PDA

View Full Version : An edition war, for this?



Pages : [1] 2

Another_Poet
2009-02-17, 01:49 PM
I played 4e for the first time last weekend.

What's the big deal? Whether you like or dislike 4e, it isn't that much different from 3e. Races are more bland but classes have more options. Combat is a little different, but mostly it's the same game. Roll a d20 and add x, be as strategic as possible in fights, bask in the spotlight when RPing, hope for the best loot and go a little overboard pursuing it.

After reading all the hype I was braced for something totally unlike the D&D I know and love from 3rd ed. The reality is, not so much.

Have other people felt this way? Were you expecting it to be more different than it was?

AgentPaper
2009-02-17, 01:56 PM
Having been fortunate enough to play it before reading all the hate, I have to agree. I admit my first reaction on seeing the wizard's change was despair, but I loved everything else, and it didn't take long to grow to like the new wizard in it's own way. There are some differences between the systems, but it's still the same system. Pretty much my whole group seems to think this way,

Morty
2009-02-17, 01:57 PM
Well, many people do feel differently. I know that my brief encounter with 4ed felt a lot different than 3ed, even though the "skeleton" is the same. But the underlying principles are in many cases a lot different, which results in a different game.
Really, edition wars aren't anything unique. Some people just can't stand that others might see things differently without being stupid/stubborn/fanboys/whatever and are hell-bent on proving this. Editions of D&D are simply yet another thing to argue about.
And I'll bet anything you want that it'll become an edition war soon.

Zaq
2009-02-17, 02:03 PM
For me, the only thing wrong with 4e is that it's too new to have six hundred sourcebooks. I'm an option whore. Always have been. I can't be happy with a character unless I use at least three books OTHER than the PHB making it. For me, that's a huge part of the allure, just burying yourself in source material and coming up with something unique and fun. The mechanics themselves are fine... some details are good, some are less good, but it's a solid system. I just can't see myself choosing it over 3.5 until there's enough sourcebooks to build a coffee table out of.

FoE
2009-02-17, 02:08 PM
Dungeons and Dragons are SERIOUS BUSINESS! :smallmad:

Eldariel
2009-02-17, 02:10 PM
Let's just say that some people percieve far more fundamental differences between the two and leave it at that. We've had enough threads on the subject already; if you're interested in what aspects people like/don't like, feel free to check them out and if you want to voice your opinion, aren't those threads the best place to do it rather than making a new one?

Neithan
2009-02-17, 02:10 PM
Early 3rd Ed. was pretty much a rules update to 2nd Ed., but you had the same classes, same spells, same equipment, and same monsters. You just had to transfer your characters to a new char sheet and do some transfer calculations, but then you couls pretty much go on with an ongoing campaign without anything really changing.
I think 4th Ed. had much more of "let's get away with this old stuff, people don't want that anymore today". But it seems to me, that the differences between 4th Ed. and late 3rd Ed. aren't really that great.
BUT 4th Ed. has very few similarities left with 2nd Ed. and I belive a lot of people who really dislike 4th Ed. and don't want to play it, are those who want play AD&D-style with simpler math, but no changes to the generic background setting assumptions.

4th Ed. probably isn't a bad system, but it's a different game and for people like me who like medieval-style fantasy story-driven RPGs, per encounter abilities and item slots just don't feel like the type of game they are used to and they like.

Morty
2009-02-17, 02:26 PM
Dungeons and Dragons are SERIOUS BUSINESS! :smallmad:

When you know that people can flame each other because they want Harry Potter to hook up with a different person, edition wars in whichever system don't look all that strange, really.

mangosta71
2009-02-17, 02:39 PM
When you know that people can flame each other because they want Harry Potter to hook up with a different person, edition wars in whichever system don't look all that strange, really.

I was so rooting for Cho...

But yeah, I think the lack of different classes, with less customization, is what caused the initial outcry. A lot of protestors quieted down when the PHB2 was announced. I expect each new sourcebook to calm more of the remaining fury.

FoE
2009-02-17, 02:42 PM
So true. Edition arguments are old hat compared to Shipping wars. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShipToShipCombat)

(Personally, I was always partial to Kataang.)

Starbuck_II
2009-02-17, 03:04 PM
I was so rooting for Cho...

But yeah, I think the lack of different classes, with less customization, is what caused the initial outcry. A lot of protestors quieted down when the PHB2 was announced. I expect each new sourcebook to calm more of the remaining fury.

Pfft, noob, :smalltongue: (Just kidding in case can't tell by smiley)

Luna Lovegood is the woman for Harry and that is final!

Seriously, she knows he to lovegood and Harry needs someone to love him that way.

Morty
2009-02-17, 03:08 PM
Pfft, noob, :smalltongue: (Just kidding in case can't tell by smiley)

Luna Lovegood is the woman for Harry and that is final!

Seriously, she knows he to lovegood and Harry needs someone to love him that way.

The scary part is that apparently, there are people who say this kind of this seriously. Or maybe not, TvTropes editors have a tendency to exagerrate.

Enlong
2009-02-17, 05:38 PM
Thread derail... complete!

Jerthanis
2009-02-17, 05:58 PM
Personally, I was rooting for Ginny from book 2, but even I thought they ended up Strangled by the Red String of Fate.

*Cough* Sorry, what were we talking about?

AgentPaper
2009-02-17, 06:07 PM
I believe that we were discussing whether or not Pluto is a planet.

Which is a rather odd question. Pluto is a dog, silly! :smallamused:

Kurald Galain
2009-02-17, 06:12 PM
Whether you like or dislike 4e, it isn't that much different from 3e.

Precisely! It's just like how Star Trek is identical to Star Wars! And I completely fail to see how people can spot any differences between Heroes and the X-Files.

Deckmaster
2009-02-18, 01:56 PM
Precisely! It's just like how Star Trek is identical to Star Wars! And I completely fail to see how people can spot any differences between Heroes and the X-Files.

:smallconfused:

I really hope you're joking.

Another_Poet
2009-02-18, 02:33 PM
Let's just say that some people percieve far more fundamental differences between the two and leave it at that. We've had enough threads on the subject already; if you're interested in what aspects people like/don't like, feel free to check them out and if you want to voice your opinion, aren't those threads the best place to do it rather than making a new one?


Point taken. I was actually trying to steer clear of the other threads because I'm not interested in what aspects people like/don't like. I actually wanted to see how many others felt the differences were rpetty superficial and that most of it is the same game.

Apparently my answer is, "A few, and they're more polite than the edition war folks." Thank you for that :smalltongue: :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2009-02-18, 02:44 PM
it may seem more similar to past editions because of style- same monsters, same names for weapons, etc.

Having played Basic D&D, and read some of the expanded books (Expert set, Master set) I do think the themes are similar- its still a d20 based game, with traps, monsters, dungeons, etc- the options for players and monsters may be different, but its still a D&D game to me.

Oslecamo
2009-02-18, 03:06 PM
What's the big deal? Whether you like or dislike 4e, it isn't that much different from 3e. Races are more bland but classes have more options. Combat is a little different, but mostly it's the same game. Roll a d20 and add x, be as strategic as possible in fights, bask in the spotlight when RPing, hope for the best loot and go a little overboard pursuing it.


See, what probably is hapening here is that you played 3e in a diferent way than other people(I'm not saying that that's a bad thing).

Some people never really dig too deep in the 3e rules. The wizard is firing fireballs, the fighter is picking weapon focus, the druid doesn't know the MM by memory so he turns into a cheetah to fight, and nobody picks up more than one prestige class. You spend your money in expensive stat enanchers, weapons and armor. In this case, it really isn't that diferent from current 4e.

However, some other people dig deeper into the rules. Those people rise up armies of undeads to do their biding, they have a zillion prestige classes, they dash trough the battlefield delivering a zillion deadly attacks, the fighter is obliterating the enemy army with a well placed charge while the wizard is mind raping solars to do his biding. Everybody carries a zillion scrolls and potions. In this case, 4e is quite diferent.

You roll a zillion d20s and d12 and d10 and d6 and d4 per battle, multiply besides adding and position doesn't count as much since everybody can fly/tumble or just do it at range.

Minions, mind control, powerfull utility magic, one hit kill, multiple attacks, those are all things that got the axe in 4e. However, several people didn't use them in 3e in the first place, so they won't really miss them in 4e.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-18, 03:24 PM
However, some other people dig deeper into the rules. Those people rise up armies of undeads to do their biding, they have a zillion prestige classes, they dash trough the battlefield delivering a zillion deadly attacks, the fighter is obliterating the enemy army with a well placed charge while the wizard is mind raping solars to do his biding. Everybody carries a zillion scrolls and potions. In this case, 4e is quite diferent.

Minions, mind control, powerfull utility magic, one hit kill, multiple attacks, those are all things that got the axe in 4e. However, several people didn't use them in 3e in the first place, so they won't really miss them in 4e.And while all of that is true, tht's not even what I miss about 3.x. In the 3.x core rules, you had spontaneous Arcane casting, Divine casting, prepared Arcane casting, and melee. Each of those systems worked differently. Some classes combined 2 or more systems. And that was core. Splatbooks introduced ToB, Incarnum, Psionics, Invocations, the Artificer, and 3 new magic systems in ToM. And then there were combinations of all of those capabilities. In 4.0, there's one system. The effects are different, but the abilities are the same. Any character I build will have the same number of utility, encounter, and daily powers, all doing damage+effect, all requiring d20+stat v. AC to do anything. More classes like the Barbarian, where dailies get new uses and maybe I'll switch. As is, I'd much rather be able to say "I'm tired of characters that function like this" and be able to build something completely different without changing systems.

Surfing HalfOrc
2009-02-18, 03:30 PM
People have been flipping out about new editions ever since there have been new editions! This is nothing new. Not by a long shot.

I learned way back in 1st Ed. Those rules desperatly needed tightening up, and perhaps a set of "Teaching Rules" so that you didn't have to know a guy who knew a guy who knew Gary and his friends up in Lake Geneiva... Although Tom Moldvey and David Cook did write up the excellent Basic/Expert ruleset.

Then Gary got squeezed out, and a person who felt gamers were her social inferiors took over. Not the best business plan, to say the least... But the rules were rewritten, and put into a (somewhat) more user friendly format.

About ten years later, after driving the company to near bankruptcy, TSR sold it's rights to WotC, who both rewrote the rules, and saved the company. Of course, these rules were written on the basis of bringing in a whole new crowd, and teaching them the rules as you played. The 2nd Ed players freaked, the 1st. Ed. guys said "Told ya so!"

Now 4th Ed is out, and the crowd is once again split. Old geezers like me go, "Meh... Here we go again," while the young bucks who have spent $$$ and time tweaking their characters into uber-killing machines are flipping out because no one supports their characters; meanwhile the newbies are going "Wow! Cool game!"

My one grumble is what had been a product life span of approximatly 10 years between iterations got shut down early by about 2 years, and unlike 3.X, no effort was made to bring old characters "forward" to the new system. WotC/Hasbro basicly came out and said, "Finish up. We're done here." Also not exactly the best display of customer appreciation...

So how long until 5th Ed? 10 years? 5? Less? How will the currently rocky economy affect things? (Suprisingly, board games are making quite the comeback. Hasbro knows a thing or two about games, so I wouldn't count them out as a bunch of empty suits just yet...)

PinkysBrain
2009-02-18, 03:51 PM
A fireball does how many D6's of damage now again?

Mando Knight
2009-02-18, 03:51 PM
(Suprisingly, board games are making quite the comeback. Hasbro knows a thing or two about games, so I wouldn't count them out as a bunch of empty suits just yet...)

Indeed. They've been selling Monopoly and Risk for almost two decades now, and The Game of Life, Candy Land, and Yahtzee for about two and a half. I think that even for all Hasbro's purported money-grubbing, the world still be buying their games for years to come.

RukiTanuki
2009-02-18, 04:37 PM
I still respect 3.x, enjoy it as much as 4e, and even consider my rules mastery of it to be greater than my 4e knowledge... but the truth remains:

For most values of FOO where someone has said "I'm disappointed that there's no FOO in 4e", my friends and players have told me, "You mean I don't have to deal with FOO anymore?! That's great!"

Different systems for different folks.

Morandir Nailo
2009-02-18, 11:16 PM
See, what probably is hapening here is that you played 3e in a diferent way than other people(I'm not saying that that's a bad thing).

Some people never really dig too deep in the 3e rules. The wizard is firing fireballs, the fighter is picking weapon focus, the druid doesn't know the MM by memory so he turns into a cheetah to fight, and nobody picks up more than one prestige class. You spend your money in expensive stat enanchers, weapons and armor. In this case, it really isn't that diferent from current 4e.


What's funny is that this is more or less how my group plays 3e, and we found 4e to be a very different beast. Of course we tended to use our cash to pimp out our Daern's Instant Fortress rather than buying expensive weapons and armor...

Mor

FoE
2009-02-18, 11:40 PM
I still respect 3.x, enjoy it as much as 4e, and even consider my rules mastery of it to be greater than my 4e knowledge... but the truth remains:

For most values of FOO where someone has said "I'm disappointed that there's no FOO in 4e", my friends and players have told me, "You mean I don't have to deal with FOO anymore?! That's great!"

Different systems for different folks.

I pity the FOO! :smallbiggrin:

Kantolin
2009-02-18, 11:57 PM
Whether you like or dislike 4e, it isn't that much different from 3e.

Meh. 4e sure feels a lot different to me.

Starscream
2009-02-19, 12:19 AM
When I first read the rules I noticed nothing but the differences, and was unhappy with them. When I actually played, the changes were a lot less noticeable than I expected, and I had a pretty good time. It will probably never dethrone 3.5 in my eyes, but I don't like to play the same system all the time, so the occasional 4e game will be a welcome change.

To be honest, I don't think people hate 4e as much as they say they do. This is the internet, and everyone is about 10X as passionate about their opinions on forums than they are once the browser is closed. I think they dislike the idea of 4e more than the execution. It's the whole Star Trek thing. If you love Kirk, you will never fully accept Picard. And while you're glad to see more Trek being made, you honestly don't see why you couldn't have Kirk in perpetuity.

Personally, while I think some mistakes were made with 4e, I never got mad at WOTC for deciding to make it. When you look at the umpty-million supplements for 3.5, honestly, where else could they go from there? I can't think of any obvious class, monster, or spell that should have got made and never did. In the 5 years 3.5 was king they covered a ton of ground. More, I think, than 2nd Edition got in 20 years.

Pronounceable
2009-02-19, 01:39 AM
..Obviously, OP and those supporting him aren't nerd enough...

Thurbane
2009-02-19, 01:47 AM
I played 4e for the first time last weekend.

What's the big deal? Whether you like or dislike 4e, it isn't that much different from 3e. Races are more bland but classes have more options. Combat is a little different, but mostly it's the same game. Roll a d20 and add x, be as strategic as possible in fights, bask in the spotlight when RPing, hope for the best loot and go a little overboard pursuing it.

After reading all the hype I was braced for something totally unlike the D&D I know and love from 3rd ed. The reality is, not so much.

Have other people felt this way? Were you expecting it to be more different than it was?
With all due respect, that's totally different than my (limited) 4E experience. Admittedly, I have only played 2 sessions (and leafed through the core rulebooks for an hour or so), both on Game Day, but I felt that a lot of what made the game fun for me in 3.5 had been stripped down or removed to make for slicker, easier and "more balanced" gameplay in 4E.

This is neither better or worse than 3.5, but really doesn't scratch my itch. It took me a while to warm to 3.X after my 2E games - who knows, maybe I'll warm to 4E in a similar fashion one day. That won't be for a while though - my group still has a metric buttload of 3.X materials to play through before we even think of switching to 4E. By then, the rest of the community may well be already playing 5E...

