D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

Micah Sweet said:

How are they doing those things without leaving their space?

Click to expand...

The same way a Rogue completely dodges a fireball, I imagine.

Hussar said:

I know that you're right. I get that. It just gets so frustrating to see all those things that were completely and utterly rejected during 4e come back in 5e, largely with what looks like to me, a new coat of paint, and get passed on joyfully.

Click to expand...

For now.

Sooner or later there'll be a straw that yet again breaks the back of that long-suffering camel.

The only question is whether that "straw" will hit for many people all at once leading to a mass desertion of 5e or whether it'll hit for different people at different times, leading to a slow bleed-off.

billd91 said:

So many ad hoc justifications to explain how someone might not go for CaGI.

Well now, we're getting somewhere. Indy having a high enough Will defense would be totally in character and, moreover, serves as a systematic fix to that particular problem power.

Well, you know, that's because for some of us it will always be that game that we thought had too many dumb and terrible and nonsensical stuff in it when we checked it out. For example, when I checked it out (and it's still true in the printing of the 4e PH I have), that Come and Get It power didn't involve overcoming a Will defense - and that was pretty much a categorical problem for me with a power like that. The fact that they later fixed it didn't really matter to me because they had already lost me with all of the annoyances they dumped on me at release. Too many fixes that might have made it suck less to me came too late.

But, you know, feel free to attack my personal experiences with 4e or bury the thread under further justifications why 4e was so much better and its critics so wrong and accept your own partial responsibility for perpetuating this conflict 15 years later.

Click to expand...

Inside a handful of powers did what you're describing billd!

If you don't want the genre tropes embedded in these very few 4e powers, there are easy fixes for this:

* "Hey guys, lets not select (the original Come and Get It) because it bothers my conception of play. These .003 % of powers are easily opted out of, so just select the bajillion others in their stead."

* "Hey guys, my Elites and Solo Wizards and Archers (whatever) are going to have a Trait Better Part of Valor: X is immune to Martial Keyword Forced Movement."


And no I don't accept your framing that I'm "attacking your personal experiences." I'm arguing your general framing of these issues, your explanations, and your understanding of the ruleset (whether that be how the exception-based design works or how to deploy trivial workarounds of these "problems") is the primary factor in these conversations. I mean, we're still having conversations that are illustrating clearly improper understanding and deployment of the ruleset (like Force Movement without Line of Effect or not understanding that Forced Movement into Hindering Terrain gives a Saving Throw to the creature) just like so many of these conversations of yore like "can a fire keyword effect ignite combustible materials?"

No I don't accept partial responsibility for your perplexing hatred (not that you wouldn't like the ruleset...that it would animate you to come to a 4e thread and write posts like this) of a ruleset these 15 years later. I will accept responsibility for saying correct and useful things to you that are helpful to both you, should you decide to play 4e at some point (!), and to any folks who aren't aware of how these things come together and therefore might come to wrong conclusions.

pemerton said:

And here we see how you appear to be focused on the mechanics to the exclusion of all else.

Whereas those of us who played 4e D&D are a freewheeling lot exercising our imaginations!

Click to expand...

The mechanics of 4e and how important it is to make sure they happen as written is front and center in all the books. I'm fine with adjusting the rules to fit the circumstance. You seem to prefer describing the action to explain the rules. Who's to say which one focuses on the rules more?

Voadam said:

No, he demonstrates the fantastic nature of the minion rules! A rogue with no sneak attack situation one shotting a dangerous looking swordsman!

Come and Get It is a PC power, and much like in action movies, most villains do not have the same powers as the heroes.

Click to expand...

The assumption that we're in an action movie is another problem I have with 4e.

You know, going back to my Rogue comment, no version of Evasion has ever explained how it works, beyond (it just does) leaving it up to the table to figure it out. Not even what I believe to be it's original version, all the way back in Oriental Adventures.

So how come this one has gotten a pass for 39 years but Come and Get It is still a subject of ire?

Red Castle said:

I never really understood this position, that somehow 4e discouraged, was against or hard to house rule. I made (and still use) a couple of house rules or modifications, particularily regarding fighting in elevations, and on the contrary, it always felt very easy to do so… I mean, there is a lot, and I mean a lot of pages explaining the mechanic and math behind the game so it is easy to modify at will without risking to ´break’ the game.

YMMV I guess…

Click to expand...

In comparison with the TSR editions, the WotC editions - all of 'em - are inherently harder to kitbash due to their (over)use of underlying unified mechanics making it hard to change something significant here without affecting all sorts of things everywhere else. With the TSR design, built around lots of discrete subsystems, major changes to one subsystem are less likely to have significant knock-on effects elsewhere.

James Gasik said:

The same way a Rogue completely dodges a fireball, I imagine.

Click to expand...

I don't know how yours do it, but mine just don't look back.

pemerton said:

When I started playing 4e D&D, in Jan 2009, I sent the following message to my players (some of whom had recently been playing RM, some of whom had recently been playing 3E D&D, one of whom had recently been playing both):

​

Relationship Between Game Mechanics and Gameworld​

Unlike 3E or Rolemaster, a lot of the 4e mechanics work best if they are not treated as a literal model of what is going on in the gameworld. So keep in mind that the main thing the mechanics tell you is what, mechanically, you can have your PC do. What your PC’s actions actually mean in the gameworld is up to you to decide (in collaboration with the GM and the other players at the table).​

​

Some corollaries of this:​

​

​

Character Levels​

Levels for PCs, for NPCs and for monsters set the mechanical parameters for encounters. They don’t necessarily have any determinate meaning in the gameworld (eg in some encounters a given NPC might be implemented as an elite monster, and in other encounters – when the PCs are higher level – as a minion). As your PC gains levels, you certainly open up more character build space (more options for powers, more feats, etc). The only definite effect in the gameworld, however, is taking your paragon path and realising your epic destiny. How to handle the rest of it – is your PC becoming tougher, or more lucky, or not changing much at all in power level relative to the rest of the gameworld – is something that will have to come out in the course of play as the story of your PC unfolds.​

​

​

PC Rebuilding​

The rules for retraining, swapping in new powers, background feats etc, don’t have to be interpreted as literally meaning that your PC has forgotten how to do things or suddenly learned something new. Feel free to treat this as just emphasising a different aspect of your PC that was always there, but hadn’t yet come up in the course of play.​

​

​

Skill Checks and Power Usage​

When you make a skill check (especially in a skill challenge), use a feature or power, take the second wind action, etc, the onus is on you to explain how what you are attempting works in the gameworld. (Where a feature or power has flavour text you may use that flavour text or come up with your own.) Feel free to be dramatic.​

​

Inadequate explanation which leaves everyone at the table scratching their heads as to what is going on in the gameworld may lead to a -2 penalty, or even automatic failure of the attempted action, depending on the circumstances.​

As it turned out, we never had trouble imagining what was going on. Which I regard as a sign of thoughtful design of the game!

Click to expand...

And if your table is on board with all that, great! 4e is a good game that is clear about what it's trying to do. And it's awesome that you were clear about expectations for the campaign. Really good session 0 stuff.

Personally most of what you said above doesn't line up with my preferences, obviously, but that doesn't matter to your game anymore than your preferences matter to mine.

soviet said:

Utterly wrong. Attack actions do not include any movement at all. You must adopt a fixed position in your move action and then hold it in your attack action. At best under a lenient DM you can put into motion some sort of slow topple forwards beforehand.

Click to expand...

“And then he nailed my head to the floor!”