No 4E --> True20 all the way!

[ValhallaGH]

I think one thing I find interesting about all this is that it at least SEEMS to me like most of the things people are pointing to as great about 4E are things that could have been done without throwing out so much of the third edition...looking at how many posts on Enworld or elsewhere say things like 'I had something like that as a house rule in my 3.x campaign.'

These sorts of observations make me more inclined to see it as an evolutionary progression.

For example, healing surges. "Do we want unlimited healing?" If yes then there's literally almost nothing in the rules to stop a party from adventuring, continuously, for 72 hours straight. The only thing left is the much ignored (in any edition) endurance rules.
If unlimited healing is not acceptable, probably for ruining immersion and the necessary believability to be fun, then you need a per-diem mechanic to force the party to rest. Limiting healing spells, and similar effects, per day is going back to the old, bad ground that doesn't actually work, since the party can just have several dedicated healers around to bypass an individual's per diem limits; so instead, the designers went with limiting an individual character's ability to benefit from any sort of healing, forcing the character to have to rest to recover his ability to recover. Allowing potions or spells to bypass that limit just brings the game back to unlimited daily healing.

Similarly, it seems that skills were too detailed, too rarely useful, and too difficult to really be a fun ability rather than a burden. So, the designers completely altered the skill mechanics: first by ruthlessly compressing the existing skill list into 17 broad but consistent skills; second by converting to a flat Trained / Untrained system, granting a +5 for training, in addition to a few extra uses for many skills.
They then coupled the skill system with a 'heroic capability' progression, that grants all characters a bonus to all checks of half their character level, representing the poise, confidence, coordination, and general skill that comes with experience. (Whether or not you find it realistic, that is what the half-level bonus to ability checks, attacks, and defenses represents.)

It appears that the designers thought it was more fun to attack than to defend, so they converted all powers over to attacks of various sorts. Since not all things should attack AC, they changed what used to be saving throws into static defenses. This gave them the offensive orientation they wanted and had the benefit of putting all semi-offensive abilities into a single, unified, system.
Unfortunately, they lost the ability to have a variable timer for effects based upon the target's luck and ability, when they converted to defenses. So they came up with the 4e saving throw; a single die roll with a 55% chance of success (more if you can get bonuses) to shake off most debilitating effects that don't automatically end after a given period.

And so forth. I really am coming to believe that 4th edition was an organic outgrowth of the pre-existing system rather than the monstrous and off-the-wall new rules that I first took it for.

[phloog]

We'll have to agree to disagree on some of these, which is fine - I don't begrudge anyone loving the new rules.

But I still don't see things as evolutionary so much as revolutionary...we're not talking lungfish to lizards so much as elephants to dining room tables (I use a silly example because I think that evolution implies progression/improvement, and I'm not in the camp that thinks that 4e is an improvement - it's just very different).

The healing bit might be evolutionary, but is something that could be house ruled - - reserve points got very close. And then it gets revolutionary when you introduce the idea that a healing potion suddenly won't help if you're out of surges - don't like that one at all - - to me magic should be...um...magical, and while I think there should be limits, I don't think a healing potion should fail you if you didn't budget surges well.

I agree with you on WHY, from a game design perspective, they did this, I just don't like that they did...and we see again that one decision (potions fail you) is forced by another big change (healing for everyone).

I also think the skills changes went too far, and I think you may be painting with a broad brush - - we use skills, and lots of them, almost constantly...including my character who has his largest ranks and Skill Focus in Forgery, of all things.

Again, maybe a fix was in order, but they pitched a ton, and combined things that I don't think needed to be combined...the downside of which is that you can't now have a rogue (if I recall correctly) who is a master of disguise but NOT of Forgery -- I may have to specific skills wrong, but my point is I don't like when the combinations dictate packages that may not agree with a character concept.

I don't like the half-level adds, because you escalate DCs with them anyway - - This isn't a big complaint of mine, but I think it will lead to a situation where the bartender in town is always the same level as the party - - this could happen in 3e as well, though, I'll grant. What I don't like are the odd results of this - - like a 1st level brute fighter and a tenth level frail wizard both can break down the same door (assumes a 'first level' hard DC door).

The removal of 'saving throws', whether you like that or not, is absolutely revolutionary and not evolutionary. My players LIKE the idea of controlling their destinies, and the saving throw is one reflection of that. While in terms of end result it might be the same as the dragon failing to overcome their specific defense, in terms of feel we're losing something that we love, and that is essentially part of traditional D&D.

The duration mechanic is also revolutionary, and is another change that is forced by the first revolutionary change. Frankly I like the mechanic in that it eliminates tracking durations to an extent, and it removes the silly "Hold em off for another two rounds and I'll be unfrozen" nonsense that can happen unless the DM hides/tracks all durations secretly. But I have already come up with an initial house rule for 3e and T20 that does this same thing.