Enlong
2009-02-19, 02:29 AM
Personally, I ship 4E / 3.5E

Curmudgeon
2009-02-19, 02:36 AM
I got to play my first 4E game above 1st level this past weekend at DunDraCon. Making a 4th level character, with access to all the available books, I ended up with one power from Martial Power and one item from Adventurer's Vault. Everything else was straight Player's Handbook. There just isn't that "Wow!" factor in the supplements; they really provide more of the same stuff, but there's nothing essential in them because the basics are pretty well covered. The game was nice, with adequate emphasis on role-play (pretty much entirely outside the game rules because of the way the skills work), but nothing to write home about.

I also played in an 18th level 3.5 game, with one significant restriction: no magic at all. Basically the entire country was under one enormous Antimagic Field. I had a blast both creating the character and playing him. I made a Rogue 15/Cloistered Cleric 1/Monk 1 with +1 LA for Lolth-touched template (Monster Manual IV). I used about 18 books to create the character: Education feat (Eberron Campaign Setting), Penetrating Strike alternative class feature (Dungeonscape), glassteel breastplate (Races of Faerūn), Sparring Dummy of the Master (Arms and Equipment Guide), Cloistered Cleric variant (Unearthed Arcana), Time and Celerity domains (Spell Compendium), Knowledge Devotion feat (Complete Champion), Ascetic Rogue feat (Complete Adventurer), Improved Natural Attack feat (Monster Manual), Snap Kick feat (Tome of Battle). This guy ended up being the combat powerhouse of the group, attacking unarmed and adding sneak attack damage most of the time. It was an interesting challenge, and the many options available in 3.5 made it possible to come up with a good solution to the problem. This game was lots of fun, and I'll remember it for a long time.

Behold_the_Void
2009-02-19, 02:40 AM
I got to play my first 4E game above 1st level this past weekend at DunDraCon. Making a 4th level character, with access to all the available books, I ended up with one power from Martial Power and one item from Adventurer's Vault. Everything else was straight Player's Handbook. There just isn't that "Wow!" factor in the supplements; they really provide more of the same stuff, but there's nothing essential in them because the basics are pretty well covered. The game was nice, with adequate emphasis on role-play (pretty much entirely outside the game rules because of the way the skills work), but nothing to write home about.

I also played in an 18th level 3.5 game, with one significant restriction: no magic at all. Basically the entire country was under one enormous Antimagic Field. I had a blast both creating the character and playing him. I made a Rogue 15/Cloistered Cleric 1/Monk 1 with +1 LA for Lolth-touched template (Monster Manual IV). I used about 18 books to create the character: Education feat (Eberron Campaign Setting), Penetrating Strike alternative class feature (Dungeonscape), glassteel breastplate (Races of Faerūn), Sparring Dummy of the Master (Arms and Equipment Guide), Cloistered Cleric variant (Unearthed Arcana), Time and Celerity domains (Spell Compendium), Knowledge Devotion feat (Complete Champion), Ascetic Rogue feat (Complete Adventurer), Improved Natural Attack feat (Monster Manual), Snap Kick feat (Tome of Battle). This guy ended up being the combat powerhouse of the group, attacking unarmed and adding sneak attack damage most of the time. It was an interesting challenge, and the many options available in 3.5 made it possible to come up with a good solution to the problem. This game was lots of fun, and I'll remember it for a long time.

That sounds kind of like apples and oranges, honestly. You're comparing your experience with a 4th level character early in a system's life before many splatbooks have made it out to an 18th level character at the end of a system's life when there ARE hundreds of books to cherry-pick from.

Sebastian
2009-02-19, 03:37 AM
My problem with 4e is that, put it simply, it bores me to death. Reading the 4e stuff there is nothing and I mean nothing that made me think "wow, I want to play this" or "this looks interesting".

It is simply too gamist for my tastes, the complete division from what the rules say and what actually is happening in the game make impossibile for me to enjoy it as a RPG. I could even say that 4e have nothing of what attracted me to roleplay games in the first place.

Now, 3.x was not perfect, either, but 4e took 3.x "flaws" (from my point of view, of course) and made them the core of its system, so I suppose you could say the 4e and 3.x are not so different, in the same way a zombie is not so different from a living human being. :smalltongue:

Zeful
2009-02-19, 03:38 AM
However, some other people dig deeper into the rules. Those people rise up armies of undeads to do their biding, they have a zillion prestige classes, they dash trough the battlefield delivering a zillion deadly attacks, the fighter is obliterating the enemy army with a well placed charge while the wizard is mind raping solars to do his biding. Everybody carries a zillion scrolls and potions. In this case, 4e is quite diferent. Of course this style of play completely invalidates people who don't know the rules perfectly. It also tends to force the DM to fight fire with fire, you raise the bar so the DM has to make things tougher for everyone else, otherwise you're not challenged.


You roll a zillion d20s and d12 and d10 and d6 and d4 per battle, multiply besides adding and position doesn't count as much since everybody can fly/tumble or just do it at range.Bad thing how? Also with the way HP is described as working in 3.5 there are few attacks that shouldn't deal damage.


Minions, mind control, powerfull utility magic, one hit kill, multiple attacks, those are all things that got the axe in 4e. However, several people didn't use them in 3e in the first place, so they won't really miss them in 4e.Those are also the things that invalidated entire archetypes in 3.5, such that the motto amongst optimizers on the net is: If you're not a full caster, you suck. Due to the abject power of casters, if you weren't playing a greatsword wielding Ubercharger or a Chain wielding Trip monkey, you sucked. When you can apply vast blanket statements to a game and have them be accurate, there is something wrong with the game. And much of 3.5's problems aren't part of the game at all, it's the community. The concept that a non-caster (Fighter, Knight etc.) must be "all mundane all the time", has done more to cripple balance than any combination of rule (ab)use. And in 3.5 class balance is more important than in 4th, simply because any humanoid villian will have class levels. And to be a challenge to an optimized party, he couldn't be any kind of non-caster, otherwise he'd be killed due to having his actions simply outstripped by his opponents.

Thurbane
2009-02-19, 03:43 AM
Wow, so now as well as a 4E vs 3E thread, this is quickly shaping up to be an "optimizers rule" vs "muchnkins suck" debate too! Can we throw in "ToB makes 3.5 playable" vs "ToB ruined 3.5" angle as well, for the perfect trifecta? :smallbiggrin:

[j/k of course - not meant as a jibe at anyone in particular]

BobVosh
2009-02-19, 04:58 AM
so I suppose you could say the 4e and 3.x are not so different, in the same way a zombie is not so different from a living human being. :smalltongue:

I'm just seeing the zombie telling Brock Samson "We're not so different, you and I..." "Ya, ya spare me. I get that speech a lot."

I basically consider 4ed a board game in which noone can win, and it is darn hard to lose. Doesn't really feel like a roleplaying game in that almost all the book is combat rules, with no fluff. No fluff on the classes, mechanics, or races really. Now I admit 3.5 didn't have much in terms of fluffyness in the PHB, so maybe this will change.
Also skill challenges annoy me. That sort of thing used to be player intelligence, or ability to wiggle around crap you gave them before.

Hmm, I won't point out more things as that isn't what this thread is about.

So to be clear: 4ed doesn't even feel like an RPG to me, much less like 3.5

Oslecamo
2009-02-19, 05:38 AM
Of course this style of play completely invalidates people who don't know the rules perfectly. It also tends to force the DM to fight fire with fire, you raise the bar so the DM has to make things tougher for everyone else, otherwise you're not challenged.


Only if you're a bad DM. It's not that hard to make monsters that completely screw one strategy while keeping others valid. If there's one player with a super undead army, let him have fun for a little while, then show him your super exalted cleric NPC wich burns away all the undeads with a wave of his hand. Use feats and templates to turn the monsters immune to specific dirty tricks. Make the monster focus fire on the guy who tried to abuse the rules, and when he asks why, tell him the monster suceeded in his knowledge checks to identify that character as the bigges threat. Etc etc.



Bad thing how? Also with the way HP is described as working in 3.5 there are few attacks that shouldn't deal damage.
I didn't say it was a bad thing. I suport that 3e characters become so badass they can swim in lava and fall from mountains and keep going.



Those are also the things that invalidated entire archetypes in 3.5, such that the motto amongst optimizers on the net is: If you're not a full caster, you suck. Due to the abject power of casters, if you weren't playing a greatsword wielding Ubercharger or a Chain wielding Trip monkey, you sucked. When you can apply vast blanket statements to a game and have them be accurate, there is something wrong with the game.

See this is nothing more than a myth. There's plenty of noncaster effecient character builds out there. There's plenty of campaign stories where the group optimized and still the noncasters shined even at high levels. There was even a challenge in the Wotc boards where noncaster characters had to pass trough super hard dungeons and they suceeded. Those "vast blanket statements" you just said are anything but acurate.



And much of 3.5's problems aren't part of the game at all, it's the community. The concept that a non-caster (Fighter, Knight etc.) must be "all mundane all the time", has done more to cripple balance than any combination of rule (ab)use.
You're right the biggest problem is with the community. It's because of them spreading myths and misconceptions like those that noncasters can only full attack and do nothing right that 3e has such bad reputation. And ironically, those people aren't even the ebst optimizers around. Khan, the guy who discovered Pun-Pun on the first place, also did some of the best pure fighter builds out there, who could take out the tarrasque single handedly.



And in 3.5 class balance is more important than in 4th, simply because any humanoid villian will have class levels. And to be a challenge to an optimized party, he couldn't be any kind of non-caster, otherwise he'd be killed due to having his actions simply outstripped by his opponents.

Says who? The caster is actually just as screwed, since now all the PCs need to do is ready actions to counter spell. A NPC rogue with insane hide/move silently and the gear to evade magic detection will be a big challenge. And heck, I once saw a comoner BBEG who relied solely on magic items and UMD to give the party a run for it's money. yes they rely on items. But who doesn't in 3e? Take out the shops and the wizard will cry as much as everybody else when he can't learn extra spells or craft items due to the lack of raw materials.


Sstoopidtallkid:Hmm, you're right, shame on me for not pointing it out. In 3e both monsters and classes used diferent mechanics for diferent stuff, and I really feel the lack of that in 4e. However, some people claim it's the way 3e should have been done in the first place, aka everything works with the same mechanics base. Some people love this aspect and other people hate it.

Bryn
2009-02-19, 06:22 AM
Wow, so now as well as a 4E vs 3E thread, this is quickly shaping up to be an "optimizers rule" vs "muchnkins suck" debate too! Can we throw in "ToB makes 3.5 playable" vs "ToB ruined 3.5" angle as well, for the perfect trifecta? :smallbiggrin:
Wait! Don't forget the Monks and Wizards for a true thermonuclear thread-meltdown :smallwink:

Kurald Galain
2009-02-19, 06:24 AM
Wait! Don't forget the Monks and Wizards for a true thermonuclear thread-meltdown :smallwink:

No no no, first we must discuss :miko: ...

Oslecamo
2009-02-19, 06:32 AM
No no no, first we must discuss :miko: ...

Please, that topic is so dead:smalltongue:

Curmudgeon
2009-02-19, 06:57 AM
That sounds kind of like apples and oranges, honestly. You're comparing your experience with a 4th level character early in a system's life before many splatbooks have made it out to an 18th level character at the end of a system's life when there ARE hundreds of books to cherry-pick from. But when Complete Warrior came out early in the life of 3.5, there was that "Wow!" factor. There were new base classes, new prestige classes, new spells, new Clerical domains, new feats, new uses for skills, and new magic items. Just a lot of new material, and diverse new possibilities that didn't exist beforehand. 4E is at about that same level of supplement publication, but there's really no excitement involved in any of them. The new options aren't radically different from what's in the Player's Handbgook, so there's no sense of "Wow!".

hamlet
2009-02-19, 08:06 AM
Indeed. They've been selling Monopoly and Risk for almost two decades now, and The Game of Life, Candy Land, and Yahtzee for about two and a half. I think that even for all Hasbro's purported money-grubbing, the world still be buying their games for years to come.

You do realize that Monopoly, Risk, and most of those games are straight out of the 30's right? Well over two and a half decades.

Unless you're referring to WOTC specifically rather than the more nebulous "They."

Morty
2009-02-19, 09:17 AM
No no no, first we must discuss :miko: ...

No, first we must discuss whether classes should be balanced or not.

Oslecamo
2009-02-19, 09:38 AM
No, first we must discuss whether classes should be balanced or not.

In that case we should before discuss what the hell are we doing pretending we're knights and wizards fighting imaginary beasts with little plastic toys and papers.

Tengu_temp
2009-02-19, 09:45 AM
No, we should discuss what level should your players reach before you start teaching them real magic.

Mando Knight
2009-02-19, 10:56 AM
You do realize that Monopoly, Risk, and most of those games are straight out of the 30's right? Well over two and a half decades.

Unless you're referring to WOTC specifically rather than the more nebulous "They."

I was referring to Hasbro specifically, which purchased WotC in '99, Parker Brothers in '91, and Milton Bradley in '84. Thus, they, that is Hasbro, has only been publishing Yahtzee and Trouble for about two and a half decades, and Monopoly and Risk for a little under two.

hamlet
2009-02-19, 11:18 AM
I was referring to Hasbro specifically, which purchased WotC in '99, Parker Brothers in '91, and Milton Bradley in '84. Thus, they, that is Hasbro, has only been publishing Yahtzee and Trouble for about two and a half decades, and Monopoly and Risk for a little under two.

Just checkin'.

I've seen people who don't realize how old certain things are. It gets amusing at times when I have to point out to my cousin that we didn't always have CD's . . .

Oslecamo
2009-02-19, 12:00 PM
No, we should discuss what level should your players reach before you start teaching them real magic.

Well, then we would also need to discuss what level your players reach before start teaching them real universe breacking martial arts.

FoE
2009-02-19, 12:11 PM
No, we should discuss what level should your players reach before you start teaching them real magic.

Not now, I'm fighting the Zombie.

monty
2009-02-19, 01:00 PM
Not now, I'm fighting the Zombie.

It's my fault Black Leaf died. I can't face life alone!

eepop
2009-02-19, 01:08 PM
In one of the campaigns I am playing in, I just had a character death and so decided to roll a level 10 tactical warlord. This is what I used from PHB vs Splats

1 Race Forgotten Realms Players Guide
1 Class PHB

6 Powers PHB
5 Powers Martial Power

1 Feat from PHB
1 Feat from Ecology: Genasi (Dungeon/dragon)
2 Feat from Martial power
2 Feats from gladiator article

1 Base weapon from gladiator article

2 Items PHB
6 Items Adventurer's Vault

Total Choices made breakdown
PHB 10
Splats 18

I dunno, that seems like a fine level of quality for the splats.


Also before someone cries powercreep, I have played an Inspiring warlord that was probably 75% PHB. The main point being that the splats are about the same power level as the core books, they just give you interesting options.

Making one character in 4E, and saying its mostly a PHB character is kind of a moot point. The PHB just happened to have more of the options you envisioned for that character.

I think the "Wow" is just related to whether the options in the splat apply to the character you want to play at the time. There isn't a lot that obsoletes choices in the PHB (like some would argue the 3E splats did), but many would argue that is a good thing.

FoE
2009-02-19, 01:10 PM
It's my fault Black Leaf died. I can't face life alone!

I don't want to be Face of Evil anymore! I just want to be Debbie!

Mando Knight
2009-02-19, 01:45 PM
Just checkin'.

I've seen people who don't realize how old certain things are. It gets amusing at times when I have to point out to my cousin that we didn't always have CD's . . .

I did realize before making the post that Monopoly, Risk, and other popular boardgames are about as old as my grandparents... my maternal grandparents had a copy of The Game of Life from about when my mom was growing up, and my parents have an old Monopoly board that appears to be from approximately the same period...

