away does not kill the spirit of D’n'D. They were awesome to help fully round out a party.
4. Tieflings are demon ancestors. And I don’t know what game you play, but the last I checked in D’n'D, every time a demon hit the prime, it was a major ordeal that lead to no offspring.
5. Dungeons & Dragons. The fact that Dragons are mentioned in the name means a lot. Dragons are meant to be powerful enemies or allies at high level (very high level). Not a starting playable race!
6. Not a single hero is a true leader when they start out, they have to work on it. Warlords are a worthless class, as they really could not exist, and I don’t remember seeing them ever before. Their introduction is to increase the combat effectiveness of the game, not the role play.
7. This is my favorite point… OPEN A BOOK WHILE PLAYING WORLD OF WARCRAFT!!!!! Notice any similarities? Yeah, there are tones because the game was made for computers so that players could grind to hit 80th fucking level! They took a computer hack’n'slash and printed the rules on paper. The classes and their choices, the races, the pre-number-crunched powers and “spells.” Seriously, look at the fighters “powers” in D’n'D 4th and compare them to the Warrior in WoW.
8. Role-play. They took out that aspect because real role-players still use their original books, they do not need the new rules and spells, and items! if they want something new, they create it.
I play every week in a game that is 99% role-play. Developing your character and their mannerisms, attitudes, beliefs, morals, loyalties, hates, fears, loves, likes, dislikes, favorite drinks; we spend time developing the character! Not his stats and bad-ass arsenal! If I wanted to run around and just kill shit I would pop in Halo! And when I do, I do!!! but I go to the game to sit down and step into another personality, another world, and another expansive plot line, not to roll dice and murder small children! When the combat needs to happen, it happens. And there are random encounters, but the enemy is fought politically and tactically, not with blades and an arsenal of combat-only spells.
But hey, if you guys want to continue funding these nazis and their schemes to make money, and only that, then go right ahead. the next edition will have a shit-ton of books just like this one and the last 2, and they will have some new and inspiring way to play D’n'D. And they will probably include full-blooded dragons, demons, devils, angels, archons, and tarrasques as playable races. Hell, while they are at it they might as well give the players a Deity class! That is the exact way they are headed.
Just to note, by the way. When I first heard of them making a new Edition, I had extreme hopes. All of my friends harped on me for even reading everything that came out on Wizards.com, looking for any news that this game was going to be a more imaginative and creative version of the old mistakes, that they had simply ironed out a lot of the wrinkles. The day I read the little encounter excerpt, with the party fighting the dragon, I cried inside for realizing that they had destroyed this game for money. Clerics cannot heal while dealing damage to an enemy, no way!
The closest they have come to a more open and role play friendly D’n'D was when they released the Unearthed Arcana with the Generic Classes, so that the players could earn their power and specialization, not be gifted it. Oh, and the talent trees in WoW look so very similar to the class choices after they reach 10th level or whatever.
Good Luck and Good Gaming! if that’s what they call it these days.
September 4, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Deven: While you make a solid agument for your points, the cursing really isn’t needed. I too am not a fan of D&D 4.0, but in the end it’s a game and not worth the hostility.
As for me, I’ll stick with D&D 3.5, Warhammer, and a few home brewed systems and leave my D&D 4.0 gaming on the computer in WoW.
September 30, 2009 at 8:57 am
I’m a bit late to the game here, but I’ve been playing D&D for decades and I really enjoy 4E, also. To add to your excellent original post, if you have not checked out the monster builder application that is part of D&D Insider, you really should. It has made designing encounters even more fun. It includes a database of every monster from the books, dungeon mags and published modules as well as all their powers. This is an awesome tool for customizing monsters to fit your campaign.
I love the way the monsters are laid out and that they have different powers from the players in 4E. Everything you need to run them is right there in the description. With the monster builder, you can pick and choose from thousands of powers using their excellent search tools. Want to see what other paragon soldiers have as at-will powers? No problem. Need to see a list of encounter powers with the COLD keyword. No problem. Just an excellent tool for DMs.
October 5, 2009 at 10:28 am
I love 4E. I find most of the complaints people seem to have about it fairly impotent, and every one of Deven’s arguments seems like his/her statements were made without trying the game.
