Quote from: HaffrungNo. Wizards were different in earlier editions because compared to fighters they could deal out higher damage with less frequency. But apparently less frequently (as in 'not every round) = no fun. So Wizards can now cast magic all the time, but at less damage (relative to fighters) than they used to.

Now every PC deals out damage every round, in carefully balanced amounts, and with a mathematically constant increase as they progress in levels. The damage just has different colours, er, qualities. The tyranny of fun indeed.

OK, so I looked over the characters from the D&D Experience, and I think I see a little of what you're talking about -- but it seems exaggerated from what I see.  I was looking at:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/ExperienceCharacters.zip

So wizards do still have more powerful abilities that they can use only once per day like Sleep.  However, they also have less-powerful at-will abilities. I  don't think that down-grading magic missle to be a dagger-throwing equivalent makes them mechanically any more similar.  

Something that does seem to make them more similar is that fighters now have some daily abilities ("Exploits" like Cleave as an at-will ability -- no difference -- but "Brute Strike" daily is different).  Still, it seems that daily powers can be quite different.  (i.e. clerics were different than wizards, after all)

AM,

Your arguments are becoming muddied. You are now saying that those who were not big 3e fans and who don't like tactical combat have no place commenting on the new tactical combat system in 4e. I would suggest that the majority of comments here are not saying that the 'Zoolander' or the 'triple back-flip with fries' are not cool tactical options or that in a tactical combat game they are not great rules. The comments are focusing on how you explain these meta-game combat options in role-playing terms.
The fact that the majority of posters here seems to have tried the tactical combat of 3e and rejected some or all elements of it does not mean that they don't have the right to hope that 4e would have given them some choices to play other sorts of games , the D&D they used to play prior to 3e  (or indeed the modified 3e they have been playing).

The comments as far as I can understand are mostly in this vein. There is a line of argument, one that you seem unwilling to directly address, that the balancing of the tactical options across all classes in order to ensure no 'combat wallflowers' actually reduces combat tactics because all units in combat can elicit the same meta game response through the use of different skills, so in effect the unlimited MM of the wizard is just an crossbow (it might target different resistance and so have a different optimum target), a Bull rush and a Zoolander both move a figure a couple of squares.:-)

The mechanics are the same and flavour text is just so much fluff.

If we look at MMO (well Wow)  for a sec they have tried to differentiate classes based on Role and they seem to me to have done this more effective job than 4e has, (NB I haven't played 4e this is just from observed comments) but part of this is becuase of the way the stuff stacks. A WoW rogue gets tougher feats as he progresses and discards the weak ones they have different names but the designers know that they are identical in effect so they allow them to drop away.
Even in WoW, who have probably amassed more combat play hours of testing that 4e will achieve over the next 10 years,  there is a feeling that a skin is a skin and a buff is a buff.

D&D is in danger of falling into a trap where the combat options are
i) hit for damage (there are really 2 choices strike or area affect)
ii) Move the MOB
iii) Taunt the MOB
iv) reduce the MOB's defence (increase the teams offense is the same)
v) increase the team's defence (reduce the MOBs offense is the same)
vi) manuver to do any of the above
vii) heal

If all the calsses can be built to do any of these as effectively as any other the class tactial variety is removed. From what I have have seen you can build a Rogue Controller who's combat speciality is moving the MOB about, for example.

My question is in a game where the meta-game combat tactics are more important than the role play justifications (in the old games the roleplay was the first thing then you decided on its effect "well what can bardic voice actually do?") how do you maintain the differentiation of classes and make tactics challenging?

I stopped playing WoW for 2 reasons. A 30th level combat versus centaurs was basically exactly the same as a 10th level combat against goblins. I did more damage they did more damage I had more hits they had more hits. Yes I could do a couple more nifty things but the things were all damage/combat related. I couldn't turn the ground they were on to quicksand, I couldn't make their weapons shrink to 1/10 of their normal size etc etc ... Secondly outside combat my skills were limited to moving faster and making stuff. I could try to role play (I used to run an Orc rogue that tried to do a market trader role outside one of the big auction houses - was largely ignored) but there was no impetus to do so and so it was pointless because very few other players did it. I tired to do rogue sneak theft etc but the imbalance of this (rogues avoiding dungeon content to get loot) was corrected by the designers.
What worries me is that D&D is going the same way. You have pointed out quite correctly that the experience was demonstrating game mechanics but the only game mechanic demonstrated seems to be the combat mechanic is that he only mechanic in the game ? You said yourself that there was only one example in all the testing of a negotiation (I would have thought all the combats started with a negotiation but hey).

I freely admit I didn't play much 3.x . A friend bought the books and ran a game for a few weeks and it was fun but lacked the longevity and we retreated back to 2e (and other games). That doesn't mean that I can't hope that 4e has a bit more for me to play with. I would have liked 2 flavours of combat battle map tactical and lightweight. Same core rules but some of the feats and AO etc wouldn't apply. I get the impression that this won't fly because too much of the character development focuses round combat feats (maybe I am wrong).  
There might be a chapter in the DMG that details how to play roleplay rich combat light games, how to design feats for not combat situations (wizards creating potions, special climbing moves for thieves, a cheat at poker feat) but I doubt it and I think that that feeling of the game only catering to one type of play is what a lot of us old miserable bastards are bitching about.

I do think the combat in 4e will be great and the rapid recover and move on will be great. I think its more HeroQuest than D&D. My D&D inspiration comes from books not MMO and so I want a few chapters of character stuff before I get a fight and I don't need to fight every session I certainly don't expect most games to be a string of combat, maybe once in a while it would be nice but I am happy with a session at the royal ball which centres round the seduction of the princess and the lifting of the fabled diamond necklace of Gyre.

Quote from: jibbajibbaAM,

...There might be a chapter in the DMG that details how to play roleplay rich combat light games, how to design feats for not combat situations (wizards creating potions, special climbing moves for thieves, a cheat at poker feat) but I doubt it and I think that that feeling of the game only catering to one type of play is what a lot of us old miserable bastards are bitching about.

I do think the combat in 4e will be great and the rapid recover and move on will be great. I think its more HeroQuest than D&D. My D&D inspiration comes from books not MMO and so I want a few chapters of character stuff before I get a fight and I don't need to fight every session I certainly don't expect most games to be a string of combat, maybe once in a while it would be nice but I am happy with a session at the royal ball which centres round the seduction of the princess and the lifting of the fabled diamond necklace of Gyre.

Are you read my mind? :eek: I must completly agreed with your notion!

Quote from: jhkimOK, so I looked over the characters from the D&D Experience, and I think I see a little of what you're talking about -- but it seems exaggerated from what I see.

Well... I think the important part is "the feeling". Magic feels more mundane... now. I know, it is lame. Maybe it will not be so hard afterall, we see just part of the whole thing anyway. I am just telling, I have baaad feeling about this. (c) Han Solo

Well, did you guys somehow expect they were going to just rerelease Basic and Expert D&D and put a number "4" sticker on it?

Back in early 2000 I clearly recall the outrage at RPGnet that D&D3 wasn't going to be "like Fuzion" or use dice pools like all of the favorites of that era either. I recall the ire that wizards were going to have more than one spell at 1st level, or that sorcerer's would exist, or that half orcs existed at all, because the very existence of a half orc was like.. an "endorsement of rape" or something. And of course nobody, nowhere, ever, will want to play a game with levels or hit points. And nobody, No-how, no WAY was going to want to create anything using the OGL.

Doom was predicted then.

6 months later, the game was out.. and within a few weeks it was clear that the genpop over at RPGnet was laughably wrong.

I'd hate to see that happen over here, because I like you guys. Geez, I'm not saying you have to "like" it, or should "want to buy it" or anything else. Frankly I don't care, because I know I'm guaranteed that on June 8th, I will be able to pick up the phone and dial up any six people I know and say "I got the books", and I will have them over my house making characters within the hour.

Quit being such a bunch of whiners. This game is coming out, and I'm excited for it.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, did you guys somehow expect they were going to just rerelease Basic and Expert D&D and put a number "4" sticker on it?

Back in early 2000 I clearly recall the outrage at RPGnet that D&D3 wasn't going to be "like Fuzion" or use dice pools like all of the favorites of that era either. I recall the ire that wizards were going to have more than one spell at 1st level, or that sorcerer's would exist, or that half orcs existed at all, because the very existence of a half orc was like.. an "endorsement of rape" or something. And of course nobody, nowhere, ever, will want to play a game with levels or hit points. And nobody, No-how, no WAY was going to want to create anything using the OGL.

Doom was predicted then.

6 months later, the game was out.. and within a few weeks it was clear that the genpop over at RPGnet was laughably wrong.

I'd hate to see that happen over here, because I like you guys. Geez, I'm not saying you have to "like" it, or should "want to buy it" or anything else. Frankly I don't care, because I know I'm guaranteed that on June 8th, I will be able to pick up the phone and dial up any six people I know and say "I got the books", and I will have them over my house making characters within the hour.

Quit being such a bunch of whiners. This game is coming out, and I'm excited for it.

To be fair I think we all know it will be a big seller and speaking personally I never thought that any of the changes you noted at being popular at 3e time should happen. At the time I felt 3e should have introduced a better skill system, spell points to level out the caster curve (more low less high) and simplifed all the combat stuff that got added piecemeal through  2e. True I would have liked a modification to hip points (the underlying wound idea I mentioned elsewhere) but knew it would never happen. Binning levels or going or going away from the d20 would have lost its flavour for me.
4e will be huge and it will be fun but its a bit like seeing your ex-girlfriend hanging round with a load of Emos down the park when you know she is older and should know better.

Well, RPG.Net is always the place to go for hilarity.

But AM: You still didn´t adress the problem of tactical blandness. What´s your take on that?

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, did you guys somehow expect they were going to just rerelease Basic and Expert D&D and put a number "4" sticker on it?

Nope - as I've said a number of time I hoped they would clean up 3.5, make some changes like the saving throws=>defense, reign in some of the excesses of the extensions (IMHO), and re-incorporate a lot of the experience-won (no pun intended) errata into a comprehensive whole.  Whether they called that 3.75 or 4 was irrelevant to me.

That is clearly not what they did - instead, they embraced what I considered to be the excesses. I assume they found a bigger market, higher preference, etc. for that approach. If your enthusiasm is any indicator, and if your preference is as big of a market share as I think it might be, I'm sure it will do well in the market. That was never my issue, and if I led you to believe that any of my issues with what I've seen of 4e so far were any comment on the market, I apologize.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBack in early 2000 I clearly recall the outrage at RPGnet that D&D3 wasn't going to be "like Fuzion" or use dice pools like all of the favorites of that era either. I recall the ire that wizards were going to have more than one spell at 1st level, or that sorcerer's would exist, or that half orcs existed at all, because the very existence of a half orc was like.. an "endorsement of rape" or something. And of course nobody, nowhere, ever, will want to play a game with levels or hit points. And nobody, No-how, no WAY was going to want to create anything using the OGL.

Doom was predicted then.

6 months later, the game was out.. and within a few weeks it was clear that the genpop over at RPGnet was laughably wrong.

Yeah..umm..can't comment.  I wasn't gaming in 2000 and had no idea 3e was created. However, I will say that I don't see anyone here advocating dice pools or that D&D should really be using the ORE or something. I see, for the most part, people who are D&D players of varying levels of adherence and differing focus discussing how the changes will affect their specific play.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'd hate to see that happen over here, because I like you guys. Geez, I'm not saying you have to "like" it, or should "want to buy it" or anything else. Frankly I don't care, because I know I'm guaranteed that on June 8th, I will be able to pick up the phone and dial up any six people I know and say "I got the books", and I will have them over my house making characters within the hour.

Again, none of what I've seen seems to even imply that you won't have a game you'll like, or a group that will be ready and willing to play - in particular, I'd assume you would because you probably game with folks who have the similar enough preferences that these changes will result in their enthusiasm, too.

And while I understand you are not saying I have to like it or buy it, you do seem to be saying that my reasons for doing so are invalid. Some may be as they are guesses as to what the final product will look like. But with this dump of information to sift through, we're starting to get a pretty good picture. Some of what concerned me, personally, is coming to pass.

Quote from: Abyssal MawQuit being such a bunch of whiners. This game is coming out, and I'm excited for it.

Has anyone contradicted either or those sentiments? I mean, it's coming out - no question. And it's obvious you're excited about it. Why is it that people who are not as excited are whiners? Unless, of course, you don't care that other folks might be dropping off the grid nor their reasons for doing so.  In which case, there's little to discuss, really.

Quote from: Abyssal MawQuit being such a bunch of whiners. This game is coming out, and I'm excited for it.

You'll have better luck asking water not to be wet. Just sit back and wait for the bitch phase to be over so the switching can begin.

Seanchai

Quote from: SettembriniBut AM: You still didn´t adress the problem of tactical blandness.

What's tactically bland about a teleporting elf!

The blandness usually sets in hard later when you get class envy and WotC starts cashing in on that.  By the middle of 3.5e it was hell trying to find someone that a Rogue could SA because people had been using every excuse to include in PrC the originally Ranger/Bbn/Rogue-only ability to never be flatfooted.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd while I understand you are not saying I have to like it or buy it, you do seem to be saying that my reasons for doing so are invalid.

I swear, not at all. In fact, I don't think any single person needs to come up with an excuse not to like any given thing, ever. They can just not like it, and nobody can say a damn thing about it. Certainly not me.

But I do think many of these overblown reasons and justifications are just stupid, and many of them border on insulting retreads of the roll-play vs roleplay argument. Most of you guys are better than that.

Quote from: SeanchaiYou'll have better luck asking water not to be wet. Just sit back and wait for the bitch phase to be over so the switching can begin.

Seanchai

:emot-flowers:

Quote from: SettembriniWell, RPG.Net is always the place to go for hilarity.

But AM: You still didn´t adress the problem of tactical blandness. What´s your take on that?

My take on that is you should play it one time and see for yourself whether it is to your liking. I think half the argument here is that it's "too tactical" and the other half is that its "tactically bland". and at this point I can't trust either side because I'm having flashbacks of RPGnet in 2000.

This will clear eventually, I'm sure.

The tactically bland argument hinges on the idea that characters have at will powers. Nobody seems to be remembering that the "melee attack" or the "ranged attack" is an at-will power that has existed in all editions of D&D. I just have to kinda shrug this off. I see it as "all characters are effective in different ways".

All I know is this:

In the demo mod and the delve I played in we saw characters running around everywhere, throughout the battle..  there was tons of movement, positioning, and taking advantage of terrain. It's the kind of stuff I love-- and here's the thing: the majority of the players had almost ZERO experience with the rules before they were sitting down to the table.  If you read that Massawyrm review (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35799) you will see how he ruled the deal with a character knocking some goblins off a table. That seemed like an easy way to rule things quickly.  

These were all meaty, interesting encounters in and of themselves.

Well, the thing is, it took me 3 Months of weekly play to figure out B9S was actually crap instead of gold.

So the results from the DDEXP are worth nothing to me.

As most people donßt know what tactics mean, I can largely disregard anybod saying it is "too tactical". That could be everything they are referencing, maybe they just mean it´s too gamey or too mini centered or whatever.

Let me rephrase my question:

What is the actual input the player has into the outcome of the battle?

To me it all looks like you interact with the enemy via maneuvres or other kewl powers. It´s like playing magic with a hand of five cards->

tactically bland, to the point of stupidity.

AM, be assured, I´m not saying most people would even care if it was like that. Most people don´t care for the idiocy of Paizos encount4rdization and such things either.

Quote from: SettembriniWell, the thing is, it took me 3 Months of weekly play to figure out B9S was actually crap instead of gold.

Did this crack anyone else up?

The good news of course is if it took Setti this long then anything that gets this close should keep the rest of us tactical mortals believing in gold for decades.