I have to say that there are quite a few very interesting elements to 4e that I find myself liking.
There are rules for skill challenges ndash; envisioned a lot like DD combat, but with a series of choices of skills to exert rather than battlefield tactics. Various skill results can contribute to the success of the challenge, others toward failure. A nice idea.
Magic spells have been divided into combat powers and out-of-combat rituals. And the rituals are available to any character (provided they invest in the training). No need to devote precious spell slots to once-in-a-blue-moon magical powers.
All classes have the exact same structure of powers, all at about the same level of effectiveness (give or take a bit). That makes the game very easy to balance and design for since powers of the same level all do about the same damage.
Mobility mobility mobility. The combat system has been simplified somewhat so that all combat actions, whether spells or multiple attacks or single attacks, are all handled as the same kind of action and all without sacrificing the ability to move around the battlefield. There are also plenty of powers, particularly for the rogue and ranger, that allow moving around the battlefield and around opponents. Theoretically, battles can remain a bit more dynamic this way.
But there are some things about 4e that Irsquo;m really not liking.
Break with previous editions. Every time therersquo;s a new edition, some mechanics have to change. Thatrsquo;s a given. The differences between 2e and 3e were substantial. Proficiencies, weapon and non-, turned into the feat and skill systems. Armor class values going down as they got better got turned around. Quite a lot of changes really, but also a lot of preserved sacred cows, particularly on the atmosphere side of things ndash; the fluff. One of the driving goals of the 3e design team was continuity of the feel of the game. Despite changes to the mechanics, they wanted the game to be largely the same. The 4e design team seems to have been under the directive to change whatever they felt needed to be changed. And that has led to a lot of dead sacred cows.
Combat. While it may be cool to have all sorts of powers for a character rather than be left simply attacking, there are things I donrsquo;t like about the new combat system.
The first thing Irsquo;m not too keen on also ties in with skill check resolution. Rather than determine the difficulty of a task based on the inherent characteristics of the task, 4e assumes that the difficulty of ALL tasks rises with the level of the characters, centering around a 50-55 chance of success. In combat, this means that the difficulty in� hitting an opponent with an attack rises in direct proportion with the characterrsquo;s attack bonus. In previous editions, attack bonuses typically outstripped defensive improvements, which allowed characters to still achieve feats of combat under increasingly difficult circumstances ndash; like power attacking or using combat expertise to trade off attack bonus values for some other benefit like greater damage or better defenses.
But this also means that falling behind a little bit in character development will tend to leave that character even farther behind the combat challenges the party faces. In previous editions, if my heavy-armor warrior was kind of clumsy, it was hard to hit an opponent with a ranged weapon. Hand-eye coordination was important enough to affect my chances of scoring a hit. But as I rose in power, my attack bonus would begin to outstrip my other bonuses (or penalties) and Irsquo;d eventually get reasonably competent. Not so in 4e. Against, level-appropriate foes, Irsquo;m pretty much always going to suck and by the same margin (or more). Granted, I will get better against weaker foes because, now, the appreciable difference is the difference between the attackerrsquo;s level and the defenderrsquo;s. Heaven� help the clumsy warrior who has to try to shoot at a flying dragon if that dragon is a level or two higher in challengehellip;
4e has taken considerable steps to make any characterrsquo;s powers be based on that characterrsquo;s primary statistic. Fighters need strength, archers and rogues dexterity, wizards intelligence, and so on. Makes sense. In fact, any stat could be the important statistic for a characterrsquo;s attack rolls (whereas before it was always strength or dexterity). Thatrsquo;s kind of nice. �But the 50 success system in addition to a certain number of actions, basic attacks primarily, that rely on one stat and one stat only, really underlines the need to have good stat bonuses across the board. Again, therersquo;s no way for an increasing attack bonus to compensate for deficiencies in base characteristics.
There are plenty of other quirks as well. In order to have a more mobile game play, they really weaken the various ways of whacking a PC who drops his or her guard while near an enemy. Attacks of Opportunity, one of the more challenging bits of 3e rules, have been significantly weakened for a lot of non-fighter characters, being limited to strength-based attacks that only the fighters are likely to excel at, and therersquo;s little advantage to having a longer weapon than your opponent since you arenrsquo;t going to get an attack of opportunity with one.
In addition to weakening certain classifications of attacks, theyrsquo;ve also revised their method of designing magic items, particular ones that involve combat. Magic weapons now add dice worth of damage for every + they have if the attack is a critical success. That seems like a power upgrade. But theyrsquo;ve cut out nearly every other class of item that gives a character bonus damage, limiting them to very specific circumstances. One that affects ranged attacks will only help basic ranged attacks, not any ranged attack power, thus offering little aid any character without a well-developed dexterity. Irsquo;m just not sure a limit of that type makes much sense given that the bonus is only a handful of hit points and many monsters have a LOT more hit points than previous editions. But it has been enough to spark an internet argument when an item came out that went against that method of designing magic items.