Martial classes having powers is a bad thing? It makes them IMMENSELY more fun to play in combat than they used to be, and helps them keep up with other classes
All powers and spells are combat oriented? No, they aren’t. There are utility powers and skill powers that are far more useful out of combat than in.
Gnomes? They’ve been added back in (along with the missing classes people were throwing fits over) since, although I still hate the little buggers (no offense to anyone; my DM has just ensured that all of us in my group hate gnomes).
Tieflings are descended from demons? Well… Yeah. They were in older editions too, although they’ve changed a bit since. I don’t see what the problem is there.
Dragonborn != dragons. Not the same thing at all.
I don’t really understand the complaint about warlords, so I have no answer for it. No hero is a true leader at first level? You’re not leaving the possibility open for your character to have a past, or a natural talent for leadership. And warlords ‘could not really exist?’ Neither could dragons or magic.
Similarities to WoW? Maybe there are. I don’t know. I’ve never played WoW and don’t intend to. But I do know I’ve had a blast with 4E combat, and found it to be very adaptable and not limiting at all.
Real roleplayers can roleplay regardless of edition or framework. They didn’t ‘take out’ roleplay. That’s a silly argument and one that never held any water at all. If you need a framework in place to roleplay, you’re being hypocritical, because you’re not a ‘real roleplayer’ at all. Roleplaying is about concepts and storytelling. You said it yourself: If you want something new, be it mechanics, items, races, or whatever else you can imagine, create it and graft it to the rules. Customization is ENCOURAGED.
And in the end, no one is forcing anyone to switch over to 4E at gunpoint. In fact, in a recent Dragon editorial discussing the straw man that is “4E took out roleplaying!”, it was stated clearly that they don’t mind if you keep playing your favorite editions. The fact is that 4E is not a perfect system because that’s impossible, but it is a good one, and it can be further refined to fit any group’s playing style, just like any other system. 4E bashing is a waste of time and energy. If you don’t like it… don’t play it. But there’s no need to unleash waves of vitriol over it. Ultimately, as far as I can see, most of these complaints boil down to half “Things are different, and I don’t like different!” and half “It’s too much like a video game!”, to which I respond “So play the edition you were playing anyway, or better (if you were playing 3E/3.5E), Pathfinder, since it helps fix a lot of the things that were broken about the edition you were playing.” and “That depends on your group, your DM, and you.”
November 23, 2009 at 7:52 am
Most of Devan’s points were fairly silly, as They were less about dislike of the rules than dislike of setting. SOme, like the complaint about the gnomes, are outdated.
However, He does have a couple of points:
first, martial classes having powers. I’m not against this, really, but it does make magic classes feel less special, in that really the martial classes powers often feel like magic by another name, and have the added benefit of adding 2 or3 to the attack roll for weapon proficiency, which the nonmartial classes aften do not get.
Second, whether you think utility spells and rituals cover the noncombat spells or not, there are a couple of problems with them:
first, not every class has utility spells that are useful except in conjunction with combat, and many utility spells are still designed for combat.
second, not all of the non-combat spells a wizard would have had access to are represented as wizard utility spells, and those that are are often not given until a later point than the wizard would have had them.
Third, the limited nature of powers in 4e often means that spells do not last as long–fly or invisibility, for instance, are most often end of next turn. which makes sense in combat(you don’t want any player to have to much advantage, and the effect ending rules make things easier to keep track of) but make it feel like they have limited out of combat use.
With these in mind, It is perfectly understandable that people do not feel that the out of combat spells work in response to utility abilities. This doesn’t mean they aren’t servicable, just that, coming from 3.x, they feel underwhelming.
And, as for point 6, This is one of the reasons people still play 2e. There is a divide among players between those who want to be heros from the start, doing great deeds and leading men from level 1, and those who beleive that level one should be about as powerful as your average peasant, and that characters have to earn their great deeds and leadership. We as players need to understand that there are people who beleive both ways, and respect them without insulting them for their prefered playstyle. If you don’t like the “super powered” aspects of low level 4e, then you can always play pathfinder, or better yet AD&D, which are designed more for your style of play.