PDA

View Full Version : 3rd ed Low fantasy vs 4th ed high fantasy



Wulfenstien
12-09-2008, 02:20 AM
3.5 grey hawk setting was one of the biggest things that got me into DnD. Its dark gritty and brutal setting triggered all my Connan happy nerves and for manny years I galavanted happily about decapitating this and disembowling that and making trouphy's with my enemy's organs. Now is it just me or Did 4.0 go in the exact opposite direction??? I mean you can say this in that for the streamlined slickness of 4.0 but it fealls like im playing a game of wow rather than DnD, and to enact the same kind of brutality is to be looked at like a particularly sick episode of happy tree freinds. It seems to me that everything in 4.0 has a sort made for kids feel that lacks any sort of good ol fation ultra violence. Now dont get me wrong I do enjoy 4.0 but to get that good ol fation Korgoth of barbaria feel this is what I had to do.

My charachter is a playtest barbarian that 2 hands a warpick. (thats the other thing barbarian was no longer a core class :mad:)

Me and my party had just killed a bunch o goblins hobgoblins and one bugbear, there happend to be one left that was hiding in the bushes and shot me in the rump. I then proceeded to remove the arrow tackle the hobo and then stab him the face to death with his own arrow ( a d4 at a time) this took about 5 rounds as he screamed and pleaded for mercy as my fellow adventureres looked on in horror. After the hobo was properly dead I then severed his head and made a hole through the ears with my warpick strung a string through that hole and made a gobo necklace.

After this whole ordeal everyone was looking at me like i had problems. :confused: this sort of thing was common place in the last edition! what happend? The guy who was dming I had once seen lay waste to an entire town (women and children included) with arcane fire because of a pickpocket jacking a couple of gold (amazing what a few well placed fire spells can do btw)

Its not just combat either. Stuff like the addition of Dragonborne and Eladrin and the dismissal of the half-orc. Unaligned instead of evil, Limp wristed diety's like the raven queen replacing Nerull. Magic becoming commonplace and the ease of the new casting class mechanics.

Now i dont always play a rampaging musclebound juggernaught (I also play the elegant killer {assasin-rouge-ranger} or the cool / insane caster {Necromancer or Warlock}) nor do I play CE every charachter (actually I usually play LN) But it seems every 4.0 charachter has to be a goody two shoes Eragon rip off or a half assed evil or uncaring carachter. (99% of allignments I see are unalighned.)

Is it just me or does 4.0 seem like wow on paper?

thoughts?

Kalanth
12-09-2008, 08:03 AM
I disagree with the comparisons to MMO's. I have played many MMO's from Dungeons and Dragons Online to WoW and more. The way 4e plays out might have been inspired by those types of games but the things that you can do in a 4e game do not act or feel quite like any MMO I have played. Maybe more like Final Fantasy Tactics, if we are to compare this edition to a video game, but definitely not an MMO.

In regards to your character and how that played out for you and the group. Your story would have been looked at as sadistic in my games in either edition. That is the sign of a clearly CE character (and the barbarian may just be and I might have missed that). The edition did not dictate that reaction and I think the party might have been looking for a more civilized game if they all looked at you in that way. Sounds like a communication error prior to the campaign starting up and not the edition.

I donít feel that 3.5 was any grittier then 4e. That reverts to the argument of does the system you play have an effect on the role-playing or is there a clear separation between the two things. I believe that the system does not have anything to do with how you play your character or build the campaign. Conan could easily be played in the 4e system as a dark and gritty game. It all lies in the description of the action and not so much in the rules of the action. For an example in my game the players have encountered some twisted things like:

1) The eladrin execute a person by separating the soul from the body and then destroying the soul. This gives the eladrin a shell of which they can put that shell to work doing menial tasks. This was actually inspired by watching The Golden Compass.

2) A harpy was kidnapping children from a nearby village and would feed them to her pets (Kruthik) limb by limb. The ensure the meat was fresh the harpy kept the children alive through mystical healing. Yes, that was an Elite Harpy Cleric. :)

3) The players main BBEG is a eunuch with an obsession with eladrin women. What the one female eladrin in the group does not know is that this man makes robes from the eladrin womenís skin. The player was his servant for a few sessions but she got what she needed before the BBEG made an effort to kill her. Yep, a little Silence of the Lambs slipped in there but sometimes the best ideas are taken from other bodies of work.

So as you can see you can do dark and twisted things with 4e just as you could with 1, 2, 3, and 3.5. The edition never determines how dark the world and the role-play is, but instead it is the person that determines these things.

You also mentioned Unaligned instead of Evil. Evil is still there, neutral anything is gone though. Unaligned is there in its place and really means the player is not bound to a set of alignment guidelines. I have a couple in my current game that are playing unaligned characters and both act a lot closer to CN than anything. Out for themselves, do a cruel act here and there, and really only care about the task if there is not much expected of them (thatís how they play it). I don't think the characters are forced to being goody-goody in this edition at all because of this, quite the opposite. I think all the years of playing with the rigid guidelines of the previous alignment system has caused the players to become a bit more repetitive in the characters and when the rules are removed in a situation like Unaligned they either default to what they know or go a bit out of whack.

To me this is my favorite edition of them all. Each one back to the Red Box holds a special place for me but what 4e brings to the table really makes me happy. Never thought I would like it as much as I do, but now that I have been DMing it for a few months I could not imagine going back to any other version.

RealmsDM
12-09-2008, 08:59 AM
4e seems like WoW on paper to a lot of players because its IS just like WoW on paper.

WoW generated major bank for Blizzard, so WotC wanted to draw in the HUGE fan base that game had. Simply put, make your decent product more like the one that broke sales records.

1958Fury
12-09-2008, 01:15 PM
I've seen the WOW/4e comparison a lot, but I haven't seen anything more specific than "it just feels like it". I've played both, but only briefly, and I don't see it. Could someone spell out some specific examples of how they're similar?

Kalanth
12-09-2008, 02:11 PM
I've seen the WOW/4e comparison a lot, but I haven't seen anything more specific than "it just feels like it". I've played both, but only briefly, and I don't see it. Could someone spell out some specific examples of how they're similar?

From personal experience with 4th edition rules I don't really see the comparison either and no one has been able to point to any specific examples for me either.

Bearfoot_Adam
12-09-2008, 02:59 PM
I believe the feel the OP's comment "4E is like wow comparison" was more the mood not the mechanic. That the game lends itself to a more happy go lucky killing vs. earthy bloody battles. Least that is what I gleaned from reading. And to answer I feel like the game is what you make it. Nothing more or less.

Webhead
12-09-2008, 03:02 PM
Granted, I've only read 4e, but as a regular (albeit not fanatical) WoW player, the only overt similarities I see have to do with the encouragement of party formation through "roles" (tank/dps/healer/crowd control). That, in itself, has positive and negative connotations for the way the game is played, but beyond that, I don't see anything that screams WoW over any other sword-and-sorcery fantasy tropes. WoW was designed by a bunch of D&D nerds, remember. I think it would be rough to say that D&D is inversely trying to copy WoW.