Zeful
2009-02-19, 02:14 PM
Only if you're a bad DM. It's not that hard to make monsters that completely screw one strategy while keeping others valid. If there's one player with a super undead army, let him have fun for a little while, then show him your super exalted cleric NPC wich burns away all the undeads with a wave of his hand. Use feats and templates to turn the monsters immune to specific dirty tricks. Make the monster focus fire on the guy who tried to abuse the rules, and when he asks why, tell him the monster suceeded in his knowledge checks to identify that character as the bigges threat. Etc etc.It wouldn't be hard but you might as well simply throw the MM out the window. If I was running a core-only group of a Monk, (Batman) Wizard, (Robin) Sorcerer and Cleric (zilla), what challenges could I throw the Monk that wouldn't be obliterated by one spell from the casters? What challenges could I throw the casters that the Monk could feel like he's done something in?



See this is nothing more than a myth. There's plenty of noncaster efficient character builds out there. There's plenty of campaign stories where the group optimized and still the noncasters shined even at high levels. There was even a challenge in the Wotc boards where noncaster characters had to pass trough super hard dungeons and they succeeded. Those "vast blanket statements" you just said are anything but accurate.

You're right the biggest problem is with the community. It's because of them spreading myths and misconceptions like those that noncasters can only full attack and do nothing right that 3e has such bad reputation. And ironically, those people aren't even the best optimizers around. Khan, the guy who discovered Pun-Pun on the first place, also did some of the best pure fighter builds out there, who could take out the tarrasque single handedly.Caster builds get far more press, giving a pretty convincing illusion. They are also easier to make and require less books. How many books does it take for a optimized Fighter to reliably defeat an equally optimized Wizard? Compare to the one book it takes for an optimized Wizard to reliably defeat an equally optimized Fighter. I honestly haven't a clue, I don't have the money to buy half of the "necessary" books to build a competent fighter. I could be looking in all the wrong places, but everyone seems to think that Caster>Non-caster.



Says who? The caster is actually just as screwed, since now all the PCs need to do is ready actions to counter spell. A NPC rogue with insane hide/move silently and the gear to evade magic detection will be a big challenge. And heck, I once saw a comoner BBEG who relied solely on magic items and UMD to give the party a run for it's money. yes they rely on items. But who doesn't in 3e? Take out the shops and the wizard will cry as much as everybody else when he can't learn extra spells or craft items due to the lack of raw materials.True with no forewarning or preparation of any kind the caster is just as likely to die. And with enough money thrown at the issue non-casters can replicate some Wizard class features. What's the difference between a commoner BBEG using wand, staves and scrolls, and a Wizard simply casting?

Behold_the_Void
2009-02-19, 02:28 PM
But when Complete Warrior came out early in the life of 3.5, there was that "Wow!" factor. There were new base classes, new prestige classes, new spells, new Clerical domains, new feats, new uses for skills, and new magic items. Just a lot of new material, and diverse new possibilities that didn't exist beforehand. 4E is at about that same level of supplement publication, but there's really no excitement involved in any of them. The new options aren't radically different from what's in the Player's Handbgook, so there's no sense of "Wow!".

I must say I never had that experience with Complete Warrior, whereas the extra stuff in Martial Powers/Adventurer's Vault was at least reasonably interesting to me.

The only really "wow" splatbooks for me were Tome of Battle and the Expanded Psionics Handbook out of 3.5, and I'm really looking forward to PHBII so I imagine 4e will have it's fair share of that as well.

Different styles I suppose.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-19, 02:43 PM
No, we should discuss what level should your players reach before you start teaching them real magic.

Does it count as magic that I can make the wind blow? And follows me as I walk?
Does every day count as just a coincidence? :smallbiggrin:
(I am serious actually)

Oslecamo
2009-02-19, 02:47 PM
What challenges could I throw the casters that the Monk could feel like he's done something in?
Depends entirely on the party build. Neither wizards, druids or clerics can chane their prepared spells mid battle after all, and the monk may have specialized in diferent things.



Caster builds get far more press, giving a pretty convincing illusion. They are also easier to make and require less books.
There's plenty of caster builds out there. Shaddowcraft mage, super encantrix, exalted clerics of doom, planar sheperd, you name it. And they demand plenty of splatbooks and rely on heavy rules optimization. I've seen plenty of threads of people asking help for their wizards and clerics in the Wotc forum before the 3e forums got killed.



How many books does it take for a optimized Fighter to reliably defeat an equally optimized Wizard? Compare to the one book it takes for an optimized Wizard to reliably defeat an equally optimized Fighter. I honestly haven't a clue, I don't have the money to buy half of the "necessary" books to build a competent fighter. I could be looking in all the wrong places, but everyone seems to think that Caster>Non-caster.

Make up your mind. You want a companion killer or a competent party member? Because in 4e the wizard still rapes any other PC with his sleep+cheesy orb combo wich makes you sleep forever and ever.

With just the basic books you can make a fighter able to hold his own in the fights against the monster, and handle animal+intimidate can do a lot to help you outside of combat(both fighter skills). What, you tought you needed magic to get your personal army of mooks?



True with no forewarning or preparation of any kind the caster is just as likely to die. And with enough money thrown at the issue non-casters can replicate some Wizard class features. What's the difference between a commoner BBEG using wand, staves and scrolls, and a Wizard simply casting?
The fighter can disarm/sunder the UMD commoner, the rogue can steal his wands, making a more interesting fight for all the party.

Kish
2009-02-19, 03:08 PM
4ed isn't my cup of tea, but the only real problem I have with it (well, humans are horribly generic and frightfully overpowered, but that describes every edition of D&D ever...) is that any D&D CRPGs that come out from now until 5ed will use the 4ed system.

Darth Stabber
2009-02-19, 03:22 PM
My issue is the same one Sstoopidtallkid brought up, Fighter does his thing one way, Wizard another, Totemist another, Psion another, Swordsage another, and Binder another yet. I can say hey I don't like the way Swordsage works, i think i will play a Psychic warrior next time. In 4e every one plays a Swordsage, if you don't like it (and i don't, i'm not the TOB's biggest fan) you still must use the same system. Wizard = swordsage, fighter = swordsage, rogue = sword sage. In 3.5 mechanics have a fit with classes. Psionics is not like wizardry, they work differently. In 4e they will work the same if psion is ever printed, they will just have slightly different effects. Some cool stuff from 3.5 won't transfer over with out a significant lose of coolness. Totemist, cant work in 4e, You must have maneuvers, you can't have a mechanic to craft stuff out of souls, you must have maneuvers. Binder, No you can't have a mechanic to bind an entity from outside of space and time to your body, and gain different benefits dependent on which you pick, you have to have the same x maneuvers every stinking day. You can't have resizable psionic powers, maneuvers aren't sizable, they must do the same thing every time. Oh so you want to play a swordsage, that's fine, but you do the same thing as everyone else. They could print ten thousand classes for 4e and none of them would have as big a difference as say Wizard and Sorcerer do in 3.x. I like the new trained skill system, but that's about it. Oh and the claims that 4e is too much like wow are bogus, Warrior's rage and Rogues energy set them more apart from mages than anything in 4e seperates any class.

Blackfang108
2009-02-19, 04:29 PM
4ed isn't my cup of tea, but the only real problem I have with it (well, humans are horribly generic and frightfully overpowered, but that describes every edition of D&D ever...) is that any D&D CRPGs that come out from now until 5ed will use the 4ed system.

CRPG?

Does C Stand for "Computer"?

eepop
2009-02-19, 04:31 PM
Binder, No you can't have a mechanic to bind an entity from outside of space and time to your body, and gain different benefits dependent on which you pick, you have to have the same x maneuvers every stinking day.

Over exaggeration. You can pretty easily make something within the 4E system to work like a binder.

Bind Xagatoth, The Old God of the Wind - Daily Power
Prereq: You must be trained in Acrobatics.
You bind the vestige of Xagatoth. As you bind him, his spirit whirls around you in a fierce windstorm. Those around you are swept up in the storm, but the winds do not upset your practiced balance.
Target: All creatures in a Close Burst 5
Attack: Charisma vs Will
Hit: The target is dazed until the end of your next turn and you slide the target squares equal to your intelligence modifier.
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you can use the Gust of Wind At-Will Power. Also you gain an aura 5, any creature within the aura is slowed.

Gust of Wind - At-Will
Move action
Target: One creature within 10 squares of you.
Effect: You may slide the target squares equal to your intelligence modifier. The target is slowed until the end of your next turn.



You can't have resizable psionic powers, maneuvers aren't sizable, they must do the same thing every time.

Psychic warrior feature
Psionic Fury - When you hit with an attack, choose a number up to your Intelligence modifier. You do additional damage equal to that number, but receive a penalty to attack rolls equal to half of the chosen number until the end of your next turn. At level 11, double the damage done when using Psionic Fury. At level 21, triple the damage done when using Psionic Fury.

Psionic Flourish - At-Will Power
Standard Action
Range: Melee
Target: One enemy
Attack: Strength vs AC
Hit: 1[W]+STR psychic damage and the target gains vulnerable 5 psychic until the beginning of your next turn. You can expend an unused encounter attack power to increase the damage by 1[W] and increase the vulnerability by 5. You can expend an unused Daily power to increase the damage by 2[W]+STR and increase the vulnerability by 10.

Another_Poet
2009-02-19, 04:38 PM
See, what probably is hapening here is that you played 3e in a diferent way than other people(I'm not saying that that's a bad thing).

Some people never really dig too deep in the 3e rules. The wizard is firing fireballs, the fighter is picking weapon focus, the druid doesn't know the MM by memory so he turns into a cheetah to fight, and nobody picks up more than one prestige class. You spend your money in expensive stat enanchers, weapons and armor. In this case, it really isn't that diferent from current 4e.

However, some other people dig deeper into the rules. Those people rise up armies of undeads to do their biding, they have a zillion prestige classes, they dash trough the battlefield delivering a zillion deadly attacks, the fighter is obliterating the enemy army with a well placed charge while the wizard is mind raping solars to do his biding. Everybody carries a zillion scrolls and potions. In this case, 4e is quite diferent.

You roll a zillion d20s and d12 and d10 and d6 and d4 per battle, multiply besides adding and position doesn't count as much since everybody can fly/tumble or just do it at range.

Minions, mind control, powerfull utility magic, one hit kill, multiple attacks, those are all things that got the axe in 4e. However, several people didn't use them in 3e in the first place, so they won't really miss them in 4e.


That is a very accurate assessment of my play style (and my group's) and is probably exactly what sparked me to start this thread.

*blink*

Impressive!

FatR
2009-02-19, 06:12 PM
4E is different. You see, 4E is the system that actually reflect all those countless crappy DnD books, where the best thing a hostile magic-user does is firing some weaksauce blasts, people duel for minutes without getting really hurt, and no one knows any better way to dispatch enemies than head-on attack. I don't care about these books, so I also don't care that Wizards finally figured out that their fluff doesn't match the rules and decided to downgrade characters and strip them of options (humble 3.X fighter has more viable options than 4E one). When I play DnD, I want my careful pre-combat planning to pay off; I want better array of options than "optimize for dps and hack away or optimize for juggling and stunlock everything"; I want ability to use classic fantasy stuff such as turning into something else, summoning things, and blasting dozens opponents with one area effect; and I want to smash heavens into earth at two-digit levels.
Also, 4E has much more absctract mechanics. In 3.X, I can explain every single mechanical ability of every single character of mine in the game-world terms (yes, even hit points, easily). In 4E, I can't. This is a big difference for me.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-19, 06:19 PM
(well, humans are horribly generic and frightfully overpowered, but that describes every edition of D&D ever...)

That is a curious remark... care to elaborate?

In my experience, in 1E and 2E, humans suck royally unless you play at a high enough level that racial level limits come into play and your DM doesn't ignore those. In 3E, humans are solid but hardly overpowered (as opposed to, say, gray elves and whisper gnomes). In 4E, humans are nice but not great, and it seems that pretty much every build has one race that is best at it, which in almost no case so far is the human.

FatR
2009-02-19, 07:08 PM
That is a curious remark... care to elaborate?

In my experience, in 1E and 2E, humans suck royally unless you play at a high enough level that racial level limits come into play and your DM doesn't ignore those. In 3E, humans are solid but hardly overpowered (as opposed to, say, gray elves and whisper gnomes). In 4E, humans are nice but not great, and it seems that pretty much every build has one race that is best at it, which in almost no case so far is the human.
Ability to dual-class from Fighter to Wizard at 9th level was a big deal in AD&D 2E. At the cost of sucking for less time than you would have needed to get 10th level of fighter, you got full spellcasting on top of practically every good thing there was to take from fighter class. Although thanks to high levels involved I, personally, never was able to pull this trick off, not counting CRPGs. Otherwise yes, humans sucked.

Mando Knight
2009-02-19, 07:56 PM
4E is different. You see, 4E is the system that actually reflect all those countless crappy DnD books, where the best thing a hostile magic-user does is firing some weaksauce blasts, people duel for minutes without getting really hurt, and no one knows any better way to dispatch enemies than head-on attack.

...
...
:smallsigh:
Please refrain from trolling/trollbaiting, especially without concrete evidence. Too many people have already been banned because of loudmouthed edition flaming. 4E is not significantly more or less like that than the previous editions were.

Kish
2009-02-19, 09:28 PM
CRPG?

Does C Stand for "Computer"?
Computer or Console, yes.


That is a curious remark... care to elaborate?
In 1ed and 2ed, humans are the only (core, anyway) race with unlimited level advancement. Whether DMs change the rules doesn't change what they are in the books; the racial level restrictions aren't even noted as optional.

In 3ed, I can't speak to whisper gnomes and other non-core stuff, but humans' bonus feat and skill points is stronger than any race in the Player's Handbook--and equally strong for any class.

In 4ed, perhaps other races are better for individual classes. That would be a step in the right direction, if completely inadequate to make "play a X if you want to...play a human if you want to excel at anything" less nauseating.

aje8
2009-02-19, 10:06 PM
There's nothing wrong with 4E per se, however it's not really intended for the same people.

IMO, the thing that makes DnD great is the ability to do just about anything. For example, one time, I decided to play a Necromancer.

Low and Behold, I could play a DMM Fell-Drain Based Cleric (or Cloistered Cleric)
or a Dread Necromancer or a Focused Specalist Necromancer Wizard.

There was a set of feats already made for me. (Corpsecrafter line, Libor Mortis)
There where literally tons of different possible undead to make, tons of mosnters to make them from, tons of ways to make them, tons of ways to ultilize them. I could make just about any undead I could imagine, in any way I could imagine. That is the feeling I like.

In 4E, I don't really get this feeling of being able to build anthing I can imagine in at least 3 different ways.

In exchange, 4E does not require extensive rules knowledge to be effective. does not require many many splatbooks and does not have a ton of balance issues.

Balance and Ease of Use vs. Freedom and Options

I pick Freedom, but it's basically a matter of opinion.
However, it is by no means a minor issue. I find a major difference int he systems, those who did not optimize heavily may not notice this though.

Xyk
2009-02-19, 10:36 PM
I agree with you for the most part, Poet. I would compare the difference between 4e and 3e as about the same as movie popcorn and kettle corn. I personally prefer movie corn but others prefer kettle.


Extended Metaphor. You should read it, I think it's clever.
They are pretty similar in texture, look, and chemicals, but the taste is definitely different. I, personally, like a good greasy movie popcorn, but many people find it greasy and hard to get ahold of, not to mention expensive. Kettle corn is a little too simple for me, but it's contents are more easily understood and it is more of a balanced snack.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-19, 11:21 PM
Low and Behold, I could play a DMM Fell-Drain Based Cleric (or Cloistered Cleric)
or a Dread Necromancer or a Focused Specalist Necromancer Wizard.