So to me it's revolutionary, to you it's a progression...either way I may give it a try now and again, but they've lost too many of the things I enjoyed (including the variety of spells, which I never thought turned a wizard into superman, but apparently others thought it did).

[jonrog1]

I understand the adjustment curve, but one of the things I find fascinating is how often I see the interpretation that static defenses means the players "don't control their destiny." I don't think that feeling was there with static AC, and since spells/powers now are not insta-kill or insta-freeze (the joykillers), it really is a matter perception -- particularly since the math is either the same or now slightly favors the players on the offense at least. The idea that this is revolutionary rather than evolutionary .. can you really look at the Take 10 rule, or even the work done on these boards that Baduin did vis a vis True 20's own toughness saves, and say that that idea came out of nowhere?

I don't see the bartender problem -- he's an NPC, after all, and that's even closer to the True20 rules. He only levels if you want him to level, and there are specific points in the DM's Guide that address this.

And while you see the problem of the 1st level fighter and the tenth level wizard both kicking down a door, I instead see the solve of the first level fighter shoving around the 10th level wizard. So , you know, six of one ...

I'd also look again at the "variety" of spells -- hey came much closer to an effects based system, and you also need to take into account riutuals, ritual scrolls, and utility powers. I don't think we can detach the good thing in 3E of there being lots of wizard spells with the big honking problem of being able to use maybe two of them a day.

All said, they ladled a lot of "hey, welcome to D&D newbie"on top of what is in game-design terms a cleaner, smarter system. It's a bit of a pity, really, but strip away the D&D flavor, and there's a functionally better game under there (and one that owes a great deal to M&M and True20 -- and ironically CITY OF HEROES)

[Turanil]

Well I finally got to take a close look at 4e.

It is so opposite to my style that I can't see myself ever playing it.

It is like an arcade game in paper form. You would have to work superhard to play it in any other style than "dungeonpunk". I am sure there are a couple of little things I could gleem, but not enough to purchase.

It honestly has no place in my group. Our groups focus on LOTR or medieval or wheel of time-esque settings. We also use True20 for Star Wars.

As I perused 4e I kept thinking how grateful I was that I had opted to go with True20. It TRUEly has everything I need to run my style games.

What is your experience with 4e or experience in comparing the two?

Not looking for a lets dump on 4e, just honest thoughts.

4e remided me of how good of a game True20 is.

Patrick

AGREED 100%.... Oh hum, no sorry... AGREED 300%

I only see 4e as a (flawed) marketing scheme, a minis game that tries to use the D&D brand to attract new customers, and is intended at selling even more products than 3.5 ever did. It's all about kewl powerz that do 1d6, or 2d6, whether it's "magical mana superblast" or "incredible sword swirling move". Then, PCs get endless healing surges while minions have but 1 hp... etc., etc.

Nonetheless, for all the money I won't waste on 4e, I can buy True20 revised edition, Freeport True20 companion, and a few others I am eagerly looking forward to, such as Shadows of Cthulhu. As such, I am not going to blame WotC, but thank them, because without the former OGL we wouldn't have great products like True20. So thanks for that WotC.

[Greg K]

On the other hand, some of the very things you cited are some of the elements that most excite me about 4E. I like the encounter/daily powers system. Simple and elegant, and it serves the purpose.

Simple, yes. Elegant, I disagree with. My problem with encounter and daily exploits is that they require "hand wavey" explanations to explain why they can't be used multiple times. That in my opinion is not good design.

I like the streamlined healing rules.

I like second wind. However, I disagree with the idea of healing surges limiting magical healing from potions (or magic in general) and think characters naturally heal too fast.

Marking is pretty cool in the way that it works and I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with a similar system before now.

A decent idea, maybe. However, like most of the mechanics to come out of WOTC horribly implemented, imo. One person's mark cancelling out someone else's. Paladin's Divine Challenge in which someone takes damage for trying to avoid fighting the Paladin. No thank you.

For me, the way that encounters are designed now is what makes me tremendously happy. With the scaling system, I can easily adjust nearly any creature in the books to be a foe for my players, regardless of level (there are exceptions, of course). In the past, it was difficult to determine exactly how much of a challenge a particular monster would be for a party, and if you happened to have more or less players than the suggested average, it got really convoluted. Now, just check the total XP of the group. Choose a monster worth that amount of XP or boost one up to that level. You're done!

That's not the part with which I have a problem. My problem is with some monsters being able to do things a normal person can attempt and possibly succeed, but only the monster can do it or monsters with similar abilities using completely different rules.

That's the beauty of the OGL. It isn't going away, and there will still be companies that produce OGL material, I'm sure.