Valdar
12-09-2008, 03:03 PM
4e will feel like WoW if you play WoW for a thousand hours and then try 4e. In fact, simple activities like making breakfast and doing chores may also feel like WoW at that point. If you boot up the Internet wayback machine, you'll find lots of claims that 3e was the RPG equivalent of M:tG, because that's what people had played tons of recently, and it's what was stuck in their heads. Ironically, the designers of 4e have pointed to M:tG (not WoW) as the inspiration for a lot of the game mechanics...

Speaking of dead horses, Barbarian is a core class, it's just not out yet. Half-Orc is a core race, ditto. Both will be in PHB2, which will be just as core as PHB1. Same goes for Druid, Sorcerer, Gnome, Bard, etc.

As for the raised eyebrows at your character's sociopathic behavior, I guess your friends just grew up without you. I agree that having players mutilate the bodies of their foes was a lot more common when I played in junior high, but the players I play with don't get off on those sorts of thrills anymore.

Wulfenstien
12-09-2008, 03:20 PM
Very interesting points Kalath, and let me first say that By no means am I completely coming down on 4th E i think its a wonderful system one I will probably learn to love as more content is released.

Second brutality has nothing to do with alighnment. You can do all that stuff I did one second and save kitten from a tree the next. True people who tend to Do that sort of thing Do stray towards evil, but I would have pegged that char TN or CG not CE. Plus the simple fact he was a Barbarian dictates the added monstrosity of the action. If i was playing say a fighter, I would have dispatched him with a clean chop to the face and that would have been that. (Now we can argue thats playing your class rather than your carachter but this was still very early in the game so there was little time for dev, but I think we can all agree it takes a certain mentality to play each class.) Also yes you can be one of two types of evil, but I find there only being 5 alighnments instead of 9 more restricting or at least more unstructured, less defined. I dont know about the rest of you but stuff like allighnment helped me get a feel of my charachter. And I certainly did not play every LN (my most common alighnment choice) charachter I had the same. Lastly regarding a Civilized game, I had played with all these people before and Slayer hybrids seemed to be the majority of playstyle ( 4 slayers 1 acter) I had dmed and been dmed by the lot of em and in 3.5 such acts were common, but in 4.0 doing things like that for some reason even to me seemed a little taboo. Now you can have dark and gritty with 4.0 It just seems like you gotta force it, with 3.5 that sort a thing just came naturally. The thing that triggers this feeling again is I think 4.0's similarity to wow and that made for kids feeling i was speaking of before.


And now for what youve all been asking as a former wow addict of 4 years Heres wulfenstien point by point comparison of DND 4.0 to MMO titan WORLD OF WARCRAFT.
1. SIMPLIFIED: 4.0 is by far the easiest system to pick up and learn, that was wow biggest selling point because the mmo's that came before that just seemed to complicated to average joe thus frightening them off. Not wow though :laugh:
2. CENTRALIZED: All classes now have the same combat mechanic with slight variation. Wizards can now magic missle as much as fighters swing there swords. kinda like in wow how everyone save for warrior and rouge (slight variation) use the Health and mana system?

3. UN-RP-A-FIED: Roleplay as a mechanic is now gone. in the older systems it felt like you HAD to roleplay wich was something I liked. As some one who constantly deals with newbs to the world of DnD its frustraiting to get those people to learn how to RP, and 4th edition is way harder than the older system. New players tend to look at dnd like a board game strictly and with no real mechanics specifically geared for RP that aspect is overlooked entirely. I think us vets take our ability to RP for granted and dont notice the RP gap of 4.0 and the older versions. Also rp descriptions and aspects in the MM and so forth are infanitley smaller. Thus heaping more work on the DM to create the lost RP content themselvs, something Ive found infanetley annoying.

4. CD SYSTEM: At will= instant cast, EP = 5 min cooldown, Daily = 10 min cooldowns. If you ever heard two areana nuts discussing how combat should go down (I.E when to blow this n that) its strikingly similar to how people discuss when and where to use there EP's or Daily's.

5. CORE RACES: Now these areant exact copy's by no means just lots of similaritys Dragonborne-Drenai Eladrin-Bit..er..Blood Elf (sry old alliance die hard) Tiefling - Undead Elf - Night elf (druid ftw)

6. AESTETIC: Just the art the look of the books descriptions everything, just seems high fantasy and a little cartoony. Just like erm let me think here o i know WOW. And i know alot of people are saying this so its not just me.


Okay so as i said afore I dont hate 4th E theres just some things that bug me about it, me being a low fantasy lover. Anyway, Afterthoughts?

1958Fury
12-09-2008, 03:42 PM
Thank you, Wulfenstien, that was very insightful. I still don't really agree, but I can see more where the comparison is coming from.

Wulfenstien
12-09-2008, 05:10 PM
Interesting point but I feel like I have to defend myself. (also excuse me tooting my own thread but I feel this is necesary) Since when was medevil brutality a sign of immaturity? Im only 19 but I have been Overseas traveling, I started college 2 years earlier than my comrades and people often mistake me for some one much older. Its not that im immature, Its just I enjoy the darker more Brutal style of gameplay, and what my charachter did was by at least medevil barbaric standards quite commonplace. I just happen to enjoy heavy metal, horror films, ect ect. Also I bring (usually) a nice counterpoint of view to the party. I revel in destruction where the elf cleric crys on the accedental slaying of a butterfly. Again people especially in south america and northern europe did things like that. People who often were considered as "barbarian" or "savage". Hate to break to you man but not everyone is limp wristed when it comes to the act of slaying.

Also I think alot of 4th ed fans are getting a little defensive. I already said that I LIKE 4TH ED AND THAT I WILL PROBABLY LOVE IT ONCE MORE CONTENT IS RELEASED! I AM NOT BASHING 4TH E! THE RELEASE CONTENT JUST SEEMS A LITTLE EMPTY!

The point of this thread is to compare the prevelant high fantasy of 4th E to the low fantasy of older versions. and the thoughts of you my fellow dnd players.

Lastly Ive been clean of wow for the past year and a half. I play WAR now.
Also thanks fury ^^



4e will feel like WoW if you play WoW for a thousand hours and then try 4e. In fact, simple activities like making breakfast and doing chores may also feel like WoW at that point. If you boot up the Internet wayback machine, you'll find lots of claims that 3e was the RPG equivalent of M:tG, because that's what people had played tons of recently, and it's what was stuck in their heads. Ironically, the designers of 4e have pointed to M:tG (not WoW) as the inspiration for a lot of the game mechanics...

Speaking of dead horses, Barbarian is a core class, it's just not out yet. Half-Orc is a core race, ditto. Both will be in PHB2, which will be just as core as PHB1. Same goes for Druid, Sorcerer, Gnome, Bard, etc.

As for the raised eyebrows at your character's sociopathic behavior, I guess your friends just grew up without you. I agree that having players mutilate the bodies of their foes was a lot more common when I played in junior high, but the players I play with don't get off on those sorts of thrills anymore.

1958Fury
12-09-2008, 06:32 PM
To me, it won't really feel like WOW until I walk into the crowd as a female character, and am immediately spammed by 30 males asking, "a/s/l?"

Kalanth
12-09-2008, 08:46 PM
While you are right in that mutilation of a body does not always show a sign of maturity in the gamer I can say from experience that those kinds of actions do eventually go by the weigh-side as you progress in your gaming life. It is just a process of life for as you progress in your gaming career you are less apt to such actions. The same holds true for life, as I can say that now at 30 I am much less likely to do 1 / 10 the things I did when I was 17. So in that regard it is a sign of growth more than anything. I was young once and enjoyed a good moment or two where I performed actions that were questionable in my gaming youth. I remember distinctly when I was 15 and playing my first cleric I went about castrating a man, then making him eat it. This was the finale to a lengthy "interrogation." I had no reason to take that action, it just seemed fun at the time. Now I would be much less apt to do that kind of thing because it is not as appealing as it was then.

Note, this is not a knock on you but merely an idea as to where the idea may have come from. But do note that the brutalization of bodies, while prevalent at points in history, was done more on the battlefields and out of the public eye. The actions were meant to scare and spread stories of the tribes that did these acts. I get the feeling that what you were doing was along these lines (got that from you making the necklace from the head) but maybe the environment was wrong. Not sure, especially since I am not able to question the group about why they reacted as they did.

In terms of the game not having rules to assist the RP anymore I say that I am thrilled by this. 1st and 2nd edition did not have social skills in them like 3rd edition did. Growing up from the Red Box I was accustomed to the words you actually say making the difference and the player did not have the default of diplomacy / intimidate / bluff. I think the skill system of 3 / 3.5 actually beat the horse in terms of RP. The player no longer had to really think about the action but instead could poorly describe it and then toss a d20 to determine if his actions / words were good enough for the situation.

While 4e still has the social skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate) which can still be used to roll your way out of conversation they have eliminated some of those other skills like craft. I have never been a fan of using skills to get through a social situation but I think that by retaining these skills the new edition has maintained the modern standard of RP. In that regard the RP is not reduced by the lack of rules but enhanced as the player is free to RP as they need, and yet still has the safety net they grew accustomed to in 3 / 3.5.

I had more to my point but I realized that I have no idea what it was...

Wulfenstien
12-09-2008, 10:22 PM
Brutalazation of bodies as you put kalath, Was more ritualistic rp than what I thought would be fun. Taking trophies and wearing them as totems to intimidate future oppenents, if not common in real life is certainly so in the fantasy universe. Furthermore, Barbarian is one if not my favorite class and the have very unique mind set to them. As I said before, If i was just playing a fighter, or even a more devios rouge I would not have done that.

As for reactions, it was not like i was suddenly ostrisized by the group. The reaction i got was suprise mostly. Unexpected, even though in my 3.5 games that is exactly the sort of thing youd expect me to do. See what I mean? the strongest comparison I can think of is happy tree freinds. The reason its awkward is ultravoilence is usually not associated with that astetic. That same awkwardness was present whenever something raw happend in a game of 4.0, Very strange.

Also it was a battle field situation. It was the last hobgoblin in a group... Dick shot me to. Also i was raging. From an RP stand point it was perfectly valid.

Also I cant help but feel a little defensive here. It seems people think Im one of those gamers that is a complete sado masochist who inacts my fantasies through dnd. I am not. In fact there was even A method to my madness (and if you ever have a game with me yould see) You see I was playing a barbarain in the middle of a rage, I just got shot after a pretty tough battle by what was obviosly the last hobgoblin. A hobgoblin who could have ran what with seeing me and my comrades lay waste to his buddys, but no the little twat decides to shoot me. So I remove his fatal mistake takle him and pound the stupidity of his mistake over and over into his skull (a d4 at a time... well +strength and howling strike he did try to get away at first.) we were in a goblin infested teritory and i was planning on decapitating one of them and attaching the head to myself anyway, but this guy had made things personal, so i chose him. It wasnt just random acts of mutilation everything had a purpose. Barbarians are the epitome at least IMO of melee badassary both in act and in look. For instance My Barbarian had a giant red mohawk, a big beard did not even wear a chest peice, weilding a primitive albeit effective warpick with multiple scars tatooing and tribal gashes. Basically this was a man you just did not Eff with and almost every act Reinforced this. Wich brings me back to my original point.

4th ed aestitc is high fantasy. 3.5 aestitic was Low fantasy. What do you guys think of the shift. Or did you even notice it. As from my previos posts I am very much a low fantasy kinda guy who plays low fantasy kinda charachters.

anyone else feel this way?

Grimwell
12-09-2008, 10:56 PM
Seeing "WoW" and "simplistic" being used in a comparative manner makes me giggle. WoW may feel simple, but the design behind it is anything but. There is a lot of math flying about behind those pixels. ANY flavor of D&D is very simple in comparison. WoW behind the scenes is more akin to Rolemaster than D&D.

I'd like more than a "feel" on the roleplay value of 4E compared to other editions. I've played them all since the red box, and have yet to find one with rules for how to roleplay (as a mechanic), let alone a directive. D&D has always been a wargame with style. One that you can easily roleplay in, or not.

Depends on the DM. So does the grit factor. :)

Kalanth
12-10-2008, 08:31 AM
I am the kind of guy that likes to know the why to everything and looks to justify every action. As this conversation goes along I am filling in many blanks and now that you detail your characters condition and add more to the situation I see a rather solid RP moment. You take a lot of influence from Conan I assume? I don't know many other fantasy elements that contain the ideal of mutilating a body except examples like the head shrinkers. Nothing wrong with it, and it is good to take influence from something.

But I still disagree with the idea that 4e is high fantasy and 3.5 is low fantasy. All previous editions were as you made them. I have played in games that were extremely high fantasy in each edition (except 4th) and games that were so low fantasy that the caster classes were completely removed as an option. That is a variance brought on by the players and DM, and not the rules.

My current campaign, which uses 4e and a homebrew world, is middle fantasy. Nothing has been to much in one direction or the other but there are distinct elements of each to be seen. Some examples of those elements range from slavery, rampant disease, lack of roads and transportation, the Feywild having become conterminous with the material plane, and flying cities in one particular nation. These things were all in place back when I made the world in 2nd edition and they still hold true in 4e. The key thing to remember is that it is the players and DM that make the setting low, medium, or high fantasy and not the rules.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-10-2008, 01:00 PM
I think this feeling people are having about 4e being like WOW is something that is inherent in the game system. It has taken me awhile to pick up on it too but I think it is the names of all the powers for the classes.

Just a simple name like Tide of Iron, occasionally repeated 4-5 times throughout a game slowly erodes the realism of the game itself. Multiply this by the other number of powers that the rest of the party will use in that game session and combat becomes something much more than a fight, it becomes an ultra-fantastical miniatures battle.

and this isn't simply a small gripe, when there is very little need to make a single "normal" attack because you can always Tide of Iron or Cleave, there really isn't much left to the imagination.

And the argument that it is all in the way you describe it, I have never been in a game group that explicitly described their attacks unless it was a critical hit, so that argument doesn't really apply to every situation.

Webhead
12-10-2008, 01:15 PM
...And the argument that it is all in the way you describe it, I have never been in a game group that explicitly described their attacks unless it was a critical hit, so that argument doesn't really apply to every situation.

The d20 system has really infected me in this regard. I don't know how or why but the difference is tangible. I need to get back to really "hamming it up" again like I used to, descriptions of back-handed sword swings and all...

1958Fury
12-10-2008, 01:20 PM
Just a simple name like Tide of Iron, occasionally repeated 4-5 times throughout a game slowly erodes the realism of the game itself. Multiply this by the other number of powers that the rest of the party will use in that game session and combat becomes something much more than a fight, it becomes an ultra-fantastical miniatures battle.

At the 4e game I played, my buddy used "Reaping Strike" a lot, and an eventual mispronunciation let to lots of giggles and a running joke that lasted the rest of the session.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-10-2008, 01:35 PM
At the 4e game I played, my buddy used "Reaping Strike" a lot, and an eventual mispronunciation let to lots of giggles and a running joke that lasted the rest of the session.

Cool. I'm not saying I am not having fun with 4e, just that it is inherently less realistic than 3.5 inherently tends to be.

I am finding the powers to be a poor way to enhance or simplify D&D. The talent tree system of Saga Edition, I think, would work MUCH better and give a better feel to the game.

Webhead
12-10-2008, 01:55 PM
Cool. I'm not saying I am not having fun with 4e, just that it is inherently less realistic than 3.5 inherently tends to be...

I don't know about less "realistic" (any "realism" in D&D or any RPG is dubious at best), but it certainly seems less "interprative", meaning X is X and Y is Y and never the 'twain shall meet.

That's probably what you were going for, if I were to take a stab at it.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-10-2008, 02:12 PM
I don't know about less "realistic" (any "realism" in D&D or any RPG is dubious at best), but it certainly seems less "interprative", meaning X is X and Y is Y and never the 'twain shall meet.

That's probably what you were going for, if I were to take a stab at it.

Um, I am not quite sure I agree with you on that. 4e is very much about the heroes being superheroes. This is encouraged by the fact there is a distinct division between heroic, paragon, and epic tiers and an assumption about the PC activities during each tier of play.

While I am still forming my opinion on death and dying in 4e, one of the mechanics I do like btw, it still kind of seems that death may be a rare thing or even the threat of death even though it seems combats with varied opponents seem to be more deadly, there seems to be very little actual threat of death. But the jury is still out on that one.

In 3.5 your hero was simply someone who was a cut above the rest and the threat of death still seemed very real and tangible throughout all levels of play, granted I never really played beyond 15th level but death always seemed to be lurking around the corner and it paid to be careful.

We don't get a lot of death in saga edition but players spend A LOT more time with less than full hit points or down the condition track than they do at full and in a normal state.

All of these things help add to the realism of the game and with 4e's healing mechanic, short rests and extended rests, it gets a little metagamey.

Webhead
12-10-2008, 02:40 PM
...All of these things help add to the realism of the game and with 4e's healing mechanic, short rests and extended rests, it gets a little metagamey.

I see what you're saying. The lethality of D&D was always questionable to me since there existed the establishment of "resurrection" and "heal" spells, but 4e does seem to swing things in favor of "Energizer Bunny" syndrome (they keep going and going and going...). I'm not a huge fan of Hit Point systems in general simply because many of my favorite games don't use them, but they are insufferably D&D through and through. Saga's "Condition Track" system is probably the most tolerable rendition of Hit Points that I've encountered.

Back to what I was trying to express with the "X is X" comment, is that 4e seems very formulaic, very patterned. That creates structure but it also seemingly discourages interpretation. At least, that's my surface-level interpretation of 4e and its "metagamey-ness".

Okay, you can start the flames now. :flame:

Kalanth
12-10-2008, 05:39 PM
The d20 system has really infected me in this regard. I don't know how or why but the difference is tangible. I need to get back to really "hamming it up" again like I used to, descriptions of back-handed sword swings and all...

I agree and I do my best to put a description to every attack. As DM that means I describe the players swings as well as the enemies. In 1st and 2nd edition it used to be fun to add the flair into the description and when 3 / 3.5 hit for some reason that died off and became, "I swing my sword *sound of dice* 23 hit?"

One of my friends, and a player in my game, does very well with his rogue in 4e and adds description every time. It can be somewhat campy, but he will do something like:

I grab my dagger and smile, then hurtle it across the room with a flourish.

This being what he does for Sly Flourish. It actually inspires the others to mimic him and so they tend to describe the action they are taking in a similar manner and then announce the power they are using. Giving the description first and the power second does take away some of the ultra-fantastical miniatures battle feel. Heck, half the battles we have I don't even bother tossing Miniatures down.

Genzodus Thoth
12-10-2008, 06:20 PM
The main beef that I had with 4th Ed. was that, as was said, it was a special ability spammer that put Dragonball Z to shame. There's nothing wrong with Dragonball Z: it was a classic anime, and there's nothing wrong with anime either. In fact, I can't even count how many different series I've watched. The problem lies in that 4th Ed. is fantasy with anime rules. If I want to play anime, then I'll play anime, not anime with a fantasy skin.

While it *is* possible to describe special attacks in different, interesting ways, there are only so many ways that you can describe a special attack before you begin to alter the substance of it. That's another problem: while a 3rd Ed. wizard can pick all sorts of different spells daily, a 4th Ed. one is simply a projectile spammer, no different than a warlock, save style of play. Just the same, there's little difference between those and the melee classes, save the range of attack and a few balancing effects.

Etarnon
12-10-2008, 09:15 PM
I need to get back to really "hamming it up" again like I used to, descriptions of back-handed sword swings and all...

This was what I liked best about, and was overall for me the strongest point of favor for ROLEPMASTER by ICE.

For me, the High fantasy of 4e, is simply the idea that heroes don't often die, because of healing surges, etc. The frequent resting.

3.5, and even more so 1e and 2e, were more like you have this finite set of hit points, and if wounded, it takes time or magic to heal, which to me lends more grittiness.

That's how I see it.

I do agree though that the game focus on gritty or fluff, really is the province of the group and the setting, as run by each individual DM.

That being said, to me 4.0 is better for four color comic book / batman style, and 1e / rolemaster for gritty swords and sorcery conan / man vs animals in the arena (death ever present and frequent) style.

Older editions seem harder edged, and more difficult to survive in thus more challenging and more heroic.

Dozens of people on wotc forums will of course disagree with this.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-11-2008, 10:43 AM
As I said, my verdict is still out on death and dying in 4e. I have managed to kill a PC afterall.

I am going to try to start taking the approach to 4e as I do with my Star Wars games, after all my Star Wars games are much more free flowing much like the last 4e game we played was.