Is it fair to compare 5 years+ years to 1-2 years?
I mean, wait 3 more years and it will be more fair.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-02-19, 11:25 PM
Balance and Ease of Use vs. Freedom and Options

I pick Freedom, but it's basically a matter of opinion.
However, it is by no means a minor issue. I find a major difference int he systems, those who did not optimize heavily may not notice this though.
For the sake of clarity: I should point out that what most people mean by freedom isn't what they think it is. What is usually meant by this is that the person likes more options, or at least the illusion that there are more options.

"Freedom" is just an empty bit of rhetoric to cover that fact up.

In terms of the edition wars:
4e has ease of use because that makes games much easier to plan for the DM. On the side of the player, this means the game they're playing isn't "build the character" for hours-on-end.

I could say that this is "True Freedom" but that would be asinine and unfair.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-02-20, 12:23 AM
There are at least 3 people in this thread that are giving me strong desires to kill them. However you do that through the internet. I need one of these. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/8/1/)

Originally I was going to go with the old suggestion that a thread be stickied for people to argue the their opinions on the 4E vs. 3E subject, but I fear I would loose my sanity if it ever came to be.

cupkeyk
2009-02-20, 12:58 AM
Threats? This is so gonna get locked. LOLz

monty
2009-02-20, 01:20 AM
There are at least 3 people in this thread that are giving me strong desires to kill them.

Assuming you're not exaggerating, I recommend seeking psychiatric help.

Repeat after me: It's only a game. Well, maybe two games, depending on how you look at it, but my point stands.

The Glyphstone
2009-02-20, 02:12 AM
Obviously, since Miko is a 3.5 Monk, she will be overpowered in a duel with Vaarsuvius after s/he converts to 4.0 Wizard. But that's okay, because we should be focusing on the RP, not the balance between editions.

I need to go fight a zombie now. If any of my suicidial friends call, tell them I'm busy.

Totally Guy
2009-02-20, 02:33 AM
I would compare the difference between 4e and 3e as about the same as movie popcorn and kettle corn. I personally prefer movie corn but others prefer kettle.

What's kettle popcorn?

I'm confused. Since when has movie popcorn been greasy? Sticky perhaps, but never greasy.

Must be different where you are.

Cainen
2009-02-20, 02:36 AM
What's kettle popcorn?

It's popcorn with a coating of sugar on it.

FatR
2009-02-20, 04:59 AM
...
...
:smallsigh:
Please refrain from trolling/trollbaiting, especially without concrete evidence. Too many people have already been banned because of loudmouthed edition flaming. 4E is not significantly more or less like that than the previous editions were.
Stating facts is not trollbaiting.

Tengu_temp
2009-02-20, 05:19 AM
It's popcorn with a coating of sugar on it.

Eew, that sounds nasty.


Stating facts is not trollbaiting.

You're not stating facts, you're stating highly inaccurate opinions:

1. I've yet to see a 4e combat that lasts longer than 8 rounds (48 seconds), and for it to be that high the last several rounds are players mopping up the surviving enemies after they've already won.
2. Positioning and movement are very important elements of 4e tactics. That's as far from "head-on attack" as possible.
3. Wizards are specialized for damaging multiple enemies at once - which is exactly one of the things you're complaining they're not able to do anymore.

FatR
2009-02-20, 05:32 AM
In terms of the edition wars:
4e has ease of use because that makes games much easier to plan for the DM.
That depends on whether making interesting games is important for DM. If yes, he needs to painstakingly plan all encounters, because just taking stuff from MM and throwing at players results in too many padded sumo matches. IMO, this more than compensates for mechanically complicated spellcasters , although I admit that I'm biased, thanks to lots experience with 2E/3.X magic systems. But there is also a fact, that 4E does not have anything remotely close to the hoard of quality adventures available for 3.X, and will not have in foreseeable future, if 4E adventures for Wizards we have seen so far are any indication.


On the side of the player, this means the game they're playing isn't "build the character" for hours-on-end.
That depends on whether keeping up with the rest of the party is important for player. OK, there is less supplement-searching yet. But that's because there is less supplements.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-20, 05:51 AM
Eew, that sounds nasty.

Lies! Have you never had caramel popcorn? :smallfurious:

I declare a Popcorn War! For great justice!

Also: Kettle Corn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_corn), for your edification. :smallamused:

FatR
2009-02-20, 05:53 AM
You're not stating facts, you're stating highly inaccurate opinions:
How can my opinions be inaccurate? Because they are declared such by Thought Police? But, anyway, I'll refrain from stating my opinions on 4E, instead of discussing its observable qualities.


1. I've yet to see a 4e combat that lasts longer than 8 rounds (48 seconds), and for it to be that high the last several rounds are players mopping up the surviving enemies after they've already won.
Good for you. I've yet to see a 4e combat that lasts shorter, curbstopm battles against much inferior enemies nonwithstanding. Also, if characters, you know, duel, as was mentioned in my post, this lasts forever, unless one stunlocks other. By contrast, in 3.X one side usually wipes another in 3 rounds, unless there are waves of enemies or someone plays for stalling.


2. Positioning and movement are very important elements of 4e tactics. That's as far from "head-on attack" as possible.
Are you talking about raining death with long-range attacks while keeping your distance, which completely breaks the game unless combatants are confined to a very small map, because practically no monster can counter that? Unless you do this or juggling, you walk up to the enemy (that's called "head-on attack", you know) and try to gangbang the weakest link in the enemy team, while the enemy does the same to you.


3. Wizards are specialized for damaging multiple enemies at once - which is exactly one of the things you're complaining they're not able to do anymore.
Which one of their powers allows them to damage several dozens of enemies at once (as I said in my post), again? Anyway, wizards are specialized in throwing no-more-save-you-lose stuff (aka juggling) and auto-hitting. Damaging multiple enemies is kind of a crutch to use, while they wait for good stuff that comes at 2nd tier.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-20, 05:58 AM
Is it fair to compare 5 years+ years to 1-2 years?
I mean, wait 3 more years and it will be more fair.
Well, off the top of my head, just out of the 3E player's handbook you can play two different flavors of necromancer (cleric-based and wizard-based) neither of which is feasible from the 4E PHB. I can think of numerous other character concepts that are supported out-of-the-box in earlier editions, but that require a splatbook in 4E, or that might appear in future splatbooks.

So yes, it is fair to compare 3E PHB to 4E PHB, and note that there are several archetypes and concepts not found in the latter.

DM Raven
2009-02-20, 06:01 AM
And I completely fail to see how people can spot any differences between Heroes and the X-Files.

They were both horribly over-hyped shows that weren't/aren't all that good. We just have to wait and see if Heroes ends as badly as X-Files did. ;p

I like both editions for different reasons and I think both have their share of flaws. And I agree, the edition wars must stop. Can't we all just get along?!

arguskos
2009-02-20, 06:14 AM
And I agree, the edition wars must stop. Can't we all just get along?!
Good sir, this is the INTERNET, there can be no agreement!! :smallwink:

Also, vaguely on-topic: meh. I don't like 4e, not my cup of tea. I tried a few games of it, didn't like it, walked away. I'll stick to other games, like 3.5, 1e, etc. Preference ftw!

Tengu_temp
2009-02-20, 08:47 AM
How can my opinions be inaccurate? Because they are declared such by Thought Police? But, anyway, I'll refrain from stating my opinions on 4E, instead of discussing its observable qualities.


Opinions can be inaccurate if they are clearly not rooted in reality, but misconceptions.


Good for you. I've yet to see a 4e combat that lasts shorter, curbstopm battles against much inferior enemies nonwithstanding. Also, if characters, you know, duel, as was mentioned in my post, this lasts forever, unless one stunlocks other. By contrast, in 3.X one side usually wipes another in 3 rounds, unless there are waves of enemies or someone plays for stalling.


Maybe your groups had bad luck with dice rolls, or refrained from using encounter/daily powers and action points for some weird reasons? The fights I've experienced were against challenging enemies as well. As for duels, are we talking about duels between player characters, or player vs monster/NPC? In either case, "minutes without hurting each other" is extreme exagerration - the chance of hitting an oponent of roughly the same level should oscilate around 50%, and characters who aren't leaders have very limited self-healing capabilities.


Are you talking about raining death with long-range attacks while keeping your distance, which completely breaks the game unless combatants are confined to a very small map, because practically no monster can counter that? Unless you do this or juggling, you walk up to the enemy (that's called "head-on attack", you know) and try to gangbang the weakest link in the enemy team, while the enemy does the same to you.


I'm talking about varied tactics - sometimes players went melee and concentrated on flanking opponents, sometimes they stood away and attacked from distance, someone they used the terrain to their advantage by creating choke points.


Which one of their powers allows them to damage several dozens of enemies at once (as I said in my post), again? Anyway, wizards are specialized in throwing no-more-save-you-lose stuff (aka juggling) and auto-hitting. Damaging multiple enemies is kind of a crutch to use, while they wait for good stuff that comes at 2nd tier.

Several dozens? Any power that's a Blast 5 or more, or Burst 2 or more - if enemies are huddled together, you can hit even 25 of them with a fireball, and there are powers with area of Blast 7, allowing you to attack 49 enemies at once.
And no, damaging multiple enemies is not a crutch - one of the Controller's jobs is quick and efficient disposal of minions.

Little_Rudo
2009-02-20, 09:16 AM
In 4E, humans are nice but not great, and it seems that pretty much every build has one race that is best at it, which in almost no case so far is the human.

Just to elaborate on this, while 4E Human's generally aren't considered the best at any given class, they're a viable choice for almost any class (the +1 to non-AC defenses, the extra trained skill and bonus feat are always useful, and the extra at-will power will be increasing useful once Arcane/Divine Power are released) and in some cases are extremely good choices. For instance, both rogues and wizards benefit greatly from the extra at-will, since their at-will powers tick off the same ability scores and are very diverse.

There's almost always a race that really works best for a given class, most often due to ability score bonus synergy. It's hard to beat the +Str/Cha Dragonborn for a Cha-Paladin, a +Dex/Cha Halfling for an Artful Dodger Rogue or a +Dex/Int Eladrin for a Wizard (especially a Wand Wizard). However, Human's are still strong contenders, and not being the best at something hardly means they aren't powerful. :) Just my two cents.

Oslecamo
2009-02-20, 09:39 AM
And no, damaging multiple enemies is not a crutch - one of the Controller's jobs is quick and efficient disposal of minions.

That's everybody's job. From the fighter's cleave to the warlock's curse auto hit, passing trough TWF rangers and even the cleric gets area nukes. Heck, probably only the rogue and paladin aren't able to do it well, but then you just play a dragonrborn and go to town with your breath weapon.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-20, 09:46 AM
Just to elaborate on this, while 4E Human's generally aren't considered the best at any given class, they're a viable choice for almost any class
Sure, but my point is that they're certainly not overpowered. Pretty much every race is viable for every class. However...


(the +1 to non-AC defenses, the extra trained skill and bonus feat are always useful, and the extra at-will power will be increasing useful once Arcane/Divine Power are released)
Perhaps surprisingly, they're not. +1 to those defenses is primarily useful if you intend to get hit a lot (i.e. defender role). Extra trained skill is only useful if your class has sufficient useful skills on its list that match your ability scores (which several classes don't). Extra feat is nice but feats are intentionally low-powered in 4E. Extra power is actually not very useful for most classes/builds, and becomes progressively less useful as your character levels and gains more encounter abilities.


For instance, both rogues and wizards benefit greatly from the extra at-will, since their at-will powers tick off the same ability scores and are very diverse.
See, the point is that at-wills are almost always weaker than encounter powers, and certainy weaker than dailies. A moderate heroic character has 2 encounter powers, 2 dailies, an utility that could be either, and magical items. That means that at-wills are generally at the bottom of your "list of stuff to do in your round". Tacking a third at-will at the bottom of those other two doesn't help all that much.

For instance, when not using encounter/daily powers, my rogue uses riposte strike a lot for the mind games, and deft strike for the movement bonus. Whether he would have had piercing strike is irrelevant, because the situation never comes up.

The point is not that a third at-will is bad, the point is that it will rarely come up - and it has to compete against Fey Step, Elven Reroll, and Dwarven Resilience, which do come up nearly every encounter.

Cainen
2009-02-20, 09:50 AM
Eew, that sounds nasty.

It's actually quite good, though it's absolutely nothing like buttered popcorn or plain popcorn.

Tengu_temp
2009-02-20, 10:00 AM
That's everybody's job. From the fighter's cleave to the warlock's curse auto hit, passing trough TWF rangers and even the cleric gets area nukes. Heck, probably only the rogue and paladin aren't able to do it well, but then you just play a dragonrborn and go to town with your breath weapon.

My point is that area of effect damage powers are an important part of 4e, because that way you kill several minions at once instead of wasting higher damage attacks to take them down one by one each turn instead of damaging the tougher opponents. And while most classes have some aoe powers, controllers have the most.


It's actually quite good, though it's absolutely nothing like buttered popcorn or plain popcorn.

Does it taste similarily to candy corn? If so, then I stand by my statement - do not want.

Cainen
2009-02-20, 10:11 AM
Does it taste similarily to candy corn? If so, then I stand by my statement - do not want.

Not even close. It's not saturated with sugar - it's more like a very fine coat of it.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-20, 10:22 AM
Does it taste similarily to candy corn? If so, then I stand by my statement - do not want.

Hey I ship for Candy Corn! You should want because candy corn rocks. Your taste buds are wrong!

Artanis
2009-02-20, 11:01 AM
That's everybody's job. From the fighter's cleave to the warlock's curse auto hit, passing trough TWF rangers and even the cleric gets area nukes. Heck, probably only the rogue and paladin aren't able to do it well, but then you just play a dragonrborn and go to town with your breath weapon.
It's not just "multiple" enemies, but "LOTS" of enemies. Rangers are very, very good at taking down two targets. Five? Not so much. And Wizards do it with at-wills, other classes generally have to blow an Encounter - or even Daily - to do it.

It's like raw damage output that way: it's everybody's job to hurt things, and everybody is at least decent at it (well, except the Swordmage, but I digress). Even guys like the Paladin can dish out some serious hurt at times. But the only thing that can match the raw damage output of a primary Striker is a half-Striker that specifically builds itself to do so, throwing away a lot of its primary role in the process. Something like a Paladin isn't going to keep up with a Ranger or Rogue or whatever for very long.

In theory, at any rate.

alchemyprime
2009-02-20, 11:16 AM
For me, the only thing wrong with 4e is that it's too new to have six hundred sourcebooks. I'm an option whore. Always have been. I can't be happy with a character unless I use at least three books OTHER than the PHB making it. For me, that's a huge part of the allure, just burying yourself in source material and coming up with something unique and fun. The mechanics themselves are fine... some details are good, some are less good, but it's a solid system. I just can't see myself choosing it over 3.5 until there's enough sourcebooks to build a coffee table out of.

I, too, am an option whore. Looking at my old 3e spreadsheet, I had so many prestige classes I gave up listing them, and my classes numbered well into the hundreds. 4e: including homebrews and thirdparties, we have a measily 50 so far. Dang. Not enough!

So yeah. Option whore. I like that.

KISKIF: Keep it simple keep it fun
MIPMIF: Make it possible, make it fun.

:smalltongue:

Oslecamo
2009-02-20, 11:33 AM
It's not just "multiple" enemies, but "LOTS" of enemies. Rangers are very, very good at taking down two targets. Five? Not so much. And Wizards do it with at-wills, other classes generally have to blow an Encounter - or even Daily - to do it.