Ah, but if a company wants to update a product or product line to 4e, they can't support an OGL version for prior editions.

I agree, but I don't consider 4E part of the d20 System. (I know the party line is that it is, but I disagree.) It's a different system, similar in nature, but standing on its own.

See, I still see it as d20. It uses the same ability scores and bonuses, the same basic resolution system, the same save categories. Other aspects might be different to one degree or another, but to me the beauty of the d20 system- its resolution mechanic, the six ability scores and their bonus progress, and the save categories, and rebuilt from there.

[curseofyig]

I like 4e I think, right now at least.

I like the 1/2 level thing, so finally D&D has defenses going up as you level just like your attacks. I like that every class has some interesting things to do during an encounter. We roleplay heavily but no matter how descriptive you are of the action essentially it was just a longwinded way of saying "Okay I attack". How skills work now is interesting, not fantastic but interesting. If they make a d20 modern 4E your 1st level "Professor of History" will still be stuck +10 history skill, tops, which is silly. In call of cthulhu that same professor would have like 85% in history no problems without throwing the game out of wack. How the powers work for all classes is the main selling point for me tho there is a lack of variety in your choices so far but I'm sure that will change.

So my group is switching over to 4E for my mythic greek campaign but I'll continue to use True20 to GM some other genres, mostly ones with gunplay, but not Cthulhu.

[Rulandor]

As strong criticism is always prone to be called bashing, today I am going to leave irony behind (which is also prone to be called bashing) und state some individual concerns with design philosophy and design execution of 4e.

The healing surges demonstrate that the designers either have no interest in or understanding of the suspension of disbelief - a fundamental prerequisite of storytelling.

The design of 4e implies that a perceived effectiveness of characters is deemed more important than their believability.

Doing away with a skill like Perform or with stylish elements like animal companions and familiars, with schools of magic or clerical domains demonstrates amply a view of roleplaying that is perceivably more narrow than that of 3.x.

The new rules may be as elegant as hell and make for a fun bashing and combat action game, but this is not the direction in which I want to go.

So I fervently hope that True20 will stay a roleplaying and storytelling game with any amount of style elements, with the option of including any amount of unpracticle and invonvienent believability, even when some day it is going to incorporate the odd 4e-ish rules element. But please, do never subscribe T20 completely to the philosophy and direction of 4e design - because it would make for a narrower game.

Mind you, that is the decisive point for me - keeping T20 as a game of broader possibilities and more openness - not only on the level of game design, but also in the level of applicating the rules by the gamemaster.

[ValhallaGH]

Having skimmed the new Gaming System License, I would be very surprised if any gaming company provided support for 4th Edition D&D.

The legal text is definitely one of the new system's great weaknesses, from a consumer standpoint.

[MdavidJ]

I'm not.

That license is... not good for a 3rd party publisher... Good for WOTC, not good for me.

But from a development standpoint the SRD is worse for 3PP. It's very restrictive.

[Witchblade]

The healing surges demonstrate that the designers either have no interest in or understanding of the suspension of disbelief - a fundamental prerequisite of storytelling.

I disagree. I look upon the healing surge as shrugging off a couple of minor hits, or grimacing and fighting through the pain. It doesn't require a suspension of disbelief, merely a change in the way we have been taught to look at things.

Doing away with a skill like Perform or with stylish elements like animal companions and familiars, with schools of magic or clerical domains demonstrates amply a view of roleplaying that is perceivably more narrow than that of 3.x.

Agreed, with stipulations. I don't like the idea that certain elements were cut from 4E, but I predict that we will see them returning ere long. I expect that familiars will get full treatment in The Big Book of Rituals or some such. It has already been stated that Bards will be covered in a future supplement, at which time I would expect to see the Perform skill reinstated. As for why they were left out in the first place: well, take a look at the Player's Handbook. It's already packed full of info and burgeoning at 320 pages; an effort to pack more into it would have been doomed to futility.

The new rules may be as elegant as hell and make for a fun bashing and combat action game, but this is not the direction in which I want to go.

Entirely a matter of choice. My group has found the focus on combat no more limiting as far as role-playing goes; we just get more creative about it. I do have some issues with the new system, but the "loss of role-playing" isn't one of them. As an old school gamer, I've added role-playing elements to such games as Villains & Vigilantes, which was essentially a combat simulator.

So I fervently hope that True20 will stay a roleplaying and storytelling game with any amount of style elements, with the option of including any amount of unpracticle and invonvienent believability, even when some day it is going to incorporate the odd 4e-ish rules element. But please, do never subscribe T20 completely to the philosophy and direction of 4e design - because it would make for a narrower game.

Here we agree fully (at least, I think we do). True20 should stand proud as an individual and distinctly different game system, a unique entity unto itself. True20 is a wonderful system (though at least one player of mine would disagree), but I don't feel that 4E is less worthy of the same praise. They're two different sides of the same coin.