It may be just getting used to the pacing. We are having a blast with 4e, everything just seems to flow much easier than it did in 3.5.

Who knows?

Wulfenstien
12-11-2008, 02:05 PM
I think Genzodus Nailed it for me. I Do I agree much of the grit and grimey fluff is purely up to the players. However the mechanic's themselvs play a part in how those players play. Since ive been describing barbarian actions this whole time I think ive found a good comparison. Howling strike.

Heres an example during combat of what I would say. or do rather. with a 3.5 barb here is what I would usually do in a combat encounter. I would eye the oppenent (regardless of what) Let loose a primal beastly roar (regardless if the creature cant be intimidated) then charge into battle, greatsword, greataxe, mace, dagger, rock or Fallen foe in hand (regardless of numbers) and proceed to lay waste to the unfourtunate foe. My fights usually ended-if fighting but a single foe- in me tackling whatever (one time it was an undead chimera, wich then descided to fly off with me on it... stabing of course.) and proceed to hack slash or stab it to death with whatever one handed weapon I always kept as a secondary. strangley this only got me killed 3 times in my entire career as a barbarian (and trust me ive played alot of them) wich is quite the testemate to me... and my clerics/palidans/druid buddys ^^ csw ftw.

In 4.0 all that good stuff is reduced to simply howling strike.... WEW! its a hellava lot more impersonal. Also alot more noisy. I only yelled about 3-4 times a fight. Lots of angry gruntin an growlin though. I wonder if they will add growling strike?

Also the whole danger aspect of it is kinda, lost. While I only died 3 times from my barb methodology I NEVER CAME OUT OF A FIGHT UNSCATHED. (wich consequently led to alot of scars. aka baddasery.) In 4.0 after every fight i can just sit on my arse for 5 minutes and be good to go at full hp. Regardless of a cleric. Also it seems the monsters dont really put up much of a fight in comparison to 3.5 thats another part. From a dms perspective its practically impossible to kill your pc's without doing something rediculas, (not that I overtly try to kill my pc's, but I do like to keep em nice n wounded.) In fact in one encounter I did in fact attempt to kill my party of 5 level 5 pc's, I sent 3 level 8 brutes, 1 level 8 leader and 1 level 8 artillery against them. Each one had like double the hp of any of the pcs and good deal of stopping power. I managed to knock out one of them and get em all to about half health..... The hell? If i had tried that shiz in 3.5 the next round of charachters would have found there old pc's bonepile all nawd to bits.

To answer you question kalanth, to understand my barbs check this video http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/contentDetail.do?id=D81F2344BF5AC7BBA696F269B9D88D 70629D940E51E3A2C6

1958Fury
12-11-2008, 02:11 PM
Also the whole danger aspect of it is kinda, lost. While I only died 3 times from my barb methodology I NEVER CAME OUT OF A FIGHT UNSCATHED. (wich consequently led to alot of scars. aka baddasery.)

Heh, I played 4e for the first time in an RPGA game last month, and I never took any damage the entire 4-hour session. :lol:

Wulfenstien
12-11-2008, 02:21 PM
Heh, I played 4e for the first time in an RPGA game last month, and I never took any damage the entire 4-hour session. :lol:
Actually... Ive never died in 4.0... ever... :tsk: and believe me Ive fight with utter reckless abandon when I play a barb.

1958Fury
12-11-2008, 03:19 PM
Actually... Ive never died in 4.0... ever... :tsk: and believe me Ive fight with utter reckless abandon when I play a barb.

Well, in all fairness, I was playing an archer. We had plenty of melee fighters to take the front lines, while I pretty much stood back fired into the crowd.

Valdar
12-11-2008, 05:10 PM
If you're playing even-level encounters, then yeah, the threat of death isn't there. Set the encounters at party level plus one, and the combats get a little more tense. The DMG suggests up to level+4 encounters as valid (though certain fights will be unwinnable at level+4, such as solos, or monsters immune to the party's strongest attacks).

Kalanth
12-11-2008, 06:52 PM
If you're playing even-level encounters, then yeah, the threat of death isn't there. Set the encounters at party level plus one, and the combats get a little more tense. The DMG suggests up to level+4 encounters as valid (though certain fights will be unwinnable at level+4, such as solos, or monsters immune to the party's strongest attacks).


This is true. I have knocked my party on their butts more than once and can see them get nervous after a few fights and the healing surges are suddenly running low because of the damage they are taking. Even with short rests in between after about four or so equal or harder fights if the players push on they will be rather depleated. I only allow one extended rest per 24 hours as well so the players begin to think about retreat after a while. No combat kills in my campaign so far, and the only player death came from the Remove Affliction ritual and a bad roll...

tesral
12-11-2008, 07:51 PM
From what I have seen implementing a low fantasy game in Forry is next to impossible. The game says you are super heroic and makes you that way. The DM can toss in the gritty feel, but not a low magic low fantasy feel, the mechanics work against him.

Forry by the very nature of the system is limiting into what you can do with it. More limiting that the Classic D&D system, which if you wish most of the magic can be stripped out and it will still work. Forry is not going to work for a Conan game.

Wulfenstien
12-11-2008, 10:55 PM
This is true. I have knocked my party on their butts more than once and can see them get nervous after a few fights and the healing surges are suddenly running low because of the damage they are taking. Even with short rests in between after about four or so equal or harder fights if the players push on they will be rather depleated. I only allow one extended rest per 24 hours as well so the players begin to think about retreat after a while. No combat kills in my campaign so far, and the only player death came from the Remove Affliction ritual and a bad roll...


This goes on to further my point. My 3.5 games have NEVER been dungeon crawlers with 3-6 encounters if that per scenario or dungeon. Small imemorable through away conflicts seem to be the staple of 4.0. again this may change with time or house ruling. But my conflicts have always been complicated dangerous and thoroughly epic and are still Remebered with much fondness. Unless your near the end of an onslaught and finnaly running low on healing surges you have no real sense of danger, thus its not exciting IMO. Again I could off hand think of many nifty house rules to regulate the primary culprit of this (damn healing surges) But it seems the difficulty scale is either mind numbingly dull, or infuraitingly impossible. Its like theres no longer that delicios grey area in wich great awsome battle are bourne.

Again im going to sound like a brocken horse (the hell?) here but I do stress the fact that I am very much looking forward to more suplements and expansions to 4.0. It has great potential and I will continue to play 4.0 games to familiarize as much as possible with rules ect. However I feel the need to point out some of the big flaws in it as well. As I am doing now.

Also Testral brings up a good point, and pretty much articulated what ive been trying to say this whole time.

Kalanth
12-12-2008, 07:58 AM
Most of my combats are not dungeon crawl combats. I keep close tabs on the time and day and that means that these fights can be spread out over the course of a day or several game sessions but still be in the same day itself (depending on what events the day will contain). Several days lets in the extended rests, but when you get into 4 - 6 fights in a 12 - 18 hour stretch that is when it gets hairy. Although I do like a good dungeon crawl in there too...

I am a big time homer in terms of 4e and love the edition to the ends of the earth, but that is not to say I think of it as perfect. Far from it, actually. If there was any one thing I would complain about in 4e it would be the solo monsters. While I have had epic battles using them in my campaign these fights are harder to pull off. The solo monster is a good idea poorly executed in many situations. They end up being a stationary fight with the players surrounding the monster and each beating on each other. I have used two solos so far, one with success that felt big, and one that was (from a DM perspective) an epic fail.

The one that worked was a dragon battle in a cavern large enough the creature could fly. Motion made a difference and the fight was intense all the way through. There were moments with the dragon picking up the characters in the dragons mouth and hurtling the players around the cave. Bathing the players in acid, smashing them with its tail. And in the end the playersís genuinely celebrated the victory and were hanging on to life by a thread, as I feel a fight with a solo should be.

The other fight I took a skeleton and added two templates to it, gave it a fire breathing power (much like the Dragonborn) and released it into a tiny room. It all worked against me as it felt like the players were beating on a bag of HP and the fight took forever. The breath weapon did drop two players down below 0 hp, but not for long and certainly not with any level of excitement to it. The group surrounded the skeleton and pounded it into submission. That one was a big disappointment.

As DM I have been able to play out each thing and test how it worked and if I did not like its function. I have tweaked and modified many things in the game so far to reflect that and provide a much more difficult experience for the players and they seem to be enjoying that with the responses they give. There is a bit in the DMG that explains that a DM should give the players a battle now and again that is easy to them so that they can feel powerful and I do this because they like the ego boost. That and it benefits me when they underestimate the difficulty of the area by breezing through a fight and then hitting a wall at some point while in that area.

If the fights are feeling to easy on you then might I suggest you bring that up to the DM and suggest he put in a few more difficult encounters? You are playing a Beta class and that may also be a factor, but the DM has ultimate control on how hard the game can be.

RealmsDM
12-12-2008, 11:26 AM
From what I have seen implementing a low fantasy game in Forry is next to impossible. The game says you are super heroic and makes you that way. The DM can toss in the gritty feel, but not a low magic low fantasy feel, the mechanics work against him.

Forry by the very nature of the system is limiting into what you can do with it. More limiting that the Classic D&D system, which if you wish most of the magic can be stripped out and it will still work. Forry is not going to work for a Conan game.

interesting POV... I haven't played 4e (don't really care to, but that's another thread altogether) and the lack of a sense of fear for their PC's lives struck me as boring in my first glance through the rulebooks. Half the fun is knowing that your (PC's) life is at risk. Conan style rpg must be next to impossible to run.

And healing surge??? To all the players who defend 4e that its not video game inspired, this power is basically the same a having 99 heal potions & pheonix downs from Final Fantasy. It keeps your PC alive so you keep playing the game.

Webhead
12-12-2008, 11:39 AM
...And healing surge??? To all the players who defend 4e that its not video game inspired, this power is basically the same a having 99 heal potions & pheonix downs from Final Fantasy. It keeps your PC alive so you keep playing the game.

Yes, I think "healing surges" is taking things a bit far. I liked the "second wind" rules from Star Wars Saga as it approximated the "It's not as bad as it looks" rules from Buffy/Angel/Army of Darkness, which I like a lot. It emulates the kind of fiction in which the hero takes a beating but then comes back from the brink at a crucial moment. But Second Wind is a once-per-day thing. Healing Surges do feel rather "metagame-y" to me as well.

1958Fury
12-12-2008, 12:30 PM
Yes, I think "healing surges" is taking things a bit far. I liked the "second wind" rules from Star Wars Saga as it approximated the "It's not as bad as it looks" rules from Buffy/Angel/Army of Darkness, which I like a lot. It emulates the kind of fiction in which the hero takes a beating but then comes back from the brink at a crucial moment. But Second Wind is a once-per-day thing. Healing Surges do feel rather "metagame-y" to me as well.

Really? Maybe I'm misreading the section on healing surges, but it seems even more hardcore to me.

According to the PHB, "most healing requires you to spend a healing surge" (page 293). So you can only get healed as many times as you have healing surges. Depending on the power, if someone else heals you, it costs a healing surge. Even drinking a simple potion of healing costs a healing surge (page 255).

In some RPGs, you can carry around 100 bottles of healing potion and drink them all day. Or you can befriend a couple of clerics and have them heal you up all battle long. But in 4e, if you currently have a max of 7 healing healing surges, then you can only be healed 7 times (until they're recharged). Drink another healing potion after you run out of surges, and it doesn't do anything.

Sure, you can spend surges to heal yourself when you're resting, but not during battle when you'd need it (other than the aforementioned Daily Second Wind). And it might take a couple of surges to get you back to full health. So you do run the risk of running out. Granted, my 4e character is still level 1, so it might get cheesier at high levels.

Now it may seem to you that even with the restrictions, it's plenty more healing than you've ever needed before, do remember that it's been said that 4e battles last a lot longer than in previous versions.

Aidan
12-12-2008, 12:59 PM
Note that you can't spend healing surges at will during te middle of a fight either. You can use your second wind as a standard action once per encounter, a healing potion (which are expensive in 4e) or a person with a power that lets you use one.

Webhead
12-12-2008, 01:06 PM
Really? Maybe I'm misreading the section on healing surges, but it seems even more hardcore to me...

Sure. I can see what you're saying. My experience with D&D though is that healing spells and potions were generally in short supply which meant that the Cleric had to be strategic about how he split them up. Especially in 3.X when the Cleric could be something other than a "healing battery", he tended to put some of his (rather useful) other spells into action which meant he could only divide up what was left after a battle.

As with the potions as well, we never had them falling out of our pockets like some other groups seem to have and thus saved them for emergencies such as when the Cleric was down (actually, the most common use for our Healing potions was on the Cleric to bring him back to positive hit points).

I've never actually played 4e so I can't say how Surges affect the game beyond speculation, but it feels like they might be a little too liberally distributed.

1958Fury
12-12-2008, 01:13 PM
I've never actually played 4e so I can't say how Surges affect the game beyond speculation, but it feels like they might be a little too liberally distributed.

Well, I haven't played it enough really say. But my friend did get a bit worried when we played, when his Dragonborn Fighter started getting low in HP during a battle, and he'd already spent his healing surge for the day. There really weren't any other healing options available to us, so he had to press on until the battle was over. Of course, afterwards he was able to spend a few surges and get right back out there, but the battle itself was as scary as ever. (As scary as goblins can be, anyway...)

By my thinking, if a DM doesn't want his players to heal between battles, he just needs to find a way to keep them from resting.

Kalanth
12-12-2008, 02:03 PM
The real threat of death comes after a few battles in many cases. Healing surges are spent in a few ways and are limited in number per character.

1) Second Wind - You have one of these per encounter and it uses a single healing surge.

2) Cleric Healing - Each time a cleric heals your character you loose a healing surge.

3) Paladin Healing - Each time a paladin lays their hands on you the paladin looses a healing surge.

4) Warlord Healing - Certain powers from the warlord allow you the option to use a healing surge.

5) Certain Powers - There are powers sprinkled in here and there in most of the classes that let the player use a healing surge on success.

6) Roll a Natural 20 on Death Save - When you roll a nat 20 while rolling to your death rolls the character returns to zero hit points and then uses a healing surge.

7) Etc. - There are other ways, like utility powers, but those examples are harder to place an exact finger on.

Once these surges are dried up from any combination of uses then you are out of luck until you take an extended rest. If you are out of healing surges then you are cannot be healed short of a paladin's lay on hands or gaining Temp Hit Points. This means there is no willy-nilly healing whenever you get a scratch with the healing surges. When the monsters start to dish out real damage numbers, which becomes much more noticeable to closer you get to level 10 and beyond, these healing surges become more and more valuable.

I have seen parties run low, and even run out, and watched how those situations have completely altered their strategy in the battle in hopes to remain alive. The fear of death is there, but not at the same level as previous editions. I don't mind so much, honestly, because I got into a habit of killing PC's in previous editions and its nice to watch the PC's grow and progress in my campaigns for once.


By my thinking, if a DM doesn't want his players to heal between battles, he just needs to find a way to keep them from resting.

Yes, and there was a nice article a bit ago in Dungeon about pushing your players. It's ok to let them feel comfortable from time to time, but you are well within your rights to push them along even if it is as simple as an OOC prodding and suggestion (which I have done before). It is on the DM to provide the challenge and as the 4e DM gains experience they will learn how to balance the flow of the game and how to increase the danger levels.

Kazinsky
12-12-2008, 02:34 PM
Yes, I think "healing surges" is taking things a bit far. I liked the "second wind" rules from Star Wars Saga as it approximated the "It's not as bad as it looks" rules from Buffy/Angel/Army of Darkness, which I like a lot. It emulates the kind of fiction in which the hero takes a beating but then comes back from the brink at a crucial moment. But Second Wind is a once-per-day thing. Healing Surges do feel rather "metagame-y" to me as well.

I find myself at odds with this POV. If you understand that 4E is meant to inspire high-fantasy RPing and combat, then healing surges fit right in. Most movies are inspired by a give and take between fighters in a combat. Some are able to take a step back to re-evaluate the situation, take a deep breath and come back from massive strikes.

I like it because it gives what was lacking in the Hit Point system of the prior versions: a method to restore your health/vitality/inner strength without resorting to a magical source (divine magics).


Hit points measure your ability to stand up to punishent, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve - all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.

When you remember that hit points are not (necessarily) physical damage to your character, second winds and healing surges fit a lot better, I believe.

As to the meta-gamey aspect of healing surges, the resting system and healing in general within the context of 4E, I agree that it does have an impact. That can be abused by your players, though I don't think that it's necessarily a flaw in the system of 4E persay, but rather just a mechanic that lends itself to it. Name another system's "vitality system" and I'll show you a way to be meta-gamey about it too.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-12-2008, 02:57 PM
As to the meta-gamey aspect of healing surges, the resting system and healing in general within the context of 4E, I agree that it does have an impact. That can be abused by your players, though I don't think that it's necessarily a flaw in the system of 4E persay, but rather just a mechanic that lends itself to it. Name another system's "vitality system" and I'll show you a way to be meta-gamey about it too.

Saga edition.

While you CAN be meta-gamey with it, it is not in and of itself meta-gamey the way 4e is. Fight, 5 minute rest, fight, 5 minute rest, fight, 5 minute rest, fight, extended rest. In fact there is very little reason to do this, especially if you have used encounter powers.

In Saga if a Jedi or Force User does not have Vital Transfer you have to rely on the first aid application of Treat Injury, which you can only benefit from once in a 24 hour period AND the healing you get is minimal. So you have to rest a full 8 hours to get close to back to full. Or you have to take the time to get into a bacta tank or have surgery performed. However using the surgery application of Treat Injury there is a risk of death in the patient on a failed check. This is a much more representational health system IMO.

I understand what they were trying to do with adding in healing surges because 3.5s rest and recovery is similar to Saga, but Saga also has second winds but in Saga you get either your Con score or 1/4th your total hp, which is more beneficial that the 7ish points you get in 4e.

In 4e they want the characters to go through several encounters before needing an extended rest. I am finding it difficult to balance this. Level appropriate challenges seem to be not tough enough to really force the PCs to expend their resources and difficult challenges seem to be significantly tougher requiring much more resting afterwards.

Webhead
12-12-2008, 02:58 PM
I find myself at odds with this POV. If you understand that 4E is meant to inspire high-fantasy RPing and combat, then healing surges fit right in. Most movies are inspired by a give and take between fighters in a combat. Some are able to take a step back to re-evaluate the situation, take a deep breath and come back from massive strikes.

I like it because it gives what was lacking in the Hit Point system of the prior versions: a method to restore your health/vitality/inner strength without resorting to a magical source (divine magics)...

Exactly what the Second Wind mechanics in Saga are supposed to represent, which is why I like them. It just seems to my (admittedly limited) perspective that Healing Surges just take the concept a little further than I think I am comfortable with. A "Second Wind" in the midst of an epic battle is fine, but getting them every time your character sits down with a cup of tea seems to steal some of the dramatic significance away.


...As to the meta-gamey aspect of healing surges, the resting system and healing in general within the context of 4E, I agree that it does have an impact. That can be abused by your players, though I don't think that it's necessarily a flaw in the system of 4E persay, but rather just a mechanic that lends itself to it. Name another system's "vitality system" and I'll show you a way to be meta-gamey about it too.

Too true and I never intended to imply that Healing Surges struck me as a "flaw" so much as a style choice that I've not convinced myself supports the kind of play style I would look for from D&D. That said, D&D and I have a very interesting relationship and one that might be quite different from others.

And sure, it's not intrinsically better or worse than any other "damage" or "wound" or even "hit point" system out there, it just has very topical significance to my current evaluation of exactly what "play style" 4e is primarily encouraging. At least on the part of "Healing Surges", 4e appears to encourage a more forgiving sense of character threat and mortality. Not a bad thing necessarily, just different.

1958Fury
12-12-2008, 03:38 PM
Whenever someone uses their Second Wind, I get Billy Joel's "You're Only Human" stuck in my head.

Wulfenstien
12-12-2008, 06:16 PM
Very good points all of you, and I think im going to start another thread concerning this very topic. and as for what I wanted to know I think I got my answer.

Kazinsky
12-13-2008, 06:03 PM
Saga edition.

In Saga if a Jedi or Force User does not have Vital Transfer you have to rely on the first aid application of Treat Injury, which you can only benefit from once in a 24 hour period AND the healing you get is minimal. So you have to rest a full 8 hours to get close to back to full. Or you have to take the time to get into a bacta tank or have surgery performed. However using the surgery application of Treat Injury there is a risk of death in the patient on a failed check. This is a much more representational health system IMO.

