Closer Look: Powers

This is an extremely important aspect of 4th Edition D&D, and I've already seen it overlooked on a few occasions. Sometimes it's not immediately apparent as to what you really should be doing in an encounter. Powers will do two things to guide your actions in an encounter. You will either find yourself spending your turn deciding the right power to use, or you will entirely misinterpret the purpose of your character build, and not use any powers. This post will outline some of the general guidelines to what to do with your turn.

Step A: If you aren't using a power on your turn, there had better be a good reason why.

Obvious Reasons Why You Wouldn't Use a Power
1) You have used all of your encounter powers, and none of your at-will powers fit the situation
2) None of your encounter powers fit the situation, and none of your at-will powers fit the situation
3) You prefer to save your daily and specific encounter powers for the right time, and none of your at-will powers fit the situation
4) You need to spend the round either positioning yourself, or using a second wind.

If it turns out you spend the entire battle simply using your basic attack, then you may want to reconsider your character choices. It is always possible to simply explain to the DM why your decisions at character creation have not panned out with your adventuring group, and either ask to make a new character, or simply make some changes. It's always a good idea to have an in-game reason or story as to why you might have different powers now, so as to add some incentive to the DM to allow you to make these changes.

Step B: Make your decisions early, and you won't feel so pressured when everyone waits on your turn. Give yourself a few choices before your turn, so that you can easily change your mind on the fly based on the actions between your decision and when it's your turn.

Step Awesome: Know your powers! Even if you have to look it up, know the intricacies of your powers beforehand, so that it's easier and faster for you to reference. For instance, get a good idea of what kind of exceptions will come up when you use your power. It's good to know the specifics, but it's better to have an understanding of those powers.

All in all, you're better off being prepared for multiple situations, but in the long run, you're going to have turns now and again that will take time, and those should be the exception. Not the rule.

P.S. I'm posting this while playing an Elven Cleric. We're currently in the wolf den, and I'm confident in knowing that I'll know what power to use when the DM calls my name.

-Lance of the Boy Scouts?

Closer Look: Class Roles

Class roles - they've had them since the beginning of roleplaying games, but not since recently have they become so well defined. I first saw it in World of Warcraft, where depending on your class and specialization, you would end up doing a certain job in the group. What was different in WoW than in most of the other RPG's I've played was the fact that when the enemies got tougher, the opportunity to pull of multiple roles at once diminished greatly. This is what I mean by clear definition. There is always a gray area, and some games have a much larger gray area than others. I personally have enjoyed what I've seen of 4E's take on class roles though.

First off, a comparison:

2nd Edition: In 2nd edition D&D, the classes were already divided into different categories. You had the Fighter, the Thief, the Cleric, and the Magic-User. Under these groups were the specific class options, and sometimes you could only be one if you rolled the appropriate stats first. This is obviously no longer the case. However, what 2nd edition had was some really cool versatility among the different classes. Very little was streamlined in this ruleset, and the rules were often thrown asunder in favor of something more fun. These were good times, but unfortunately it lead to some horrific consequences. Classes were not balanced for gameplay in 2nd edition, it was a lot more about the roleplaying in those days.

3rd Edition: 3E was fun, but taxing in the long run. 3rd was the edition that made character creation the most utterly ridiculous fiasco in the history of dungeons and dragons. You were no longer spending hours figuring out a cool character and background, you were spending the hours doing math, and strategically picking skills and feats to avoid being gimped at higher levels. Under these conditions, it was nearly impossible for your character to truly find it's place in group combat. You were more or less forced into being utterly superior at your role, or you were able to do almost nothing. The classes themselves were built with a lot of customization in mind, but if you customized wrong, you could become entirely ineffective.

4th Edition: Now we see where MMO's have finally influenced our tabletop gaming. It is no secret that Blizzard and D&D have been basing things off of each other's stories and lore for many years now. D&D was first, of course, but WoW and other RPG's have managed to make a good impression on the design of our new tabletop foray. The Defender is a tank, the Leader is a healer, the striker is your DPS, and the controller is your CC. DPS means Damage Per Second, in other words, you are able to do a lot of damage to a single target without issue. CC means Crowd Control, this is someone who can take an enemy out of commission while the rest of the party takes care of the dirty work. And it really doesn't get much simpler than that.

So there you have it, my opinion of the major differences between the past three revisions of the dungeons and dragons rules in terms of class roles. Although, there is a key point that I have yet to leave out. 2nd Edition had a lot of flexibility in terms of the DM being encouraged to discard and change the rules per convenience and fun, 3rd gave people the customization they desired while giving everyone equal ground to stand on, but 4th did something great to stand out. 4th Edition now gives the players a clear goal to accomplish during encounters while giving them an extremely reasonable amount of customization. And the customization they've given them is in such a way that it is almost impossible to "gimp" or ruin your character in the long run. This is the keystone to the new edition.

There is little more I have to say for now.

-Lance of the Hill People

Closer Look: Alignment

One of my players responded to my first post, asking me to expand on alignment in 4th Edition. I realize that I could have included more detail in my original post, so I decided to make an article out of my full response.

Before 4th Edition, alignment was split into 9 different absolutes. These absolutes did more than simply identify your characters basic morality and decision making, but could really flesh out your character's personality. A neutral good character would often take the role of a storybook hero, lawful evil was one you would often associate with a corporate lawyer, etc. Alignment said a lot before now.

Nowadays, alignment says a whole lot more. If you're good aligned, it's because you deliberately chose to be good. If you're evil, it's because you know you're evil, and you enjoy it. But what about the unaligned? Unaligned makes an incredible amount of sense. I know a lot of the old pros (myself included) who would sit around some days and try to figure out the alignments of all their friends, but when it came down to it, they couldn't quite pin them all exactly. By making less alignments, and making them more general, the 4E developers were able to fit just about everyone into an alignment. Even if that alignment is unaligned. If I were to approach a friend of mine and ask them what alignment they or, if they're good or evil, lawful or chaotic, they would rarely know how to answer. In fact, depending on your friends, most of them would probably recognize themselves as lawful good, just because most people don't think of themselves as not good, and most people like to be thought of as obeyers of the law.

But how many of those people who say they are lawful good actually have made a lifestyle out of doing the right thing or obeying and enforcing the law? Very few. Not to say that many people will do the right thing when presented with the choice, and more often than not will obey the law, but there's always a grey area. Specific alignments are absolutes, but since not everybody fits into those absolutes, the alignments have less power, and are too flexible. Now to be "good" you aren't just a good person, you are someone who follows and obeys what it takes to be "good". Choosing an alignment now becomes as clear of a choice as choosing your religion. Nowadays you can simply be unaligned, and people won't question your alignment when you make a selfish action, or break a minor law in favor of what you know is right.

The sum total of the alignment change is greater than any power it previously had. People may still associate characters with the alignments of previous editions, but will not be required to fit themselves into a specific pigeonhole anymore.

Kudos to the developers on this solution. I note that I did not make it entirely clear as to how the alignment system has changed specfically. I am still reluctant to include too much information on specific game mechanics, because I also encourage the readers to pick up their own copy of the books.