This is 4e. In what situation are you ever gonna face "LOTS" of enemies? 20 at best, and then it's an all minion ecounter wich is a piece of cake to defeat, wizard or no wizard in the party. Even if the ranger/fighter/cleric have to blow up an ecounter power to wipe out those minions, it could as well be an at-will power, since the ecounter will end right there.



In theory, at any rate.
Both the fighter and cleric can dish out some sick damage whitout sacrificing their primary roles too much, to the point a party with them can perfectly dispense strikers and do just fine in the damage department. After all, you don't need to lead/defend your party if the enemies are already dead right?

krossbow
2009-02-20, 11:52 AM
Unless 4th edition lets me put the party fighter on a floating magical disk, raise him 300 feet into the air, then use bigby's hand to bullrush him from the back straight down at the roof of a unscalable tower encased in an anti-magic zone with a readied action to sunder the roof, all on the basis of "he's a big guy, he should survive... probably", it just won't live up to some of the memory's I have of 3rd edition.

eepop
2009-02-20, 12:08 PM
Despite generally being a 4e proponent, I will admit that classes seem to be 75% done until they get their "power" book. Afterward they seem to be about 150% to 200% "complete".

So what you can do with necromancers in 4E is a bit limited at this time, as their main entry points (Cleric & Wizard) are only about 75% complete at this point.

All that said, I have made a passable necromancer in 4E with the following:
-Cleric with powers re-flavored (here's level 10 as an example)
--Powers
---At Will - Sacred Flame (Drain Life) and Lance of Faith (Bone Spear)
---Encounter - Cause Fear, Command (Mind Melt), Break the Spirit (Curse of Abdul Zun)
---Daily - 1) Guardian of Faith (Summon Zombie), 5) Spiritual Weapon (Summon Ghost), 9) Astral Defenders (Summon Skeletons) or Blade Barrier (Bone Wall)
---Utility - Shield of Faith (Bone Shield), Bastion of Health*, Knights of Unyielding Valor (Grasping Hands of the Damned)


* This level could use a better choice (the 75% thing), but multiclassing into warlock to swap in Shroud of Black Steel for a "Shapeshift into an undead" type power.


Wizard as a necromancer is a little underwhelming at the moment, but it should be in fine form once we get summons from Arcane power.

A ranger that gets a pet and uses a ranged weapon could make a pretty good necromancer as well. Re-flavor the pet as an undead, and the ranged weapon as "magical" attacks instead of mundane.

Shaman seems like it would work relatively well, but would need to see the full class to be sure.

There have also been hints of a "Shadow" power source, and since the Shadowfel is the home to many undead, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see an actual necromancer class in 2010 or so.

Draz74
2009-02-20, 12:16 PM
So yes, it is fair to compare 3E PHB to 4E PHB, and note that there are several archetypes and concepts not found in the latter.

In fairness, that goes both directions.

You can't make as good of a Swashbuckler out of the 3e PHB as you can by making an Artful Dodger Rogue with Rapier proficiency.

In order to make a proper equivalent to the 4e Warlord, 3e had to wait all the way until ToB brought the White Raven discipline. (The Marshal tried, but was definitely underwhelming.)

I think the 3e PHB still wins this contest overall, if only because its Clerics actually were different depending on the deity they served. But it's not entirely one-sided.

Neithan
2009-02-20, 12:22 PM
The biggest problem I have with 4th Edition is, that the books do everything they can to pull my out of thinking inside the Game world, while reading it.
Every page the books remind me constantly, that this is a game of numbers with item slots, per encounter abilities, and so on. It might not be a problem for other people, but when books are written like that, I have trouble to think of the game as a story in a "real-like" world and not as a, excuse the term, video game with the graphics turned off.

Maybe the rules are decent, but it's no use when the books constantly try to get my out from thinking how things happen in a supposedly real world.

Oslecamo
2009-02-20, 12:24 PM
You can't make as good of a Swashbuckler out of the 3e PHB as you can by making an Artful Dodger Rogue with Rapier proficiency.


Rogue 16/fighter 4 makes one good dexterity based frontline warrior with core only. Rapier in one hand, shortsword on the other, that's how real fantasy swashubucklers fight.



In order to make a proper equivalent to the 4e Warlord, 3e had to wait all the way until ToB brought the White Raven discipline. (The Marshal tried, but was definitely underwhelming.)


Build a bard. Get ranks in perform:speech. Buff the party while fighting in the frontline. Do a little bit of healing and control. There's your 3e warlord.

Crossfiyah
2009-02-20, 12:26 PM
For people saying there's nothing "new" in the source books, the amount of variety of Epic Destinies alone makes Martial Power worth it. There is absolutely nothing like Adamantine Soldier, Legendary General, or undying Warrior in the PHB.

Thurbane
2009-02-20, 04:46 PM
1. I've yet to see a 4e combat that lasts longer than 8 rounds (48 seconds), and for it to be that high the last several rounds are players mopping up the surviving enemies after they've already won.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Tengu_temp
2009-02-20, 05:05 PM
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

A good thing - faster combat is almost always better.

Thurbane
2009-02-20, 05:18 PM
A good thing - faster combat is almost always better.
Well, I can agree with that - but if the fight is over too quickly, isn't it a little disappointing? Not that every fight needs to be an epic (sometimes you just wanna wail on some mooks), but some of my most memorable gaming sessions involved long, drawn out "beat-em-down" battles.

For instance, we're currently playing EttRoG, and the session before last we had a big battle with some hill giants, orc barbarians, goblin rogues and a 1/2 orc sorcerer. It took almost 1/2 the session - and while I would normally be a little frustrated that we took that long on one battle, the feeling of it being an epic battle was very enjoyable.

I guess you can have that in any edition, though. Like I said before, my 4E experience is very limited. I suppose my question is: does 4E easily lend itself to these kind of fights?

Tengu_temp
2009-02-20, 05:23 PM
Well, I can agree with that - but if the fight is over too quickly, isn't it a little disappointing? Not that every fight needs to be an epic (sometimes you just wanna wail on some mooks), but some of my most memorable gaming sessions involved long, drawn out "beat-em-down" battles.


While it's true that a curb stomp battle that ends in 1-2 rounds would be rather disappointing, I've yet to see it happen in 4e - the majority of fights I've seen went for 4-6 rounds, which feels neither too long nor too short.

Izmir Stinger
2009-02-20, 05:26 PM
Unless 4th edition lets me put the party fighter on a floating magical disk, raise him 300 feet into the air, then use bigby's hand to bullrush him from the back straight down at the roof of a unscalable tower encased in an anti-magic zone with a readied action to sunder the roof, all on the basis of "he's a big guy, he should survive... probably", it just won't live up to some of the memory's I have of 3rd edition.

That's not the kind of thing that any "edition" facilitates. That's the kind of thing a creative and adaptable DM facilitates. Mechanics exist in both systems for flying, telekinetic pushing, breaking walls, and severely damaging suicidal fighters. Its a matter of the DM creatively coming up with appropriate bonuses, DCs and damage rolls for such a circumstance should the players come up with it. If your DM says "No, that's stupid, you can't do that," you have a bad DM, not a bad ruleset.

Artanis
2009-02-20, 05:43 PM
This is 4e. In what situation are you ever gonna face "LOTS" of enemies? 20 at best, and then it's an all minion ecounter wich is a piece of cake to defeat, wizard or no wizard in the party. Even if the ranger/fighter/cleric have to blow up an ecounter power to wipe out those minions, it could as well be an at-will power, since the ecounter will end right there.
We obviously have different definitions of "lots" then, because 20 sounds like a whole metric assload to me :smallwink:




Both the fighter and cleric can dish out some sick damage whitout sacrificing their primary roles too much, to the point a party with them can perfectly dispense strikers and do just fine in the damage department. After all, you don't need to lead/defend your party if the enemies are already dead right?
Hence, "in theory".

The New Bruceski
2009-02-20, 05:56 PM
Rogue 16/fighter 4 makes one good dexterity based frontline warrior with core only. Rapier in one hand, shortsword on the other, that's how real fantasy swashubucklers fight.

And at level 1?

TheEmerged
2009-02-20, 06:07 PM
RE: Length of combat. When level appropriate, they've been last 3-5 on average for us.

RE: the different mechanics. Just because we haven't seen different mechanics yet doesn't mean they can't/won't exist. Somebody posted a Psion variant on these boards that used power points instead of encounter/daily powers, for example. I've already seen one attempt (a failed one, unfortunately) to recreate a magic system akin to the one from Sovereign Stone (where casting spells takes rounds).

My own psionic class work (telepath, soulknife, egoist, shaper) is taking so long at least in part because I'm trying to find balanced ways to give them a larger selection of more situational powers during encounters. There's already a smattering of this in-game (reference: Channel Divinity). An unofficial challenge I've given myself is making each of them feel different mechanically. My major hurdle has been commitment (versus the real world), not mechanical.

Characters in 4th Edition use powers. Most of them are limited by being at will, versus encounter, versus daily. That does not mean this is all that can be.

RE: The 3rd at-will for human and half-elf races. At first level, this looks like a huge advantage. By the time we hit 5th level, at-wills are primarily being used late in combat or when there's a specific use for them. The cleric jokes that he uses Sacred Flame more than all his other powers combined, for example.

Further *right now* most of the classes are pretty narrow in their selection of at-wills, so the half-elf version is usually more useful than the human version.

PinkysBrain
2009-02-20, 06:08 PM
Rogue 1 and an extra large pizza to bribe the DM to remove the BAB requirement on weapon finesse.

Zeful
2009-02-20, 06:16 PM
Rogue 1 and an extra large pizza to bribe the DM to remove the BAB requirement on weapon finesse.

The DM changing the rule has no basis on the rule itself.

Oslecamo
2009-02-20, 06:19 PM
We obviously have different definitions of "lots" then, because 20 sounds like a whole metric assload to me :smallwink:


When you've fighted gnoll armies on the range of hundreds in a single ecounter in 3e, twenty kobolds don't really sound that much. :smalltongue:

Myatar_Panwar
2009-02-20, 06:38 PM
Threats? This is so gonna get locked. LOLz


Assuming you're not exaggerating, I recommend seeking psychiatric help.

Repeat after me: It's only a game. Well, maybe two games, depending on how you look at it, but my point stands.

I was indeed joking (not sure why I would have to say this... thought it was obvious), but some of these comments are nothing more than trolling and just outright wrong. I like both editions, and I find the just plain false comments on both ends both hilarious and infuriating at the same time.

monty
2009-02-20, 06:44 PM
I was indeed joking (not sure why I would have to say this... thought it was obvious), but some of these comments are nothing more than trolling and just outright wrong. I like both editions, and I find the just plain false comments on both ends both hilarious and infuriating at the same time.

This forum needs the sarcasm font (http://glennmcanally.com/sarcastic/). It's hard to convey emotion over the Internet, and I've seen people post things like that who seemed to be serious about it (for example, on another forum, there was a discussion about a certain group of people, and one person was loudly advocating killing them all).

Kantolin
2009-02-20, 06:55 PM
Rogue 1 and an extra large pizza to bribe the DM to remove the BAB requirement on weapon finesse.

Personally, for level 1, it depends on which you find more focal: The skills, or the rapier.

In my opinion, the focus is on the rapier-stabbing, so I'd go fighter 1 with finesse.

On a slightly different topic, almost all the 4e battles I've been in have lasted for ages... but that doesn't bug me so much. The part that does frustrate me about it is that in the vast majority of those battles, the battle was functionally over half or a third of the way through it, and the remainder was slightly romanticized mop-up duty. Things just have eighty gazillion hit points.

Then again, we (Er, most of the times I played) don't put any attention to optimization, so maybe that had something to do with it.

Aaron L
2009-02-20, 09:01 PM
4E is just so... restricting! If you are a certain class, you HAVE to play that class a certain way, you MUST fulfill the role in the party that the class was made for, and you simply CANNOT play a class in a way it wasn't intended to be played or you will be completely useless.

In other words, classes are so straight-jacketed that it completely destroys the game for me. Going from the adaptability of 3.5E, where you could make a Wizard into a Tank with the right feats and spells if you wanted, to the strict "play your class role the way WE say or you are useless" of 4E is maddening to me. And the multi-classing is a complete joke. The game has completely abandoned the idea of being a simulation of fantasy stories ad become a damn board game where "Only Fighters can do this, Wizards can ONLY do these things, and Rangers have to run around sniping."

I despise the 4E concept of "class roles." I don't want my class to determine my role! I want to be able to make a battle Cleric who kicks ass s much as the Fighter and can stand toe-to-toe with the enemy without it being necessary to have a Fighter beside me to protect me.

Every way I look at it, all I can see is the GAME. There is NO transparency for me. It is all mechanics that I can't see past to the story. It is a VERY WELL designed GAME, but it's become so much of GAME that it has forgotten it's roots as a simulation of fantasy stories. D&D used to be rules for simulating fantasy stories and myths and legends. Now it's a set of miniatures skirmish battle rules.

And the hard limit on levels? You hit 30 an just POOF, the character is over? I do not like closed systems. Even if in actuality no one ever gets to 100th level, want the ABILITY to get there. I ant an open ended system. Putting a hard limit on levels, where you become immortal or demigod or a king and therefore unplayable anymore is anathema to me. I've played kings in D&D, I've played demi-gods in D&D.


But it isn't any one of the things that I mentioned that makes me dislike 4E so much. It is all of them lumped together. AFter the wonderful adaptability of 3E, where I could make my character anything I wanted, emulate any type of character I had read about, going to the 4E method of "here is your party role, you fill it and can't do anything else" is simple disgusting.


My apologies for venting. I'm just extremely frustrated with what the game has become. I'd rather pay 1E than 4E. At least in 1E the straight-jacketing is out in the open and isn't hidden behind false options and fake adaptability.


My DM (whom I've been gaming with for 14 years and was best friends with, playing 1E until 3E came out) switched to 4E and said he would ever play 3E again, so I tried 4e from the day it came out until the end of October, and then I just quit. I couldn't take it anymore. I'd rather not play at all than play 4E. And boy, did the DM get angry. But he said he wouldn't even play in MY game that I was keeping 3E; it was his way or the highway.

So I took the highway.

But now I'm going crazy having nothing to play and no one to talk to anymore. Arrggghhh. :smallfurious:

Myatar_Panwar
2009-02-20, 09:20 PM
Although your DM is being silly, I find many of your comments equally silly.

Especially the part about multi-classing being a Joke, since its the way you would achieve alot of the flexibility you are talking about. I don't want to get into it, as I already have in the past, and I doubt it would change your mind.

Edit: Actually one more thing. You say you don't want your class to dictate your role. Heres a freaking thought. Don't LET your class dictate your role. For peats sake people, fluff is your own and if you are letting the NAME of a class determine all of your mental imagery, then you are doing it wrong so hard its not even funny.

Thurbane
2009-02-20, 10:36 PM
This forum needs the sarcasm font (http://glennmcanally.com/sarcastic/). It's hard to convey emotion over the Internet, and I've seen people post things like that who seemed to be serious about it (for example, on another forum, there was a discussion about a certain group of people, and one person was loudly advocating killing them all).
I usually find [ s a r c a s m] tags to be adequate, but I am intrigued by the concept of this font.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-20, 10:38 PM
This forum needs the sarcasm font (http://glennmcanally.com/sarcastic/). It's hard to convey emotion over the Internet, and I've seen people post things like that who seemed to be serious about it (for example, on another forum, there was a discussion about a certain group of people, and one person was loudly advocating killing them all).

I'd add it if he was finished.

Thane of Fife
2009-02-20, 11:09 PM
To those saying that a 4e rogue makes a good swashbuckler:

What is it that makes it so? (I'm not being snippy - I'm genuinely curious). As far as I'm aware, the 4e rogue is a striker, which basically means dealer of lots of damage.