[NamelessOne]

One thing that still irks me about D&D (including 4e AFAIK, but correct me if I'm wrong) is the virtual absence of rules to knock someone unconscious "realistically" (with, say, a sap). In T20 that is easier to do by orders of magnitude, and its one of the many many reasons I moved from D&D 3.x to T20 and never looked back.

In D&D, I first would have to reduce a foe to 0hp to do that. Just imagine trying knock a 70HP fighter with a sap as written (though I'm not sure if there are any saps in 4e... couldn't find it on the weapons table; it is in 3.x though) . Even if I were to sneak on the fighter and catch him flatfooted, there is no way I could possibly reduce his HP to 0 in just one hit. I'll just end up with a sap as a melee weapon facing a slightly irritated fighter wielding a claymore. A Fortitude roll seems more appropriate to model a sneak-attack with a sap (or any other type of blunt weapon), I think. *sigh* I find it frustrating to spend so much money on a game only to have to sit down and house-rule game-mechanics-warts away.

There are a few other things that rub me the wrong way as well (like attacks of opportunity, or "opportunity attacks" if you have 4e, and other miniature-related rules), but I might give 4e a test-drive anyway. Maybe the good will outweigh the bad, who knows.

[ValhallaGH]

One thing that still irks me about D&D (including 4e AFAIK, but correct me if I'm wrong) is the virtual absence of rules to knock someone unconscious "realistically" (with, say, a sap).

If you could knock characters out "realistically", then you'd have to be able to kill them "realistically". D&D decided a loooooong time ago that that wasn't something they wanted to have happen (Gygax's traps of instant and unavoidable death being a notable exception).

It's not like a True20 hero is possible to one-shot (lethal or non-lethal) as long as he's got Conviction.

P.S. In 4e a "sap" would just be a club with flavor text. The attacker decides if a fallen enemy is dead or alive when he drops him. If you use a sap then your default is probably 'alive'.

[Witchblade]

In D&D, I first would have to reduce a foe to 0hp to do that. Just imagine trying knock a 70HP fighter with a sap as written (though I'm not sure if there are any saps in 4e... couldn't find it on the weapons table; it is in 3.x though) . Even if I were to sneak on the fighter and catch him flatfooted, there is no way I could possibly reduce his HP to 0 in just one hit. I'll just end up with a sap as a melee weapon facing a slightly irritated fighter wielding a claymore. A Fortitude roll seems more appropriate to model a sneak-attack with a sap (or any other type of blunt weapon), I think. *sigh* I find it frustrating to spend so much money on a game only to have to sit down and house-rule game-mechanics-warts away.

No, this problem still exists. My group does what I've done since the dawn of D&D. If you successfully sneak up behind someone unseen and make an attack roll, the target is knocked unconscious unless there is a good reason it should not be (wearing a helmet, for example). Yeah, it's what a player of mine likes to call "plotonium," but it saves me a lot of hassle. If you prefer some more randomness, let the target make a DC 10 Constitution check (Hollywood aside, saps are not all that effective).

[cthughua]

When applied to the base of the skull, they most certainly are. The problem here is reality, while it has a high likelyhood of knocking you out, it can also kill you. Insta-kills (and to a lesser extent) insta-knockouts are not usually fun for players. Minion rules helps that a bit (for the players) but there's no way for the NPCs to benefit from it. Indeed, 4e has intentionally designed itself away from any instant kill effects (which is what knocking someone out equates to).

[ValhallaGH]

In D&D, I first would have to reduce a foe to 0hp to do that. Just imagine trying knock a 70HP fighter with a sap as written (though I'm not sure if there are any saps in 4e... couldn't find it on the weapons table; it is in 3.x though) . Even if I were to sneak on the fighter and catch him flatfooted, there is no way I could possibly reduce his HP to 0 in just one hit. I'll just end up with a sap as a melee weapon facing a slightly irritated fighter wielding a claymore. A Fortitude roll seems more appropriate to model a sneak-attack with a sap (or any other type of blunt weapon), I think. *sigh* I find it frustrating to spend so much money on a game only to have to sit down and house-rule game-mechanics-warts away.

No, this problem still exists. My group does what I've done since the dawn of D&D. If you successfully sneak up behind someone unseen and make an attack roll, the target is knocked unconscious unless there is a good reason it should not be (wearing a helmet, for example). Yeah, it's what a player of mine likes to call "plotonium," but it saves me a lot of hassle. If you prefer some more randomness, let the target make a DC 10 Constitution check (Hollywood aside, saps are not all that effective).

Alternatively, you could just make the guy a 1 hp Minion unless that specific guy isn't supposed to be one-shot-able.