Zarpaulus

Writer of sci-fi and horror

Underemployed biologist and creator of the Para-Imperium setting. Currently writing the webcomic "Joanna: Ghost Hunter."


Scampir
@Scampir

I am convinced that people who describe 4e as MMO-like have never played an MMO. Get out of here.


Partheniad
@Partheniad

I could be wrong but having been there when the lore was written, the connection between MMOs and 4E wasn't combat. It was class composition.

Each class now had a specified role: defender, controller, support, or striker. And I remember WotC specifically stating that they had looked at MMOs for this dynamic. This would wind up becoming an issue as the game continued and a lot of the differences between classes of the same archetype could feel superficial. The at-will powers available being rather similar(at least in my memory).

So I think the 4E is like an MMO thing comes from you are expected to play your class a certain way. A rogue is a striker, a cleric is a support. While in 3E or Pathfinder you had a lot more variety to "build the class wrong". Make a charlatan social rogue who isn't that good at combat beyond providing flanking. Build a tempest cleric that is throwing out thunder bolts and is more akin to a wizard in full plate than a healer. There were some paths available inside a class to try and express your individuality, but you weren't able to deviate from the prescripted role of your class.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @Scampir's post:

4e was too ahead of its time. it's GM section is fantastic, and its encounter design had wonderful suggestions.

Like the one where it suggests a line of sight obliterating labyrinth of pillars to funnel players, and having a big ogre walk around it while a wizard blasts your shit.

I played 4e exactly one time as a drop-in at a weird semi-local game shop and while I did not particularly enjoy the broad experience I did immediately understand everything on my character sheet despite having next to no TTRPG experience at the time

in reply to @Partheniad's post:

I don't think it's that veiled...

Like here's the thing. I remember a buddy in PF1E needing to fill the healer slot but not wanting to do a basic cleric. He wound up making this really cool duelist, super high dex, and could still channel and throw out spells. It was an effective and fun build but not the sword and board cleric that you think of when picturing the class.

While one 4e, you tend to have characters who have 1 or 2 ultra important stats- and the others don't really matter that much. But more than that it's that your powers rely on specific ability scores. Generally, you have your main ability which will be like your to hit and bonus damage, and then a secondary ability dependent on class path that grants extra goodies.

For example: wizard casts force beam. They have +4 int, so it's +4 to hit and deals 1d8+4 damage. But it will also push the target 3 squares because that's your Charisma modifer.

So it's pretty much always going to be do you want to be Flavour A or Flavour B of this class. I couldn't say make a weird caster whose strength is actually their highest score, because none of my powers would engage with that stat.

And I do think 4E has a lot of merit(it also has plenty of chaff to get cut), but I definitely understood my friends complaints coming from the wide breadth of options of 3x over to 4e. I started playing the game when Fourth launched. It's my starting point and I vividly remember when my groups dm convinced us to switch to 3rd and it was like the training wheels coming off.

I think if WotC had marketed the game as something that wasn't DnD so people didn't already have it in their head what the game SHOULD be, then it might have soared a bit further.

It is also why Gamma World fucking ruled

This is ultimately the problem with any attempt to fix D&D. I'll bang this drum over and over: the worst parts of 4E are all the bits where they had to intersect with "legacy" ideas and expectations like existing races/classes, attributes, feats, etc.