# Tell me about D&D 4th edition **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [January 15, 2011, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667 "2011-01-15T02:11:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Angel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d26b3c/32.png) [@Johnny\_Angel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Angel)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/101 "2011-01-21T12:26:49Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > It sounds like your game world is the same one that the Order of the Stick inhabits. 😉 I was running D&D as a commentary on itself long before it was cool, maaaan. ---
**Author:** ![FatCaptain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c0e974/32.png) [@FatCaptain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FatCaptain)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/102 "2011-01-21T13:29:29Z")
With the watering down of the role play element, more combat focused play and everyone having skills and abilities with cool down periods, could it be that the 4th Edition of the rules have been written to make porting the game onto a PC/Console easier? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/103 "2011-01-21T13:31:59Z")
> [@FatCaptain](#): > > With the watering down of the role play element, more combat focused play and everyone having skills and abilities with cool down periods, could it be that the 4th Edition of the rules have been written to make porting the game onto a PC/Console easier? Oh hell yes. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/104 "2011-01-21T13:36:53Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Suppose a healthy character is shot with an arrow in a surprise attack from the rear. Shouldn’t at least some of that damage be a real physical wound, right away? No; it’s deflected by his belt buckly or he twists away at the last moment, or it just grazes him, or something. Think Indiana Jones or James Bond. Eventually his luck, stamina, morale, etc. run out, which is when the arrow actually causes physical damage. > [@](#): > > If **kenobi** ’s description of 4E healing is accurate, it sounds ridiculous. “Take a second wind” or “rest for a few minutes” from time to time and you can keep soldiering on forever, no need for longer-term recovery? The resource isn’t hit points, it’s healing surges and ways to trigger them. Once you run out of healing surges, you’re pretty much screwed. Hit points just represent your condition _right now_; healing surges tell you how screwed you are in a more overall sense. “Damage” takes lots of forms - psychic damage, for example. It’s not all supposed to be physical. Some hit point loss is simply morale, which is why a warlord can trigger one of your healing surges with a good speech. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/105 "2011-01-21T23:33:10Z")
> [@Airk](#): > > This is obviously a game balance issue. If they DIDN’T, you could have a group of 4 fighters, and they could all mark a target, and that target would then be at -6 to hit any of them. Maybe you could rule it that the -2 penalty doesn’t stack, but it’s clearly simpler just to have them overwrite. Also, nitpicking. There are way larger issues with the system, even viewed strictly from a “WTF does this represent?” standpoint than this. First, I don’t see what the problem is even under the scenario you describe. If the system is so badly designed, and the people playing so useless, that people using a minor ability intelligently must be quashed, then the problem isn’t 'game balance." And of course once you start using it, “game balance” becomes this endless excuse. That doesn’t even get into the fact that I despise the very concept of game balance in the first place, and consider those designers who resort to it in anything but idiots. Second, I don’t believe that is the case - people actually an be more than blind, rules-following idiots - and you should recall that the evil demon’s glaring Evil Eye is overwritten by the thief pointing at the weak spot on his butt, which is overridden nby the Paladin calling out a holy vow of vengeance. There’s no way to pretend this isn’t bull start to finish. Moreover, I considered immediately that the smartest thing you could get was a big AoE Mark which affected all your alies at once, and therefore overwrote whatever the enemy did, and would just go off on your turn. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/106 "2011-01-21T23:39:01Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Oh hell yes. Although this hasn’t happened. WotC never really had any idea how to appeal to video game makers. Witness their few and badly-done electronic card games. DnD3 got a little mileage, but the rules were actually too technical to be enjoyable. It turned things into a grid-tactical game, which never sold well. It’s funny when you look back and see that the oddball 2nd edition rulesset was amazingly popular on the PC, whereas 3rd edition was mediocre and 3th nonexistent, with nothing on the horizon. I could tell them why, but why would they lsiten to me? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/107 "2011-01-21T23:44:22Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > First, I don’t see what the problem is even under the scenario you describe. If the system is so badly designed, and the people playing so useless, that people using a minor ability intelligently must be quashed, then the problem isn’t 'game balance." And of course once you start using it, “game balance” becomes this endless excuse. > > That doesn’t even get into the fact that I despise the very concept of game balance in the first place, and consider those designers who resort to it in anything but idiots. > > Second, I don’t believe that is the case - people actually an be more than blind, rules-following idiots - and you should recall that the evil demon’s glaring Evil Eye is overwritten by the thief pointing at the weak spot on his butt, which is overridden nby the Paladin calling out a holy vow of vengeance. There’s no way to pretend this isn’t bull start to finish. > > Moreover, I considered immediately that the smartest thing you could get was a big AoE Mark which affected all your alies at once, and therefore overwrote whatever the enemy did, and would just go off on your turn. I don’t think you understand what a mark is supposed to represent. If you marked all your allies they would be at -2 to attack anyone but you. Why is that a good thing? I’m not a hundred percent happy with the marking system, but the concept is that you grab the attention of the baddie and he suffers some sort of negative effect for attacking anyone but you. It would seem common sense that the target can’t be worrying most about more than one attacker. Also if you’re against play balance it doesn’t say much for the weight of your opinion on game design. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/108 "2011-01-22T00:13:11Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I don’t think you understand what a mark is supposed to represent. If you marked all your allies they would be at -2 to attack anyone but you. Why is that a good thing? No, that would be one mark… but there’s no reason you can’t create other types, which still stop each other. Matter of fact, I think there are a number already in the system. Mine just takes most of that nonsense away, keeping from affecting my allies. > [@](#): > > Also if you’re against play balance it doesn’t say much for the weight of your opinion on game design. Have you written and published a game? I have. And this isn’t a new opuinion - mnany gamers have taken a dim view of “game balance” for a very logn time - precisely because the people who commonly use the term have sloppy ideas and use it as an excuse to avoid fixing big problems. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/109 "2011-01-22T02:57:26Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > No, that would be one mark… but there’s no reason you can’t create other types, which still stop each other. Matter of fact, I think there are a number already in the system. Mine just takes most of that nonsense away, keeping from affecting my allies. It’s not nonsense. It’s something you don’t like. There is a difference. As I say, I’m not a big fan of 4th, but I ran a game up to 30 and the system is wonderfully designed for what it is. > [@](#): > > Have you written and published a game? I have. And this isn’t a new opuinion - mnany gamers have taken a dim view of “game balance” for a very logn time - precisely because the people who commonly use the term have sloppy ideas and use it as an excuse to avoid fixing big problems. Did the game suck balls? Because not playing any attention to play balance wouldn’t be a positive attribute IMHO. But in any case, play the game you want to play how you want to play it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/110 "2011-01-22T03:40:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Did the game suck balls? Because not playing any attention to play balance wouldn’t be a positive attribute IMHO. The last game I played around a tabletop was _Bang_, which is laughably imbalanced. That didn’t stop it from being an absolute blast to play, though. Ultimately, the mark of a good game is that it’s fun to play. To the extent that imbalance can decrease the fun, it should be given attention. But game balance is a means to an end, not an end in itself. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/111 "2011-01-22T17:31:24Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It’s not nonsense. It’s something you don’t like. There is a difference. As I say, I’m not a big fan of 4th, but I ran a game up to 30 and the system is wonderfully designed for what it is. And my point is very simply that it isn’t designed for much. > [@](#): > > Did the game suck balls? Because not playing any attention to play balance wouldn’t be a positive attribute IMHO. A big blog posting right here… > **[RPG Design – The Illusion of Game Balance](https://ruscumag.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/rpg-design-the-illusion-of-game-balance/)** > >    A lot of work goes into the search for “game balance”. Answers to “frequently asked questions”, errata, rules patches, rules revisions, and entire new editions appear in … > **[The Illusion of Game Balance – Part II](https://ruscumag.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/the-illusion-of-game-balance-part-ii/)** > >    A post a few days back on the Illusion of Game Balance led to a rebuttal, which can be found over HERE. The points made over there so far could be (very briefly) summarized as:    1) The more at… > **[Game Balance Redux](https://ruscumag.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/game-balance-redux/)** > >    First up for today, it’s a guest article from Editorial0 – who plays far more MMORPG’s and computer RPG’s than I do, and has his own prospective on role-playing games and “Game Balan… (The third is mine) Short version: Game Balance undercuts fun and keeps the players from bothering to think. It’s also generally a hash of vague ideas never well articulated, and poorly implemented at that. In a video game, it has a place to some extent. In a PnP game, it does not. In short, the only real “game balance” is for everyone to have identical characteristics. And for the record, the game was incredibly awesome. Actually, all of them were. ---
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/112 "2011-01-23T04:24:49Z")
Blame capitalism. Games are a huge industry, and the most money is made by appealing to the largest audience possible. Just like Nintendo doesn’t care that gamers hate the Wii, Wizards of the Coast doesn’t care that veteran players don’t like 4th edition D&D. The balance that’s important is the financial balance sheet, and if you want it any other way, you’ll have to design it yourself. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/113 "2011-01-24T14:38:27Z")
> [@glowacks](#): > > Blame capitalism. Games are a huge industry, and the most money is made by appealing to the largest audience possible. Just like Nintendo doesn’t care that gamers hate the Wii, Wizards of the Coast doesn’t care that veteran players don’t like 4th edition D&D. The balance that’s important is the financial balance sheet, and if you want it any other way, you’ll have to design it yourself. Heh, we did. In truth, though, I don’t mind that it exists at all. I just wish they didn’t slap the DnD label on it, because at this point it has nothing to do with the original anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Airk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Airk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airk)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/114 "2011-01-24T19:59:39Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Short version: Game Balance undercuts fun and keeps the players from bothering to think. It’s also generally a hash of vague ideas never well articulated, and poorly implemented at that. In a video game, it has a place to some extent. In a PnP game, it does not. In short, the only real “game balance” is for everyone to have identical characteristics. Short form: This is ridiculous. There is a place for game balance. It’s in games with a mechanical emphasis. If you have a game that focuses on that sort of thing, but there’s really only one good way to play it, you’ve failed. In fact, I’d argue that any sort of game that only has one good way to play it has failed, but balance isn’t an issue for non-mechanically focused games. Now one could, I suppose, argue that only bad games are mechanically focused, but that would be a sort of Forge-snobbery that I would prefer we didn’t indulge in. With the right mindset and people mechanically focused games can be very entertaining to play. And virtually always benefit from the variety encouraged by a relatively balanced environment. Note: I don’t think WotC decided they wanted to improve balance for 4E because they felt like it. They wanted to improve balance for 4E because a lot people bitch and whine about it. Fundamentally though, it’s all about keeping different options viable and encouraging players to try different things. If there’s one obviously optimal way to do everything, you get a game like tic-tac-toe - the definition of an unbalanced game. Also, it really does not sound like you understand the mark system. By definition, you cannot have a mark without inflicting the -2 penalty. Your example is… not an example. It’s akin to saying “Why can’t I cast “Curse” on all my allies to prevent enemies from cursing them, only my curse wouldn’t actually do anything, unlike all other curses”. It’s a specifically designed keyword like any other. If you have combat advantage, you get +2 to hit, if you’re marked, you take a -2 to attack rolls against everything except the creature that marked you, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/115 "2011-01-24T22:12:10Z")
One problem that I do have with 4e is _how_ WotC balanced it. They tried to make it more balanced by making everyone more alike, when it’s usually better to balance games by making them more different. To give an illustration of what I mean, consider game balance in, say, Warcraft II vs. in Starcraft. In Warcraft II, the orcs and humans were almost identical, with (say) a footman and a grunt, or a knight and an ogre, differing only cosmetically. Almost the only mechanical difference was in the spells. But it turned out that the ogre mage’s spells were somewhat more useful than the paladin’s, and the death knight’s more than the mage’s, so the net effect was that, insofar as they differed at all, the orcs were always better. In Starcraft, by contrast, the three races were completely different: The Zerg could make far more units, for instance, but the Protoss had individual units which were much tougher. So a player who prefers large numbers of units would prefer the Zerg, and a player who prefers a few really tough ones would prefer Protoss. In any given situation, one race would be better than others, but none could dominate overall, since who was on top would be different in the next situation. ---
**Author:** ![Airk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Airk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airk)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/116 "2011-01-25T18:08:43Z")
They definitely made everyone mechanically more similar. Whether they made everyone mechanically TOO similar is a matter of taste - certainly most classes retain key themes of what their powers do. Rogues have powers that do lots of damage and cause bleeding, or set the rogue up with combat advantage Wizards have lots of powers that create zones or cover big areas. Paladins have lots of powers that mark, heal, impose penalties on attackers Shamans have lots of powers that work through their spirit companion Clerics have lots of heals and enhancement powers. Etc. Does the fact that everyone has the same number of powers per encounter/day really water things down that much? YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/117 "2011-01-28T15:48:59Z")
> [@Airk](#): > > Etc. Does the fact that everyone has the same number of powers per encounter/day really water things down that much? YMMV. Seems to me they’ve made it a lot easier for someone just getting in to understand. And making all the types more similar helps keep interest through sessions - i.e. you don’t have a character who has little to do for two sessions because you are in combat and they have a limited functionality in combat character type. Or the non-charismatic fighter who is useless in town for the entire session you spend talking to the local lord and solving riddles. 4th edition is the first time I’ve managed to play for more than two sessions, and my previous D&D experience was long ago (in addition to limited), but the current rule set seems less … arcane. Honestly D&D when I first tried was a little like reading tax code. ---
**Author:** ![Airk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Airk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airk)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/118 "2011-01-28T16:41:54Z")
Well, to be fair, the non-charismatic fighter is still likely to be pretty useless in non-combat situations that don’t involve running or lifting things. The fighter skill selection is tiny, and the fighter ability scores don’t tend to lend themselves to much either (though some fighters do have decent wisdom, which can add to a few skills…mostly ones they’re not allowed to train in without spending a feat, so…) ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/119 "2011-01-28T16:59:29Z")
> [@Airk](#): > > Well, to be fair, the non-charismatic fighter is still likely to be pretty useless in non-combat situations that don’t involve running or lifting things. The fighter skill selection is tiny, and the fighter ability scores don’t tend to lend themselves to much either (though some fighters do have decent wisdom, which can add to a few skills…mostly ones they’re not allowed to train in without spending a feat, so…) But with the reduction in emphasis on “what happens in town” and the increased emphasis on “roll dice in battle” - he’s less likely to spend entire sessions sitting with his thumbs up his butt saying “role playing is fun…My character gets drunk in the pub.” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667/120 "2011-01-28T17:47:54Z")
> [@](#): > > And making all the types more similar helps keep interest through sessions - i.e. you don’t have a character who has little to do for two sessions because you are in combat and they have a limited functionality in combat character type. Or the non-charismatic fighter who is useless in town for the entire session you spend talking to the local lord and solving riddles. First of all, you’ve spent two entire sessions in combat? Second, _nobody_ has any abilities that are useful in town for talking to the local lord and solving riddles: If you have any of that at all, then _everyone_ is going to feel useless. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-d-d-4th-edition/567667.md?page=7)