Q&A about D&D 4e (please leave flamethrower at the door)

[The Chatty DM]

Caveat: You don't have to like it, 4e is not for everyone. You are allowed to think it's a bad game or that it doesn't include elements that you are looking for in a RPG. You may not like the Powers system, the Class roles system, the class balance philosophy or that there are apparently no rules for Role Playing.

All these are valid points of views, but this thread is not for that and I will likely not answer such posts.

However, I realized at Draconis that a lot of players had

1) Never played 4e or
2) Had played in an unfortunately bad Living Realms game or 2 and
3) Were genuinely curious about it.

So I wanted to open this thread so I could answer questions on it. I've been playing it non-stop since it came out and I enjoy it immensely, as the multiple posts about my campaign can attest.

I'd like to start with a discussion I had with people from this forum on Twitter today.

One fundamental design philosophy in D&D 4e that is different from previous editions of the game is Class Roles and Balance.

The 4e designers decided on a few core philosophies and decided to develop the best possible engine to meet those philosophies.

Combat features heavily in 4e, there's no denying it. The target audience of 4e are people who are at least partly 'Butt Kickers' as defined by Robin Laws. If you are heavily into storytelling, 4e is not your game.

Since there's a lot of combat, the next design decision was that every character class can get to contribute equally (but in vastly different ways) to Combat.

In order to have character classes that didn't all feel the same (warning: all classes look to be the same in the Players Handbook, but that perception changes drastically during play), 4 Class roles were created:

The Defender: Deals moderate Damage, controls the battle by making it harder for monsters to attack other PCs. Pulls monsters closer, Knocks them down, impose penalties when monsters target other PCs.

Iconic Ex: Fighter, Paladin

The Striker: Deal High Damage. Kills monsters dead and fast either in melee or from afar. More fragile than defenders but agile. Can hit multiple targets, deals massive damage in specific circumstance and has powers to isolate/gain combat advantage on monsters.

Iconic Ex: Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Sorcerer

(I'd say that more people like to play Strikers than other roles)

The Controller: Medium Damage. Excels in area attacks (ex: Fireballs) and controlling the battleground with movement impeding powers (Immoboilize, Stun, Daze, Slowed, etc). Usually spell casters.

Iconic Ex: Wizard, Druid

The Leader: Medium Damage. Armed with Buffing and Healing powers, the leader supports the party from a distance or on the melee line, depending on the character's build. The leaders powers often help the party and harm enemies at the same time.

Iconic Ex: Cleric, Bard

(Special Note: Leaders can heal and attack on the same turn now)

Yes, many of these roles are inspired from MMORPGs... the 4e designers openly said they 'borrowed' what they thought were the best ideas from them to bring into the game. And it works.

So that's why I explain to new 4e players that in this game, they should chose a role to play in combat depending on their preference and then chose a class and character concept to fit with thier preference.

So you no longer chose a class and make it fit a role with selection of feats and class options from splat books like it was the case in 3e.

And the class are balanced so that everyone can enjoy the game equally during combat (which usually last 60-70 minutes in an average game, more if players aren't used to their characters or the encounter is very complex)

Let's start, shall we?

[sicnaxyz]

So if I understand correctly, you have a class and then you choose a role? Right? In what order do you do that? I can see how it would help you personnalize the character more though it does feel a lot like a MMORPG I'm not completely sold on.

When you say 60-70 minutes for a combat, do you feel it's quicker or slower than 3.5?

What, in your opinion makes it so much better than 3.5 then? Less rigid when time comes to make characters? Cleaner combat? More focused maybe?

BTW, despite not me being sold on it, I'm still very interested in trying the system and I thank you to take the time to answer our questions.

[Walkerp]

I don't have any questions yet as I have a pretty good understanding of the basics of 4e and to get anymore, I'll need to play a bit more. I just want to thank you for a clear and honest description of the game, something that was extremely hard to get for a while.

Fire away with your questions, Lairites!

[The Chatty DM]

All classes are assigned to roles.

Fighters are always Defenders. Rogues are always Strikers.

Within each class there multiple power-paths you can take to shape your PC's combat abilities (and over all flavour: Like Nimble Rogues/Brutal Rogues or Melee Cleric/ Ranged Cleric)

In reality you chose a class and you go. Often without knowing or caring about roles. And that's the first stumbling block new 4e players hit. That's why I started with that.

Combat in 4e last about the same time as 3e except at very low level. At least in the level 1-12 range I've experienced so far.

The biggest difference is that in 3e you'll have a 2 round fight last 1 hour at level 10 while you'll get a 6-8 round fight in the same time.

Individual turns are faster. And if everyone use Power cards, no one needs to use the PHB during play.

4e is NOT so much better than 3.5. It's a different game whose changes happen to better fit my needs as a DM (muy players would say the same too)

Main reasons why I like it more?

• Prep is way easier
• Players enjoy being badasses from level 1
• Many of the dull parts (IMHO) of D&D are gone
  • Save or Dies
  • Useless PCs
  • Save or miss the whole fight
  • Heal or attack
  • Cooler monsters
• Electronic tools that works! (Although it's subscription based)

That's a few reasons in a nutshell

[Rover]

Save or die always bugged me, so did losing levels if touched by certian undead in earlier editions. It made no sense to me. so I am glad those elements are gone from the game.

The big question I have about 4e is in regard to the tone or flavor of the game. It just seemed like too big a departure from earlier versions. I have palyed D&D for about 30 years, and while not my favorite game, it was always comfortable and enjoyable. In essance there are various character archtypes that come into play in earlier versions, they seemed radically different in 4e So do the game sessions palyout differently, especially with the focus on combat. It seems to me that the races and classes are too narrowly focused and don't allow for a lot of player lattitude in creating a character.

Just to clearify things, I like a good scrap in an RPG, and I never bought into the BS that you need rules to tell you how to roleplay. I did play one 4E session at Draconis last year and clearly the guys around the table were both having fun and roleplaying it didn't really do anything for me.

Also what happened to druids?

[EricPaq]

The roles were there since original D&D. In those times we called them the Fighting-man, the Cleric, the Magic-user, and the Thief. Since it would confusing to have a role name Cleric and a class named Cleric, they decided to give the rolwes more generic names.

Yes, a class has a primary role. All fighters and paladins will be primarily defenders, all druids will be primarily controllers. But the classes also have a different secondary role.

From the PHB, Fighters are defenders with a secondary aspect of strikers. Paladins are defenders with a secondary in leader. That helps shape both classes. If you want to be the shielf that strikes back hard, go for a fighter. If you was to be a shield that boosts the party go for paladin.

Some classes can have more then one potential secondary roles. For ex: the shaman from PHB2 is primarilly leader but depending on power choice he can be secondary striker or secondary defender. The striker shaman will have a cat as spirit companion while the defender shaman will have a bear.

The new books also add new different option. For ex: divine power intruduces a striker paladin who gets rids of his lay on hands healing to get a power similar to smite evil.

[Midnight]

Originally Posted by ChattyDM

Combat features heavily in 4e, there's no denying it. The target audience of 4e are people who are at least partly 'Butt Kickers' as defined by Robin Laws. If you are heavily into storytelling, 4e is not your game.

emphasis mine.

If this is true then perhaps the detractors who decrie 4th as not a role playing game but merely a table top MMORPG are correct. As I have stated before, I am not among those who believe rules are required to enable role-playing, sure they can enhance the role-playing, and they make a serviceable crutch for those that find themselves incapable of role-playing without such devices, but they are certainly not required. But, by your own description Chatty, D&D 4th ed may actually be so focused on balanced combat that the rules might actually interfere with the freedom of character interpretation required for effective & entertaining role-playing.

I truly hope that I'm reading the situation incorrectly. For me combat is what happens in between the role-playing to drive the story along. It (story) shouldn't be treated as the drivel you use to link battle scenes together.

If the latter is true of D&D 4th then I'm greatly saddened. Please tell me it isn't so.

-Midnight

[Walkerp]

It's a question of interpretation and how you handle the game. I know that Chatty is someone for whom the story and roleplaying are as if not more important than combat is for an RPG. But he also does like combat and puts a lot of effort into making combat a significant part of his adventures.

From what I have read of you and your dissatisfaction with certain games, I don't think you will be happy using 4e to play the kind of game you want to play. I believe you will find the rules do restrict the open creativity in character development that is fun for you and I think you'll find the rules set up to encourage the kind of game that is basically cool combat encounters linked together.

The point I'm making that it is really a question of interpretation and one's approach. So it is wrong to say something like 4e is not an RPG but just an MMORPG on the tabletop. To some players, it feels just like an RPG. To others, it feels like an MMORPG.

I strongly believe you are going to fall into the latter category, which is why I was questioning you so hard via Twitter as to why you had chosen 4e for your experiment.

Why did you decide upon 4e? Because of the new and shiny? Great chance of finding players? (perfectly valid answers, btw, I am just really curious about your thinking).

[EricPaq]

Originally Posted by Midnight

If this is true then perhaps the detractors who decrie 4th as not a role playing game but merely a table top mmorpg are correct. As I have stated before, I am not among those who believe rules are required to enable role-playing, sure they can enhance the role-playing, and they make a serviceable crutch for those that find themselves incapable of role-playing without such devices, but they are certainly not required. But, by your own discription Chatty, D&D 4th Ed may actually be so focused on balanced combat that the rules might actually interfere with the freedom of character interpretation required for effective & entertaining role-playing.

I truley hope I reading the situation incorrectly. For me combat is what happens in between the role-playing to drive the story along. It (story) shouldn't be treated as the drivel you use to link battle scenes together.

If the latter is true of D&D 4th then I'm greatly saddened. Please tell me it isn't so.

It is neither. If you wish to play a complete adventure or campaign with no combat whatsoever, you will be ignoring a large section of D&D 4th edition rules, you might as well play a different game.

The rules for combat don't interfere with the social aspect. In fact, in D&D 4th edition, a GM can design combat encounters with social challenges included in them.
For ex: you are entering a fight versus some bad guys. You have a 3rd party that is indecisive. The bad guys want the 3rd party on their side. The PCs want the 3rd party on their side. The GM can design a skill challenge which will be worth a certain value of the opposition budget. The GM spends the remaining opposition budget on the bad guys. Part of the skill challenge, he puts that every 2 rounds of combat, a failure will occur. So if the PCs ignores convincing the 3rd party to join their side, he will become a bad guy on round 6 of combat. So now, the players have to decide to gfight the bad guys, convince the third party to join their side or maybe 2 both on their turn.

Traps function the same way. And you can mix and match. You can design a highly complex social skill challenge representing various parties wishing a certain town and it can takes days (in game time not real time). to resolve. You can also have a run of the mill fight with a bunch of orcs.

So it shows you how to use combat and non-combat encounters to form a story. It puts emphasis on having stuff happened and that success and failure matters they are just different branches of the story.

The DMG2 has a great example of a skill challenge which involves moving around a city of slave traders. It uses skill challenge to structure an adventure and random encounters happen when you fail an action.

[White Wolf]

Actually from what I know of Midnight, being his GM and all for a long time now. I think he will enjoy D&D 4th. Midnight has all the right intentions and all the right speak but when he comes to the table he likes his combat just like everyone else around the table. So on that note I would disagree with you.

ChattyDM, first off thank you for doing this. Second I do have a question and this has basically kept me from D&D 4th just like it has from 3.5 now.

In D&D 3.X it became apparent very quickly that in combat the classes were unequal. My example. If as a GM you put out monsters that could hit an AC of 18 on a roll of 15 then you would be able to hit the Fighter 5 times out of 20 (roll over 15) but you would have hit the rogue 8 times out of 20 (roll over a 12). This got worse and worse at you gained levels to the point that it was an almost automatic hits on rogues and wizards and you still couldn't hit the fighters and paladins of the group. It came to a point I didn't know what monsters to use.

Conversly a fighter with a BAB (Basic Attack Bonus) of +5 (at level 5) could hit much more eaisly than the rogue +2 (at level 5) and it got worst and worst as the characters gained levels to the point the support classes felt useless and the fighters did all the damage. Or you had a weak monster and the support classes could just hit him and the fighters had a walk in the par.

I haven't seen any change with Paizo's Pathfinder so I'm still staying away. I don't see any change really in this regard in D&D 4th. Am I wrong? Are the classes now more even, especially at higher levels? And is so how is the done? Cause frankly if they haven't fixed that I don't think I'll be back any time soon.