Representational of a more gritty and realistic health model, yes. Fitting for the Star Wars genre? Probably. Fitting for all 4E D&D genres? Somewhat. Again, it's more of a subjective lure to pull a player or a GM into wanting something specific. I personally enjoy 4E's model of health, since it prevents the old "1-combat a day" mentality of older systems. It actually feels like I can make progress through the dungeon since I don't have to rest after I take a nasty hit. I just catch my breath for 5 mins and lick my own wounds.

To me, it's more of a representational health system of a heroic fantasy game. I think I'd love to play SW with the system that it employs, since it gives that feel to the world -- where you need to rest up, obtain surgery (with it's risks) or find that bacta tank. Two different things, both right.


In 4e they want the characters to go through several encounters before needing an extended rest. I am finding it difficult to balance this. Level appropriate challenges seem to be not tough enough to really force the PCs to expend their resources and difficult challenges seem to be significantly tougher requiring much more resting afterwards.

My suggestion is to remember that encounter powers are just a step above at-wills. They are stronger, but they don't represent too much of a power leap. That's where dailies are at. If you're able to force the party to expend a daily earlier than, say, the "end boss battle", then they're presented with the dilemma of:

a) go forward without our best resources
or
b) find a place to rest and recover those resources

Take another look at the encounter system of 4E. Anything from Level-2 to Level+4 encounters are valid for a party of 5. Throw out some easy, some moderate, some difficult. Or, just throw out a ton of easy/moderates. Or just a couple difficult? For me, the two resources that I look to that determine the need for my players to rest are 1) # of Healing Surges left and 2) total amount of Daily Powers expended.

Etarnon
12-13-2008, 10:50 PM
I personally enjoy 4E's model of health, since it prevents the old "1-combat a day" mentality of older systems. It actually feels like I can make progress through the dungeon since I don't have to rest after I take a nasty hit. I just catch my breath for 5 mins and lick my own wounds.

This is why I like gritty systems better.

Moderate Wounds recovery takes a few days, to weeks spent in an Inn, hospital, etc.

I'm definitely in the camp of 1 combat, only if you need to, when pressed...because your PC risks death each time a scene begins with "Roll initiative."

Fluffy systems aren't to my taste at all, but I know a lot of people (especially D&D players) like them.

Kazinsky
12-15-2008, 10:56 AM
Yep, Etarnon. That's really the crux of the situation when it comes to feel of the system. D&D has always tended to promote a more high-fantasy, heroic type of atmosphere. Where the players may get hurt, but they eventually pull through to fight another fight.

If I were looking for a low-magic, deadlier system, I'd look elsewhere than D&D. Simple as that.

Neither are better than the other, they both fit where they should be placed.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-15-2008, 11:30 AM
Yep, Etarnon. That's really the crux of the situation when it comes to feel of the system. D&D has always tended to promote a more high-fantasy, heroic type of atmosphere. Where the players may get hurt, but they eventually pull through to fight another fight.

If I were looking for a low-magic, deadlier system, I'd look elsewhere than D&D. Simple as that.

Neither are better than the other, they both fit where they should be placed.

I have to disagree with you a bit here. I think 3.5 was more malleable in this regard. From reading the PHB and DMG it is pretty clear what type of game 4e is going for.

Can you get gritty with 4e? Probably, with some work, I'm still trying to do that.

But it is inherently clear that 4e pushes, pulls, and slides (:D) toward high-fantasy.

Kazinsky
12-15-2008, 11:38 AM
Hah, nice one, Inquisitor. I'll concede that point. I agree that 3.5e was better at ...adapting to a grittier playstyle than 4e is.

Maybe another Iron Kingdoms will come out for 4e...

Valdar
12-15-2008, 01:22 PM
I read somewhere (Mearls' blog perhaps) that they are playing around with a "lasting wound" mechanic, possibly to be included in DMG2. It would follow the existing disease/poison track mechanic, so it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to come up with that on your own before DMG2 is out...

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-15-2008, 01:31 PM
Hah, nice one, Inquisitor. I'll concede that point. I agree that 3.5e was better at ...adapting to a grittier playstyle than 4e is.

Maybe another Iron Kingdoms will come out for 4e...

:D

Thats the problem though, forced high-fantasy. The difficulty is pin-pointing what it is that 4e does to encourage that kind of play.

Kazinsky
12-15-2008, 01:49 PM
I read somewhere (Mearls' blog perhaps) that they are playing around with a "lasting wound" mechanic, possibly to be included in DMG2. It would follow the existing disease/poison track mechanic, so it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to come up with that on your own before DMG2 is out...
It was already released over on ENWorld... I'll have to dredge up the post. It was a decent little system that used a saving throw every time a character hit 0 or fewer HPs (or was it 1/4 HP?). If you failed the save, then you had some lasting damage to you that would be tracked on the disease track.

There's also a system that was released by a 3rd party that incorporated a Wounds system into the disease track that was pretty good. So if you wanted to toss out broken bones and such, you could. I didn't try it, but I read through it and came away with a good impression.

Here's my 10-second Google-Fu on the 4e Wounds System (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/240891-wound-system.html), found over at ENWorld. (It was from Keith Baker.)

This is another quick and dirty wound / hit-location implementation (http://chrisdurham.blogspot.com/2008/08/hit-location-system-for-d-4e.html).

Kazinsky
12-15-2008, 01:52 PM
:D

Thats the problem though, forced high-fantasy. The difficulty is pin-pointing what it is that 4e does to encourage that kind of play.
How is that a problem? It's not forced, it's just part of the system.

There are plenty of aspects found within 4e that encourages heroic high-fantasy play. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. So instead of replying in depth, I'll wait for you to clarify that statement first.

On a similar vein, does Saga allow you to play both the gritty realistic model and the heroic / pulp model? Or does it "force" (ouch, sorry) you into one type?

Majin_Puar
12-23-2008, 02:20 AM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned one comparison to Wow and 4e. Is the Disenchanting. In 4e you can disenchant magical items to get dusts and then enchant some other item. Which is exactly what is done in WoW. An Enchanter disenchants magic items to enchant other items.

Etarnon
12-23-2008, 04:14 AM
Don't say that on WOTC forums, though. You'll get called an old fogie console hating neckbeard.

Kalanth
12-23-2008, 07:51 AM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned one comparison to Wow and 4e. Is the Disenchanting. In 4e you can disenchant magical items to get dusts and then enchant some other item. Which is exactly what is done in WoW. An Enchanter disenchants magic items to enchant other items.

Creating a magic item is about the best way for a DM to create the low fantasy game, ironically. The reason I say this is because to create the item costs the same as buying the item straight up. So if you are the type of DM to go stingy on the treasure the players could use this ritual to make items they need as though they had access to them at a store.

Breaking down the weapon to enchant another is really more for the transferring of the power from one item type to another. Got a Vorpal Battle Axe but you are focused in Longswords, disenchant that axe and transfer the power.

Both these options are things that my players don't even consider. Even wtih things selling at 1/5 the original price they would rather sell the item off than spend time on the Disenchant / Enchant rituals.