And that's about as far from my mental image of swashbuckler as it's possible to get without entering spell-slinger territory. If anything, I'd say that a swashbuckler is a defender, pure and simple. I can't for example, imagine a swashbuckler rushing through enemy lines to stab an enemy wizard, but I can totally see him interposing himself between a young lass and a horde of orcs, risking his life to protect her (or her life to protect him, in the case of a female swashbuckler protecting a young lad).

Is it entirely because the rogue wears little armor and uses a rapier?

Jokes
2009-02-20, 11:16 PM
Going from the adaptability of 3.5E, where you could make a Wizard into a Tank with the right feats and spells if you wanted, to the strict "play your class role the way WE say or you are useless" of 4E is maddening to me.


Hmm, a melee wizard? Start with Shadar-kai and go with Staff Mastery and take Reapers Touch (Dragon 372) to make magic missile a close touch power (and melee basic), take thunderwave as your other at will and focus on Close powers (no Close dailies yet, though :smallfrown:). Take armour proficiency up to Hide, and by level 11 with +3 Earthide armour and a Defensive Staff +2, your AC should be around 28, comparable to a big weapon paladin of the same level.

The reason we can't do all the fun things yet is because there aren't enough sources to support them.

Draz74
2009-02-20, 11:29 PM
I can't for example, imagine a swashbuckler rushing through enemy lines to stab an enemy wizard,

Really? :smallconfused: Methinks you need to watch Pirates of the Caribbean some more. Or Zorro. I guess I'm not the most informed on old Errol Flynn stuff, but I think it's a similarly mobile, striker-ish style.

The hold-off-the-horde element is definitely in the archetype too. Most of the Swashbucklers in The Princess Bride, for example, don't go in much for the sneaky sudden-attack-lots-of-damage style. But still, the rogue at least does some things right.


Is it entirely because the rogue wears little armor and uses a rapier?

Also because he has social skills, acrobatic skills, and powers that actually use Charisma in a melee. (Something the 3e Swashbuckler class was very sadly lacking.)

Myatar_Panwar
2009-02-20, 11:33 PM
To those saying that a 4e rogue makes a good swashbuckler:

What is it that makes it so? (I'm not being snippy - I'm genuinely curious). As far as I'm aware, the 4e rogue is a striker, which basically means dealer of lots of damage.

And that's about as far from my mental image of swashbuckler as it's possible to get without entering spell-slinger territory. If anything, I'd say that a swashbuckler is a defender, pure and simple. I can't for example, imagine a swashbuckler rushing through enemy lines to stab an enemy wizard, but I can totally see him interposing himself between a young lass and a horde of orcs, risking his life to protect her (or her life to protect him, in the case of a female swashbuckler protecting a young lad).

Is it entirely because the rogue wears little armor and uses a rapier?

You don't always have to take just plain "deal Xd6 damage and thats it" powers. The rogue actually has quite a few powers which focus on moving about quickly and such.

In fact, I don't really know what you are looking for in a swashbuckler. When I think of one, I think of a fighter who uses finesse and charisma to trick and defeat his foes. Much like Elan likes to think he does in the comics.

The rogue in 4e has a whole array of abilities which complement this.

Thurbane
2009-02-21, 01:42 AM
In fact, I don't really know what you are looking for in a swashbuckler.
http://i41.tinypic.com/30l2agp.jpg

Kurald Galain
2009-02-21, 03:19 AM
Also because he has social skills, acrobatic skills, and powers that actually use Charisma in a melee. (Something the 3e Swashbuckler class was very sadly lacking.)

But here, "use charisma in melee" is defined as "people who can't see you find you nevertheless so cool that they find it harder to attack you". The rogue isn't really using charisma in melee, the rogue is applying Ability Score #6 to his Type-One attacks.

Tengu_temp
2009-02-21, 03:29 AM
Heavily refluffed swordmages make great swashbucklers and fit the defender role.

FatR
2009-02-21, 06:13 AM
Opinions can be inaccurate if they are clearly not rooted in reality, but misconceptions.
Then mine aren't. Because that's my reality of 4E.


Maybe your groups had bad luck with dice rolls, or refrained from using encounter/daily powers and action points for some weird reasons? The fights I've experienced were against challenging enemies as well. As for duels, are we talking about duels between player characters, or player vs monster/NPC? In either case, "minutes without hurting each other" is extreme exagerration - the chance of hitting an oponent of roughly the same level should oscilate around 50%, and characters who aren't leaders have very limited self-healing capabilities.
Yet they can't fight for minutes without hurting each other, because HP damage is explicitly described as unrelated to actual wounds in 4E. 3.X characters are like characters from One Piece that can remain standing after being repeatedly shot, blown away by explosions and hit by an object that weights a ton. 4E characters are like characters from action movies, that can get dirty, bruised, but rarely, if ever, take actual wounds. Obviously, the former suits deliberately high-powered games more than the latter.


I'm talking about varied tactics - sometimes players went melee and concentrated on flanking opponents, sometimes they stood away and attacked from distance, someone they used the terrain to their advantage by creating choke points.
Is this what you consider "varied"? In 3.X you can do all of that (except standing away and using ranged actually works and does not break the game in the process, and some classes can manipulate the terrain by yourself - although at low level even fighters manage to do that with items and stuff) and also ambushes, baiting and battlefield control, if we talk about things that non-casting characters did in the games I ran/played. Use casters and the variety of options increases greatly. Although I admit, that most non-caster options lose validity at high levels, but, well, that's because everyone there is too powerful for mundane tactics and "greatly reducing the game's power level" is not a solution that I appreciate.


Several dozens? Any power that's a Blast 5 or more, or Burst 2 or more - if enemies are huddled together, you can hit even 25 of them with a fireball, and there are powers with area of Blast 7, allowing you to attack 49 enemies at once.
And no, damaging multiple enemies is not a crutch - one of the Controller's jobs is quick and efficient disposal of minions.
Ooookay, I forgot about freaking square fireballs. Although this still is quite unimpressive compared to 3.X area spells, you got me here. But note, that gathering free XP from minions is included in "auto-hitting" part.

hamishspence
2009-02-21, 06:15 AM
in old teletext 888 subtitles, sarcasm was denoted with (!) for a sarcastic comment and (?) for a sarcastic question- maybe it could be used for talking on net as well?

FatR
2009-02-21, 06:20 AM
In fairness, that goes both directions.

You can't make as good of a Swashbuckler out of the 3e PHB as you can by making an Artful Dodger Rogue with Rapier proficiency.
Except artful dodger rogue is a poor choice for already-underwhelming class. And, as already mentioned, Fighters/Rogues do okay as swashbucklers.

Tengu_temp
2009-02-21, 06:51 AM
Yet they can't fight for minutes without hurting each other, because HP damage is explicitly described as unrelated to actual wounds in 4E. 3.X characters are like characters from One Piece that can remain standing after being repeatedly shot, blown away by explosions and hit by an object that weights a ton. 4E characters are like characters from action movies, that can get dirty, bruised, but rarely, if ever, take actual wounds. Obviously, the former suits deliberately high-powered games more than the latter.


I'd like to point out that 4e characters start taking actual wounds when they get Bloodied.



Is this what you consider "varied"? In 3.X you can do all of that (except standing away and using ranged actually works and does not break the game in the process, and some classes can manipulate the terrain by yourself - although at low level even fighters manage to do that with items and stuff) and also ambushes, baiting and battlefield control, if we talk about things that non-casting characters did in the games I ran/played. Use casters and the variety of options increases greatly. Although I admit, that most non-caster options lose validity at high levels, but, well, that's because everyone there is too powerful for mundane tactics and "greatly reducing the game's power level" is not a solution that I appreciate.


I was talking about tactics that my groups used so far, not all tactics available - what exactly prohibits 4e groups from using ambushes?

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-21, 06:56 AM
I'd like to point out that 4e characters start taking actual wounds when they get Bloodied.



I was talking about tactics that my groups used so far, not all tactics available - what exactly prohibits 4e groups from using ambushes?

Sometimes, 10 minutes casting time silence.

Tengu_temp
2009-02-21, 06:57 AM
Yeah, the long casting time of rituals sucks - it should be 10 times less for most of them, if you ask me.

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-21, 07:25 AM
Yeah, the long casting time of rituals sucks - it should be 10 times less for most of them, if you ask me.

Yeah.. in 3rd edition, some standard action spell should have 3 hour casting time.
In 4th, some ritual should have lesser CT.

Thane of Fife
2009-02-21, 10:09 AM
Really? Methinks you need to watch Pirates of the Caribbean some more. Or Zorro. I guess I'm not the most informed on old Errol Flynn stuff, but I think it's a similarly mobile, striker-ish style.

Right, they are very mobile fighters, but they don't rush out of the tough situations to stab the weak guys! It's not the mobility I'm arguing against, but the striker aspect. My vision of a swashbuckler fight is one which generally takes a long time, and two people with relatively low armor classes and hit points who do large sums of damage does not seem conducive to that.


Also because he has social skills, acrobatic skills, and powers that actually use Charisma in a melee. (Something the 3e Swashbuckler class was very sadly lacking.)

I'll accept the social skills and acrobatic skills, but using Charisma in a melee would be one of those things which I think someone just threw in to make the swashbuckler archetype less sub-optimal. I can't think of any examples whatsoever of a swashbuckler using his charisma in a fight in a movie or story (swashbuckler adversaries, sure - I could totally see Milady seducing the fighter away from his party before shoving a poisoned dagger in his ribs). The closest example I can think of with someone who could possibly be considered a swashbuckler would be Leonardo, in TMNT 3, tricking an enemy mook into holding his swords so that he can slug him.


In fact, I don't really know what you are looking for in a swashbuckler.
Errol Flynn is a good answer.
Thinking about it, I guess my image of a swashbuckler in 4e, from what I know about it, would be a defender who wears relatively little armor, and who engages multiple adversaries and then somehow controls the movement of those whom he's fighting. And he'd probably need powers that give him an AC boost, or something.

Tengu_temp
2009-02-21, 10:12 AM
Thinking about it, I guess my image of a swashbuckler in 4e, from what I know about it, would be a defender who wears relatively little armor, and who engages multiple adversaries and then somehow controls the movement of those whom he's fighting. And he'd probably need powers that give him an AC boost, or something.

I repeat, you want a Swordmage, most probably refluffed to get rid of all the magic elements.

Cainen
2009-02-21, 11:06 AM
I repeat, you want a Swordmage, most probably refluffed to get rid of all the magic elements.

Not just refluffed, but retrofitted. The stats don't do it for a Swashbuckler.

Artanis
2009-02-21, 11:13 AM
But here, "use charisma in melee" is defined as "people who can't see you find you nevertheless so cool that they find it harder to attack you". The rogue isn't really using charisma in melee, the rogue is applying Ability Score #6 to his Type-One attacks.
If you want to look at things that way, then this sort of statement can apply to any ability in any edition of any RPG in history.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-21, 12:04 PM
If you want to look at things that way, then this sort of statement can apply to any ability in any edition of any RPG in history.

That is incorrect.

The reason is that (unlike every other RPG) D&D4 is full of rules that cannot be explained from an in-world perspective.

Tengu_temp
2009-02-21, 12:13 PM
Not just refluffed, but retrofitted. The stats don't do it for a Swashbuckler.

I'd say they fit pretty well - Swordmages need high dexterity for sword-related feats.

Artanis
2009-02-21, 12:54 PM
That is incorrect.

The reason is that (unlike every other RPG) D&D4 is full of rules that cannot be explained from an in-world perspective.
Such as?

I thought the powers' flavor text did a pretty good job of explaining them. What else is there?

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-21, 01:01 PM
Such as?

I thought the powers' flavor text did a pretty good job of explaining them. What else is there?

Hit points? A monster hits me with the power "thunder eviscerating of gut random distribution" and I'm not actually hurted unless i'm bloodied.

Ok, that should means that the blow was near to catch me, an my PC is getting tired in the action of dodging it, and my PC shouldn't do it forever, but you'll admit that is a little bit akward.

More, assume I'm bloodie. The warlod says :"No, Kay. You now gather up your gut, and continue the fight, or you make me a sad panda". then BAM. I'm not longer bloodied. Even more akward, IMHO.

Asbestos
2009-02-21, 01:17 PM
I think KG takes more issue with things like Strength boosting AC, Strength boosting spell damage, um... some other stuff like that, it came up in a discussion about the sorcerer. Basically, IIRC, he feels that ability scores are divorced completely from their in-world meaningfulness, meaning that he can RP a strong wizard or genius fighter if he wants because the stats are 'just numbers' that only matter from a mechanics POV. The quote from KG in the sig of the poster above demonstrates his opinion well.

@KG: I maintain that your logic for separation of ability scores + in world meaningfulness goes a bit too far, the Sorcerer piece is the only one so far that requires serious wondering about (well, that and Con boosting AC, but that's boggled my mind since 3.x) but even so, people have thought up decent ways of explaining it 'in world'. It would be helpful if WotC provided a little flavorful sidebar with a few examples of how it might work. This could be a jab at the lack of flavor in 4e, but I don't recall them ever explaining how Constitution boosts AC or how Charisma can be used to make attacks back in 3.x, I think they've just sort of hand-waved it for a while.

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-21, 01:20 PM
@KG: I maintain that your logic for separation of ability scores + in world meaningfulness goes a bit too far, the Sorcerer piece is the only one so far that requires serious wondering about (well, that and Con boosting AC, but that's boggled my mind since 3.x) but even so, people have thought up decent ways of explaining it 'in world'. It would be helpful if WotC provided like a little flavorful sidebar with a few examples of how it might work.

I see you point (and maybe I'm forewarned, i can admit it) but as you said, players have an effort to explain how things works. IMo, this is a big issue.

And about HP, sometimes I think that the abstraction has been forced to keep the warlord valid as a martial leader. :smallconfused:

(now, stop, or after the signature, KG could think I've a crush for him:smalleek:)

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-21, 01:24 PM
Thinking about it, I guess my image of a swashbuckler in 4e, from what I know about it, would be a defender who wears relatively little armor, and who engages multiple adversaries and then somehow controls the movement of those whom he's fighting. And he'd probably need powers that give him an AC boost, or something.

Well, generally swashbucklers fight guys one at a time; they are modeled after duelists, after all.

But look again at the Rogue:
- Artful Dodgers get an AC boost against OAs. This means that Artful Dodger Rogues are very good at moving around and avoiding attacks; they're slick.

- DEX is added to light armor; this represents the flair of the swashbuckler hopping around in little armor but not getting hits.

- Many Rogue powers give controller effects. Dazing Strike, for example, allows you to Daze 1 opponent an encounter at 1st level; that pretty much takes him out of the fight for a round.

- Shift powers control the movement of your opponents; and Artful Dodgers get a lot of shifting powers. Trick Strike, a 1st level Daily, lets you shift someone 1 every time you hit him for the rest of the Encounter.

That said, a Swordmage can produce your kind of Swashbuckler. Sure, he's not as good at swinging from chandeliers and doing wild tricks, but he is very good at defending folks.

For me, Inigo Montoya is my favorite swashbuckling figure; flamboyant, athletic, and deadly with his blade. But you can make many types of swashbucklers if you try a bit.

EDIT:

The reason is that (unlike every other RPG) D&D4 is full of rules that cannot be explained from an in-world perspective.

I heavily disagree with this. It is not that they cannot be explained, it is that some people do not want them to be explained in a particular fashion.
I've written fluff before for pretty much every feature of 4E and I've always been told "no, that doesn't make any sense either" from the same people. I, for one, don't see why Priests must get more spells for being able to see things really well (that is, having a High WIS), but I accept it because it is part of the laws of this particular universe.

I will also note that every system makes some abstractions that are absurd when closely examined. It is in the nature of abstraction, after all; they never quite mesh with reality, and some assumptions made for the sake of simplicity would horrify a perfectionist. It is the nature of the beast.

Anyhow, I'm not going to get into a fight here, so that's my take on the matter.

Asbestos
2009-02-21, 01:33 PM
I see you point (and maybe I'm forewarned, i can admit it) but as you said, players have an effort to explain how things works. IMo, this is a big issue.

Yes, this is a problem and I wish that WotC would at least provide some helpful hints or something rather than just pretty much saying 'because it does, you think up reasons why'. Still, I believe that if we started a thread that said 'think up fluff reasons for why Con/Int/Str/Cha can boost AC' we'd be able to generate a list of explanations, some of which might be reasonable, for how those things work from an in-world perspective.

Just because WotC isn't explaining things in a satisfactory manner isn't an excuse for us not to exercise our imaginations a little. I'm not so cynical to believe that the designers have the same view of ability scores that Kurald does, but I will admit that they are being a bit lazy. Some 4e supporters might say that this is more 'liberating' and gives us 'more freedom to RP', but whatever, it wouldn't inhibit me either way. I'd just like to exercise my right to be lazy a little or at least have something to set my brain juices flowing in a helpful direction.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-02-21, 02:02 PM
But here, "use charisma in melee" is defined as "people who can't see you find you nevertheless so cool that they find it harder to attack you". The rogue isn't really using charisma in melee, the rogue is applying Ability Score #6 to his Type-One attacks.

This kind of attitude will ruin the game for anyone. I am truly sorry you feel this way.

If you cannot use your imagination to describe what you are doing, then well I really have no idea on how you can play the game at all.

Sebastian
2009-02-21, 02:04 PM
The DM changing the rule has no basis on the rule itself.

True, but 3rd edition (3.0 for sure, 3.5 I don't remember) had at least a paragraph about adapting existing classes to different concepts (the one where they mention the "fighter trained by the thieves guild" that drop the bonus armor and tower shield feats and trade them for move silently and some other as class skills.) so making up a swashbuckler swapping weapon finesse at 1st level in exchange with, for example, taking disable device and open lock as cross-class skill it is not exactly so out there or houserule-ish.

Artanis
2009-02-21, 02:59 PM
Hit points? A monster hits me with the power "thunder eviscerating of gut random distribution" and I'm not actually hurted unless i'm bloodied.

Ok, that should means that the blow was near to catch me, an my PC is getting tired in the action of dodging it, and my PC shouldn't do it forever, but you'll admit that is a little bit akward.

More, assume I'm bloodie. The warlod says :"No, Kay. You now gather up your gut, and continue the fight, or you make me a sad panda". then BAM. I'm not longer bloodied. Even more akward, IMHO.
I'm sorry, but I don't consider "I have eight swords in my spleen but am still just fine" to be any better.

lesser_minion
2009-02-21, 05:33 PM
I sometimes end up in the edition war threads, although I try to avoid it, because I don't really see how people can have such rabid views about either edition.

They are mechanically quite different, though.

As for the question about Wisdom and spells for clerics - the scope of the Wisdom score is pretty weird, but it also encompasses willpower which can also imply faith. I don't particularly agree with it - I'd rather use Charisma as the casting stat. I guess there is maybe the question of trying to placate those people who would try to equate D&D to something sinister (instead of pointing out that their sacrifices will bring about the End Time that much faster) though.

horseboy
2009-02-21, 05:48 PM
For most values of FOO where someone has said "I'm disappointed that there's no FOO in 4e", my friends and players have told me, "You mean I don't have to deal with FOO anymore?! That's great!"
Hung Lo's House of Foo and __________ n longer sells Foo? AHHHHH!! Just when I thought they couldn't screw up Realms any more!!!! :smallamused:

I have noticed that it's easier to transfer my 2nd edition characters to 4th than it would be to try and make them in 3rd. But I'm always doing quirky stuff, like having sneaky fighters and duel wielding paladins who make their own magic weapons.

lesser_minion
2009-02-21, 05:57 PM
Hung Lo's House of Foo and __________ n longer sells Foo? AHHHHH!! Just when I thought they couldn't screw up Realms any more!!!! :smallamused:

I have noticed that it's easier to transfer my 2nd edition characters to 4th than it would be to try and make them in 3rd. But I'm always doing quirky stuff, like having sneaky fighters and duel wielding paladins who make their own magic weapons.

You dual-wield WHAT? I'm sorry, you need to point me to the sourcebook for that. I mean...

Character: *draws two paladins* Now we shall smite thee, fiend!

Fiend: *cowers*

:smallbiggrin: Sorry, I know you meant having paladins dual-wield.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-21, 06:10 PM
As for the question about Wisdom and spells for clerics - the scope of the Wisdom score is pretty weird, but it also encompasses willpower which can also imply faith.
The reason wisdom exists in D&D is that (back in 1E) clerics needed a stat different than wizards to base their power on. Everything else (e.g. perception, charm resist etc) was tacked on at a later date, to make the score less useless for non-clerics. So yeah, it has ended up pretty weird.

The reason charisma exists is because an RPG needs some kind of social stat. It was common knowledge in 2E that in certain kinds of campaign, this was really useless. The notion that it can be used as a casting stat ("I have a lot of friends, therefore I can create lightning!") came from 3E, again in an attempt to make the stat less pointless. But then, ability scores became way more important in 3E (and 4E) so there had to be a plausible use for all six of them in most builds. (at least in theory; in practice there's still SAD classes)

lesser_minion
2009-02-21, 06:14 PM
Equally, however, Charisma covers leadership, personal magnetism, force of personality and basically anything mental that can't be pidgeonholed as either Intelligence or Wisdom, so I don't really see the problem with making it a casting stat - it also reflects the idea of clerics as the kind of people who lead others, thanks to their all-round status.

Oslecamo
2009-02-21, 06:35 PM
I have noticed that it's easier to transfer my 2nd edition characters to 4th than it would be to try and make them in 3rd. But I'm always doing quirky stuff, like having sneaky fighters and duel wielding paladins who make their own magic weapons.

If you couldn't do those in 3e, it's because you didn't even try. Fighter dips rogue/ranger/bard/ or monk bang. Paladin picks up craft magic weapons and armor or simply casts holy sword bang. There. Was it that hard?

Starbuck_II
2009-02-21, 07:08 PM
If you couldn't do those in 3e, it's because you didn't even try. Fighter dips rogue/ranger/bard/ or monk bang. Paladin picks up craft magic weapons and armor or simply casts holy sword bang. There. Was it that hard?

How about a Paladin that can't fall. Do that in 3.5. Even the Prc like Grey Guard can fall.

lesser_minion
2009-02-21, 07:12 PM
There isn't actually any problem with having the Paladin able to fall, until it starts being abused by certain individuals. The point is that the Paladin is sworn to a particular code of conduct, and should be roleplayed as such - the DM should be able to punish them if they then go off and murder babies.

monty
2009-02-21, 07:26 PM
How about a Paladin that can't fall. Do that in 3.5. Even the Prc like Grey Guard can fall.

Paladins are not supposed to be able to not fall. Or something like that.

Sebastian
2009-02-21, 08:25 PM
How about a Paladin that can't fall. Do that in 3.5. Even the Prc like Grey Guard can fall.

Make a fighter/cleric. Call him a paladin. Done. :smallsmile:

monty
2009-02-22, 01:22 AM
Make a fighter/cleric. Call him a paladin. Done. :smallsmile:

Well, technically, you can "fall" as a cleric, but it's a lot harder.

UMD fighter with a Holy Avenger. Who's going to question it, even if they notice the difference?

vrellum
2009-02-22, 01:47 AM
I've played basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 and 4th. I (and my friends) have always looked forward to new versions. However, we are, to a person not interested in 4th edition. We think it is a big change, bigger than any of the preceeding changes.

horseboy
2009-02-22, 02:14 AM
So yes, it is fair to compare 3E PHB to 4E PHB, and note that there are several archetypes and concepts not found in the latter.Of course, most of the things missing from 4th edition that was in 3rd are broken things that LG players rubbed WotC's collective nose in. I would say blame Nukem, Moose and La Montaine, but I blame WotC for building a crapsack system, having it blow up in their face and now being gun shy.

D&D used to be rules for simulating fantasy stories and myths and legends. Now it's a set of miniatures skirmish battle rules./QUOTE]LOL!!! "At last the circle is complete..."[QUOTE=Oslecamo;5802048]If you couldn't do those in 3e, it's because you didn't even try. Fighter dips rogue/ranger/bard/ or monk bang. Paladin picks up craft magic weapons and armor or simply casts holy sword bang. There. Was it that hard?And is festooned with all manner of superfluous things to express a simple concept. NTY. I'd rather play a tinker gnome than pay one.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-22, 04:46 AM
How about a Paladin that can't fall. Do that in 3.5. Even the Prc like Grey Guard can fall.

Give him a Ring of Levitate. Done :smallbiggrin:

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-22, 05:47 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't consider "I have eight swords in my spleen but am still just fine" to be any better.

Well, In my gaming groups, I always considered HP advancement kinda fusion of the ability to take less "the whole hit", and the mere ability of the hero to absorb damage.

For an example of the latter thing, think about Gatsu in Berserk by Kentaro Miura.

So, 12 damage from an axe, slaughter a commoner but an experienced fighter can deflect the strike at least a little bit, taking it but not in the middle of the chest.

You could say, more problems come in 1ts 2nd 3rd editions with cure spells... Stronger you become, more is needed to heal you (an old issue I think). Well sometimes you can explain this with "an injury made with a Balor's sword is tainted and wicked, you need more divine power to heal it".

Well if 28341297354912763 orcs found a way to injury a high level fighter, how could can I explain the need of more healing? So I see your point, even previous editions can be akward in this, but, maybe it's me, seems to me are akward less, in few issues, and not so much as the 4th edition warlord.

PinkysBrain
2009-02-22, 06:04 AM
How about a Paladin that can't fall.
Miko is a samurai.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-22, 06:50 AM
I thought the powers' flavor text did a pretty good job of explaining them. What else is there?
Many of the explanations are very vague, and have to be kept vague because otherwise they'll contradict the rules involved. For instance, Steel Serpent Strike (fighter 1) says something vague about stabbing the knee or foot. Yet it works on creatures wearing full plate, or flying creatures, or creatures that don't have feet.

Likewise, it is not possible to explain basic concepts like marking, quarrying, or sneak attack in a way that both (1) makes sense in character and (2) does not contradict the rules involved. The entire game has the MST3K mantra written all over it.

Sebastian
2009-02-22, 08:07 AM
Such as?

I thought the powers' flavor text did a pretty good job of explaining them. What else is there?

no, they don't. If we put aside the arcane/divine powers that can just hand waved away with "it's magic", for every martial power there is at least one not uncommon situation that make really hard for me to visualize it. Kurald has already mentioned Steel Serpent Strike, that have the same effect against a man and a iron golem, but another one is blinding barrage that is described as
"A rapid barrage of projectiles leaves your enemies clearing the blood from their eyes." except that it works against creatures without blood (golem) without eyes (skeleton), with multiple eyes (beholder) or even against a swarm (no comment).
And that happen almost with every single power that can't be explained with the generic "it's magic" clause.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-22, 08:25 AM
nblinding barrage that is described as
"A rapid barrage of projectiles leaves your enemies clearing the blood from their eyes."

Blinding Barrage is a very good example of a jarring power that breaks disbelief pretty much every time it's used.

(1) It throws up to nine daggers in the time it normally takes to throw one;
(2) it gets even sillier if you use this with a single magical dagger, because it'll keep bouncing back and forth;
(3) unlike regular throwing, it doesn't provoke OAs;
(4) you can hit everything on the forehead to cause blood to drip into their eyes even if they don't have blood or eyes, or wear a heavy helmet;
(5) this amazing act of accuracy only works when aiming for a creature's forehead, you can't use it to snap ropes, hamstring people, or hit a bullseye
(6) also, if you're so accurate, why don't you just hit them in the eye;
(7) if you've got such an amount of blood flowing from your forehead (which doesn't have any major arteries there, come to think of it) then dude, you've got bigger problems than not seeing anything;
(8) throwing sand at their face is considered way more difficult than this trick

This power is pretty much the top in the (too long) list of Powers That Are Completely Ridiculous. It is also probably the best level-1 rogue daily, so expect to see it a lot.

Sebastian
2009-02-22, 08:42 AM
And the best part, you can do it only once for day, for some not better specified reason.

Aron Times
2009-02-22, 08:53 AM
D&D 4E is a game. It's not a reality. It's a game.

Quit complaining and roll for Initiative.

FoE
2009-02-22, 09:07 AM
(7) if you've got such an amount of blood flowing from your forehead (which doesn't have any major arteries there, come to think of it) then dude, you've got bigger problems than not seeing anything;

Actually, head cuts bleed like hell. In boxing, you have to be very mindful of any cuts to the forehead because you can literally be blinded by the blood in your eyes.

I justify powers like this: something like landing a hit on a chink in his armour is only going to work once, since he's going to learn to block or dodge that attack in the future. Hence why combat powers only work once per fight.

Dailies are a bit harder to justify, but from a melee perspective, I look at it as that one rare opportunity in combat where an opponent may misstep or drop his guard enough for me to try a relatively difficult technique. How many times in an actual fight would you see someone stoop low enough to grab a handful of sand and throw it in their face?

As for the flavour of powers, well, they're not set in stone. A cleric can re-flavour his powers to fit his religion, so why can't a fighter or a rogue do the same?

Kurald Galain
2009-02-22, 09:26 AM
As for the flavour of powers, well, they're not set in stone. A cleric can re-flavour his powers to fit his religion, so why can't a fighter or a rogue do the same?

The point is not that this particular flavor of the power is bad, but that Blinding Barrage (and many other powers) cannot be flavored in a way that both (1) makes sense in character, and (2) does not contradict the rules for the power.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-22, 10:30 AM
Blinding Barrage is a very good example of a jarring power that breaks disbelief pretty much every time it's used.
(1) It throws up to nine daggers in the time it normally takes to throw one;
(2) it gets even sillier if you use this with a single magical dagger, because it'll keep bouncing back and forth;
(3) unlike regular throwing, it doesn't provoke OAs;
(4) you can hit everything on the forehead to cause blood to drip into their eyes even if they don't have blood or eyes, or wear a heavy helmet;
(5) this amazing act of accuracy only works when aiming for a creature's forehead, you can't use it to snap ropes, hamstring people, or hit a bullseye
(6) also, if you're so accurate, why don't you just hit them in the eye;
(7) if you've got such an amount of blood flowing from your forehead (which doesn't have any major arteries there, come to think of it) then dude, you've got bigger problems than not seeing anything;
(8) throwing sand at their face is considered way more difficult than this trick

Replies:

(1) That's why it is a difficult trick to pull off. Remember your high rate-of-fire Archer in 3E? This is the same principle; we are playing a heroic fantasy game.

(2) The magical dagger returns to your hand after striking, allowing you to throw it again. No, I didn't make up this fluff - that's what it says magical thrown weapons do. It is a property of magical weapons in this world - like you could enchant a weapon to do the same thing in 3E.

(3) You are throwing while maintaining a defensive stance. Another reason this is hard to pull off. Might as well complain about Thunderwave.

(4) Like it says in the book, you are supposed to fluff it to make sense for the particular encounter. I don't know how in 3E you can be trained to find a weak point on an Ooze to do Sneak Attack damage, but you certainly can. Here, you just need to imagine a way that chucking daggers at someone might blind them for a moment. Not that hard.

(5) You could use it on multiple targets, if you wanted. All powers do say "creature" but I think it's a friendly amendment to allow it to be used on inanimate objects. Of course, you can't blind the rope :smalltongue:

(6) Because you're not that accurate. Eyes are harder to hit than a broad stretch of skin; heck, maybe you're just making them keep their heads down.