In the non-combat realm, one thing 4e did to monsters and other things you might encounter is largely divorce them from a rational structure. Now, an encounter does what you want it to do, regardless of what it is. What do I mean by this? In 3e, all creatures were classified and developed along particular lines within that classification. Sometimes this could get clunky, for the most part, it worked OK. Animals got a certain kind of� hit die, a certain amount of skill points per die, and so on. Now, therersquo;s no real structure to encounters other than making up ones that are approximately level-appropriate. Some DMs find this easy, others are finding it confounding since it means little is predictable from one DMrsquo;s sensibilities to anotherrsquo;s. It also means that there is less background material binding the campaign world together. Itrsquo;s like none of it exists except when the PCs are there. In a sense thatrsquo;s true no matter what, since the campaign exists to be played in. But it is a distinct difference between a campaign having the feel of a living, breathing world in the background.� There, essentially, is no independent background in 4e.
As far as the atmosphere of the game goes, a lot went on the chopping block. The great wheel metaphor for the outer planes, which debuted in the 1e Playerrsquo;s Handbook, is gone. Irsquo;m not sure Irsquo;ll miss it since the Astral Sea sounds like a cool idea. But there are a host of other changes that, I think, have a lot to do with making the game less complicated.
For example, no longer are dryads enigmatic woodland charmers, luring men into their arms. Theyrsquo;re now woody skirmishers. At least with this change, you donrsquo;t have to worry very much about what a charm is and how it affects how a player has to change how they run their PC. In fact, there are very few charm effects in the game right now. Weapos;ll see what future installments have to add.
No longer are storm giants a counterbalance to evil giantkind, theyrsquo;re leaders of evil giants. No longer are unicorns symbols of good and purity. Theyrsquo;re aligned with neither good nor evil. Quite frankly, I donrsquo;t understand the need to make those changes to either creature, except to draw a level of distinction between the meta-setting of 4e compared the previous 3 editions.
I fully understand that WotC has the right, as the IP owner, to do anything they want with the DD name and logo. They could put lipstick on a pig and call it DD since that is their right. But at some point, the number of changes made shift the game from the 4th edition of what came before and the 1st edition of something new. Still in the DD family, but not the direct descendent of the game that launched with 1st edition Advanced DD. Note ndash; Irsquo;m talking about the strain of editions that started with 1st edition ADD. THATrsquo;s the game wersquo;re talking about. Itrsquo;s something TSR and Gygax recognized early onmdash;that ADD was a different game from what they had been working on before and they marketed it as such, even keeping the original DD line going as Basic/Expert/etc sets of that game. ADD lived in a different groove than the DD game before it and, although Advanced was dropped from the title, 3e DD lived in the ADD groove. 4e does not for a significant number of players who have tried it, both who liked it and who did not.
So,� in light of all this, itrsquo;s a strange time to be a DD fan and player. A new edition is about, but it seems to be having a hard time winning over a substantial proportion of its long-time players. Vitriol is in the air (or electrons) on most gaming messageboards. Flame wars have raged (and will rage). Gaming groups are breaking up or shifting memberships. Many third party publishers are distancing themselves from WotC, when a few years ago we were marveling at the number of interesting and decent products coming out from them, all compatible with DD. Dragon and Dungeon magazines are gone in favor of online offerings (and thus no longer available at my local library).
A bit more personally, Irsquo;ve got a couple of players enthusiastic about 4e in one of my gaming groups, and a couple others very skeptical about it, to the point Irsquo;m actually concerned that the group may end up drifting into 2 different groups if our test run of 4e donrsquo;t either convince the enthusiasts to put it on the shelf for a while or convince the skeptics that itrsquo;s fun enough to work into the game rotation. I just donrsquo;t know whatrsquo;s going to happen. I know itrsquo;s a hobby and, therefore, not really that important in the grand scheme of things. But itrsquo;s been a significant portion of my life for over 25 years. Irsquo;ve weathered changes and, for the most part, agreed with them as theyrsquo;ve come out. Theyrsquo;ve managed to win me over. But 4e hasnrsquo;t yet. By this point in time after 3e came out, I was convinced it was the edition I wanted to play. But this time, my misgivings about 4e are still running strong. And given the potential it has to throw wedges into gaming groups, that concerns me. Again, I know itrsquo;s not that important, but the maintenance of friendships that we engage in while we are gaming is, and it would be unfortunate if a game hampered that.
break paul sean up, create forum web, create forum website, create forums, create forums for free.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий