| D&D 4e Impressions |
[Jun. 17th, 2008|05:52 pm] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  thoughtful | ] |
Yes, I have Japan pics! But you'll have to wait until I show them off to people IRL first ;) Then I'll post the gallery link and my travelogue!
For now, I'm going to take up some of your time with my nerdy rambling. Now that I've had some time to read through the 4th Edition D&D Player's Handbook and skim the DMG and MM, I can make some better assessments of the system and the new rules.
First and foremost is a statement of fact that many staunch 4e supporters may get up in arms about. I don't consider this opinion because really, it's not. It's a truth, for better or worse.
4th Edition feels like an MMORPG.
I have had this flat out denied to my face, and the only thing I can say is the person who denied it must not have played MMOs very often because 4e has such an MMO feeling that it will make a transition from paper to MMO almost seamlessly. Seriously, I can easily envision pretty much everything in the 4e classes making it to an MMO "as-is."
Before you adamant 4e-supporters get all in my face about it, I don't think this is a bad thing. I don't really think it's a good thing either. I'm kind of neutral on it right now. But the MMORPG feeling is decidedly a part of the atmosphere set by the 4e system. Abilities operate on cooldowns* (encounter, daily) or on spamming (at-will). In an MMO, this would easily translate to at-will being on the global cooldown, encounter abilities having 30-second to 2-minute cooldowns, and daily powers being 5-minute and higher cooldowns.
* A "cooldown" in MMO-lingo is the amount of time that must pass before you can use an ability again. So a 2-minute cooldown means once you use an ability, you can't use it again for 2 minutes.
The addition of special "roles" for character classes just adds to rather than diminishes the MMO feeling. One of the things many MMOs have, sometimes explicitly stated, is designated roles for each class. I'll take the most popular MMO, World of Warcraft, as an example, and fill several of the classes into D&D4e's "roles."
- Warrior - Defender
- Rogue - Striker
- Paladin - Defender (can also be "Leader," depending on build)
- Priest - Leader (can also be "Striker," depending on build)
- Mage - Striker/Controller (situational)
- Warlock - Striker
- Druid - Fills any role depending on the character
- Shaman - Striker (might be considered "Leader" if you're healing-spec)
See? That was really easy. You can do this with pretty much any MMO. I've played a few others and I can already see how the classes fit, but that's going off on another tangent. The bottom line is, 4e feels like an MMORPG on paper. (Side note: I've heard a rumor that this is exactly what WotC was going for with 4e. If that's the case, I'd say they succeeded. This is just a rumor, though. I haven't seen it officially substantiated anywhere.)
To go with the MMO bit, I really can't help but wonder if the Wizards guys didn't just rip off from WoW in some cases. There are several things that are just too eerily similar. Tieflings, for example, bear a striking resemblance to draenei and eredar. They're not carbon-copies but they're pretty close -- enough that WoW players that I've talked to have made the connection pretty readily. Warlocks of certain kinds can collect "life sparks," which is then used to gain bonuses and cast certain spells -- very similar to WoW's warlock and the soul shards. Some of this stuff just seems so thinly veiled that I'd be hard pressed to believe they really came up with this on their own.
All that being said, here's some more detailed critique and review.
Eladrin -- I think it's kind of silly to have what basically amounts to two elven races as core races. Yeah, eladrin are actually fey spirits or whatever, but come on. The PHB even says eladrin are "close cousins" of elves and are sometimes called elves. If they wanted to include a fey-touched or some kind of "celestial" race, I think they could've done something besides elves with more magic than normal.
Classes as a whole seem a bit more interesting. The "boring" classes of 3e like the Fighter have more options now, which is kind of interesting, but MMOish at the same time. The classes feel like they're on more even footing for one-on-one combat, which is one of the biggest "fighters are underpowered" gripes. I still maintain that fighters are NOT underpowered, and that the whole basis for the argument runs contrary to the way the game is intended. I will be the first to say that fighters are about as boring as watching paint dry to play in most cases, but I don't think they're underpowered in the slightest. They do their intended job just fine.
For those that aren't aware, the biggest complaint about "fighters are underpowered" in 3e is that a mid- to high-level fighter doesn't really stand a chance against a wizard or cleric of the same level in one-on-one combat. My stance is that the game isn't really designed to have two characters of the same level go against each other. The game is about playing as one member of a party and being part of a larger whole. It's not about seeing who can make the most powerful character, or whether my character can beat yours in one-on-one. It's about tackling the adventures together and playing with other people. In this vein, fighters perform their role just fine. Because a wizard with fly and greater invisibility has an advantage against a fighter in one-on-one does not make fighters underpowered. Again, I'll admit they're boring, but I refuse to accept the 3e fighter is underpowered.
That is another tangent, though, and to get back on track. Sometimes it feels like the classes are too similar. Just glancing through some of the abilities, I get a vague nagging feeling that I'm reading the same thing with different words. I suppose you could say that about previous editions, but it feels much more pronounced in 4e.
The extra options for classes like fighters beyond "power attack 5" seems like a nice touch. I personally like options, and that's why I tend toward spellcaster and back-row types in 3e. Even my current character, Xilan, for all his clericness, is a bit atypical for me. On the other hand, the simple swing is easy and really just works for some people. I know at least one or two players that I don't think would do very well with the wealth of options afforded by 4e.
I like the consolidation of the skills list and the new way skills work in general. 3e had a lot of skills and it was difficult to manage them sometimes, especially with skill points to keep track of. Having fewer skills to accomplish a greater range of tasks makes things easier to manage. Also, not having to decide how to spend my last 6 skill points is really quite a blessing.
I like the conversion of Fortitude, Reflex, and Will to "defenses" rather than "saving throws." It feels like it makes the rolling process more fluid. Whether it does or not is anyone's guess, but it feels like it to me.
I am not going to say that 4e is better than 3e. I know a LOT of people think that 4e is a godsend that is saving everyone from the "mess" that is 3e. I'm not convinced that's the case. On the other hand, I don't think 4e is particularly worse right now. It's certainly much different, but has its own ups and downs that keep it on fairly even footing in my opinion. Perhaps if I get more exposure to it, I'll see things in a different light, for better or worse, but right now, I think it's about the same level of good-and-badness that 3e is.
And there you have it, my teal deer impression of 4e and all its stuff. |
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
koganeiさんの日記を閲覧中です
artistic