(7) Like Face of Evil said - head wounds do work this way.

(8) Sand in the Eyes is a 7th level Encounter power, versus Reflex instead of AC. It does indeed take a lot more skill to convert a Daily ability into an Encounter ability; you are now so good that you can not only do this every encounter, but you can completely bypass their AC.

This "does not fluff" argument just doesn't fly. The correct statement is "this does not fluff as I would like."

PinkysBrain
2009-02-22, 11:03 AM
I don't know how in 3E you can be trained to find a weak point on an Ooze to do Sneak Attack damage, but you certainly can.
Oh really?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-22, 11:04 AM
Oh really?

It's a feat in some splatbook, IIRC (Complete Adventurer or Scoundrel, I think?).

I may be wrong there but there are still feats for Sneak Attacking Undead and Constructs.

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-22, 11:07 AM
It's a feat in some splatbook, IIRC (Complete Adventurer or Scoundrel, I think?).

I may be wrong there but there are still feats for Sneak Attacking Undead and Constructs.

As far as I know, there are weapon augmentation crystals to crit and SA on undead and constructs, as well a prestige class in MH to crit on undead.

More, there is an ACF for the rogue to do 1/2 SA damage to flanked enemies normally immune to SA, but only if you flank, and ooze are immune anyway.

Morty
2009-02-22, 11:17 AM
Blinding Barrage is a very good example of a jarring power that breaks disbelief pretty much every time it's used.

(1) It throws up to nine daggers in the time it normally takes to throw one;
(2) it gets even sillier if you use this with a single magical dagger, because it'll keep bouncing back and forth;
(3) unlike regular throwing, it doesn't provoke OAs;
(4) you can hit everything on the forehead to cause blood to drip into their eyes even if they don't have blood or eyes, or wear a heavy helmet;
(5) this amazing act of accuracy only works when aiming for a creature's forehead, you can't use it to snap ropes, hamstring people, or hit a bullseye
(6) also, if you're so accurate, why don't you just hit them in the eye;
(7) if you've got such an amount of blood flowing from your forehead (which doesn't have any major arteries there, come to think of it) then dude, you've got bigger problems than not seeing anything;
(8) throwing sand at their face is considered way more difficult than this trick

This power is pretty much the top in the (too long) list of Powers That Are Completely Ridiculous. It is also probably the best level-1 rogue daily, so expect to see it a lot.

The best thing is how you can use it with a crossbow or a sling.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-22, 11:37 AM
Oh really?
Well, yes. It is a well-known fact that several of the newer 3.5 splatbooks were in fact test cases for 4E. The attitude that rules don't have to make sense (from a character's point of view, not a player's) is thus also visible in several of those newer 3.5 books.

This is not to say that everything in 3.5 core makes sense; the design team didn't always do their research well. But 3.5 is intended to make sense, whereas 4E is intended to be balanced. The differences in result are obvious.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-22, 11:38 AM
Actually, head cuts bleed like hell.
Yes. Do they also instantly stop bleeding after six seconds?

Also, how can you be "bleeding like hell", without being bloodied?

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-22, 11:49 AM
Yes. Do they also instantly stop bleeding after six seconds?

Also, how can you be "bleeding like hell", without being bloodied?

More, sometimes happen that you take this strike, and simply your morale goes down, because the warlord shouts and your hp goes up. But you are blinded by blood. no, wait...or by your gloom?

Shroedinger HPs. You cannot know what actually stroke you for the whole combat until you go down.

vrellum
2009-02-22, 12:05 PM
But 3.5 is intended to make sense, whereas 4E is intended to be balanced. The differences in result are obvious.

I think the above is very true. That's why I think there is such a big difference between 3.x and 4th edition.

For example, in 3.X there were rules for tripping an opponent. The ability was based on strength and size and while it wasn't perfect it did make some sense. The current ability is a fighter encounter power that allows the fighter to trip anything. Doesn't matter if the target is a kobold or a great wyrm red dragon and it can only be done once per encounter with no real reason given.

Morty
2009-02-22, 12:14 PM
I think the above is very true. That's why I think there is such a big difference between 3.x and 4th edition.


On a personal note, this is where my complaints about 3.x and 4th edition differ. In 3ed, I like how the system is supposed to look like, what bugs me are the screw-ups in execution. In 4th edition, I dislike several assumptions the rules are based on.

Artanis
2009-02-22, 12:26 PM
Well, In my gaming groups, I always considered HP advancement kinda fusion of the ability to take less "the whole hit", and the mere ability of the hero to absorb damage.
This is pretty much what 4e does, but for which you vilify it. So which is it, is this a good thing, or is it a bad thing?


Blinding Barrage is a very good example of a jarring power that breaks disbelief pretty much every time it's used.

(1) It throws up to nine daggers in the time it normally takes to throw one;
(2) it gets even sillier if you use this with a single magical dagger, because it'll keep bouncing back and forth;
(3) unlike regular throwing, it doesn't provoke OAs;
(4) you can hit everything on the forehead to cause blood to drip into their eyes even if they don't have blood or eyes, or wear a heavy helmet;
(5) this amazing act of accuracy only works when aiming for a creature's forehead, you can't use it to snap ropes, hamstring people, or hit a bullseye
(6) also, if you're so accurate, why don't you just hit them in the eye;
(7) if you've got such an amount of blood flowing from your forehead (which doesn't have any major arteries there, come to think of it) then dude, you've got bigger problems than not seeing anything;
(8) throwing sand at their face is considered way more difficult than this trick

This power is pretty much the top in the (too long) list of Powers That Are Completely Ridiculous. It is also probably the best level-1 rogue daily, so expect to see it a lot.
Oracle Hunter covered this a lot more eloquently than I ever could :smallredface:


Well, yes. It is a well-known fact that several of the newer 3.5 splatbooks were in fact test cases for 4E. The attitude that rules don't have to make sense (from a character's point of view, not a player's) is thus also visible in several of those newer 3.5 books.
Many anti-4e posters decry the lack of options in 4e. Well, the things Oracle Hunter mentioned are options in 3.5. Options whose existance people point to as something making 3.5 better than 4e.

You can't have it both ways. Either having as many options as possible is good, or else limiting options is good. So which is it?



This is not to say that everything in 3.5 core makes sense; the design team didn't always do their research well. But 3.5 is intended to make sense, whereas 4E is intended to be balanced. The differences in result are obvious.
This is the core of the arguement. It's like I like to say, "some people like 4e because it's better balanced, more streamlined, and easier to use...and some people dislike 4e for the exact same reason"

Some people like one edition, some people like the other, and it's a matter of opinion. A subjective judgement. Yet many posters in threads like this - posters on both sides - speak as though it's something objective. That balance makes 4e objectively better, that having more realism/verisimilitude/simulationism/whatever makes 3.5 objectively better.

Maybe I read too much into it, misunderstanding the intent of what people say because text only conveys words, and not tone. But when people start claiming objectivity in a subjective discussion, that's when I get irritated.

Thane of Fife
2009-02-22, 12:47 PM
I would have sworn I responded to this, but apparently not (if I did already write this, my apologies).


Well, generally swashbucklers fight guys one at a time; they are modeled after duelists, after all.

But look again at the Rogue:
- Artful Dodgers get an AC boost against OAs. This means that Artful Dodger Rogues are very good at moving around and avoiding attacks; they're slick.

- DEX is added to light armor; this represents the flair of the swashbuckler hopping around in little armor but not getting hits.

- Many Rogue powers give controller effects. Dazing Strike, for example, allows you to Daze 1 opponent an encounter at 1st level; that pretty much takes him out of the fight for a round.

- Shift powers control the movement of your opponents; and Artful Dodgers get a lot of shifting powers. Trick Strike, a 1st level Daily, lets you shift someone 1 every time you hit him for the rest of the Encounter.

That said, a Swordmage can produce your kind of Swashbuckler. Sure, he's not as good at swinging from chandeliers and doing wild tricks, but he is very good at defending folks.

For me, Inigo Montoya is my favorite swashbuckling figure; flamboyant, athletic, and deadly with his blade. But you can make many types of swashbucklers if you try a bit.


On the first bit, in The Three Musketeers, Aramis is fighting two of the Cardinal's guards by himself in just about the first fight we see him in; in the same way, D'Artagnon is perfectly allowed to go help Athos fight his enemy. I seem to recall Westley fighting multiple enemies near the end of The Princess Bride, as well, though I could be mistaken. The true swashbuckler does not shy from facing multiple foes:


The blood had mounted to the head of D’Artagnan, and at that moment he would have drawn his sword against all the musketeers in the kingdom as willingly as he now did against Athos, Porthos, and Aramis.

But anyway, the spoiler pretty much answers my question - not having any 4e books myself, I was curious what was the reason for people's opinion, as what I knew seemed to contradict it.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-22, 01:01 PM
You can't have it both ways. Either having as many options as possible is good, or else limiting options is good. So which is it?
This is a false dichotomy. Nobody really cares about the quantity of options; people are mainly interested in the quality of options. And of course, opinions vary as to what exactly constitutes quality: in my opinion, an option that makes no sense is a low-quality option. YMMV.


It's like I like to say, "some people like 4e because it's better balanced, more streamlined, and easier to use...and some people dislike 4e for the exact same reason"
Yes, except that you're phrasing it in a very biased way. People don't "dislike 4E for the balance", people "dislike 4E for what it sacrificed to achieve that balance". Point in fact is that many players don't care about balance, for a variety of reasons. I've never seen Whitewolf or GURPS or Paranoia players worry about game balance.

Also, whether 4E is "easier to use" depends on what you want to use it for. One might argue that it's difficult to use since in combat, rather than just saying what you intend to do, you have to consult a dozen Power Cards to see what you can do.


Yet many posters in threads like this - posters on both sides - speak as though it's something objective.
Yeah, welcome to the internet. It's easy to sound like that in writing. I'm sure that in real life, debate on the subject gets far less extreme.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-22, 01:09 PM
Also, whether 4E is "easier to use" depends on what you want to use it for. One might argue that it's difficult to use since in combat, rather than just saying what you intend to do, you have to consult a dozen Power Cards to see what you can do.

Like you have to read the entire chapter on spellcasting every time you want to cast a spell? :smalltongue:

No, most people do learn what their powers do (their at-wills at the very least!) after a session or two. And, if they so desire, master all rules regarding OAs and special combat manuevers in about as much time.

Bull Rush is a standard action STR v. Fort attack that pushes a target 1 square - fullstop.

A Grab is a STR v. Reflex attack that immobilizes if it hits - fullstop.

Straightforward and simple to remember, if you so desire. The only way 4E is harder to play than 3E is if you have been playing 3E for years and refuse to read the 4E rules.

I know we don't agree at all, but I feel compelled to call you on it when you make statements like the above. 4E just is easier to run and play than 3E - that rather is the point.

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-22, 01:10 PM
This is pretty much what 4e does, but for which you vilify it. So which is it, is this a good thing, or is it a bad thing?


Well, HP does not exactly work that way. Both 3.5 and 4.0 fighter partially deflect the blow absorb the blow, but in 4.0 after the combat the fighter "rec" after the combat even alone, with no cures. In 3.5 well, yes, he did't took the blow as a whole, but he's actually injuried, you know it from the first moment. More, see above the Warlord.

More problems with a posioned weapon. O for a martial power that is called "vicious eviscerating" but does not make you bloodied. Fine, you dodged it, but maybe took the side effect as a whole?



Many anti-4e posters decry the lack of options in 4e. Well, the things Oracle Hunter mentioned are options in 3.5. Options whose existance people point to as something making 3.5 better than 4e.


IMO, options are always a good thing, so yes. But is true that the latter 3.5 slightly went away from realism. Lot of option and realism could cohexist, lot of options and progressive losing of realism is what i felt, too, at the end of the edition.

Knaight
2009-02-22, 01:24 PM
The best thing is how you can use it with a crossbow or a sling.

A sling actually kind of makes sense, you can take a handful of gravel, load it into a sling, and then sling it at somebody. Its like bird shot, and the idea that that is going to hit someone in the face, and it might bleed enough to get in their eyes, is going to make sense, even where somebody manages to get their arm in front of their eyes.

PinkysBrain
2009-02-22, 01:33 PM
For example, in 3.X there were rules for tripping an opponent. The ability was based on strength and size and while it wasn't perfect it did make some sense. The current ability is a fighter encounter power that allows the fighter to trip anything. Doesn't matter if the target is a kobold or a great wyrm red dragon and it can only be done once per encounter with no real reason given.
I wonder why they didn't borrow some of the ToB fluff to explain why martial powers have semi Vancian resource management.

Oslecamo
2009-02-22, 02:11 PM
I wonder why they didn't borrow some of the ToB fluff to explain why martial powers have semi Vancian resource management.

Because suprise suprise, ToB is actually quite diferent from 4e.

-ToB allows you to spam your best power all day long. 4e no.
-On the other hand you can never spam a power more than once per turn, while in 4e you have at-wills wich can be used left and right.
-In 4e you automatically recover your powers with time. In ToB it's a lot more complex, from the Crusader's madness to the warblade and swordsage needing to spend an action to recharge their mini spells maneuvers.

Artanis
2009-02-22, 02:15 PM
This is a false dichotomy. Nobody really cares about the quantity of options; people are mainly interested in the quality of options. And of course, opinions vary as to what exactly constitutes quality: in my opinion, an option that makes no sense is a low-quality option. YMMV.
Except it isn't a false dichotomy, as you yorself are saying right here. You either limit options, or you don't. Even a slight limiting is still limiting. And you say that you would limit options by quality.

Thus in this matter, the disagreement between you and 4e supporters is over the degree of said limits, not over the existance of them.

And yes, I've seen a few people saying that quantity is what matters. Whether that's all that they believe is not certain (as you yourself want greater quantity, but only if said quantity doesn't suck).




Yes, except that you're phrasing it in a very biased way. People don't "dislike 4E for the balance", people "dislike 4E for what it sacrificed to achieve that balance". Point in fact is that many players don't care about balance, for a variety of reasons. I've never seen Whitewolf or GURPS or Paranoia players worry about game balance.
It's supposed to be a play on a line from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy :smallfrown:

And yes, I have seen people dislike the balance itself. It's usually a (quite valid) matter of believing that magic should be stronger than non-magic because...well, it's magic.



Also, whether 4E is "easier to use" depends on what you want to use it for. One might argue that it's difficult to use since in combat, rather than just saying what you intend to do, you have to consult a dozen Power Cards to see what you can do.
Oracle Hunter covered this better than I could :smallredface:



Yeah, welcome to the internet. It's easy to sound like that in writing. I'm sure that in real life, debate on the subject gets far less extreme.
Here, we are in complete agreement :smallsmile:




Well, HP does not exactly work that way. Both 3.5 and 4.0 fighter partially deflect the blow absorb the blow, but in 4.0 after the combat the fighter "rec" after the combat even alone, with no cures. In 3.5 well, yes, he did't took the blow as a whole, but he's actually injuried, you know it from the first moment. More, see above the Warlord.

More problems with a posioned weapon. O for a martial power that is called "vicious eviscerating" but does not make you bloodied. Fine, you dodged it, but maybe took the side effect as a whole?
That's a good point, especially about the poisoned weapons.



IMO, options are always a good thing, so yes. But is true that the latter 3.5 slightly went away from realism. Lot of option and realism could cohexist, lot of options and progressive losing of realism is what i felt, too, at the end of the edition.
I respect this opinion, and somewhat agree with it: if you can give more options without screwing the system (whatever that system may be), then that's good. It's when options start to interfere with the system that they become bad...and people have differing opinions of when that happens.

Fanatic-Templar
2009-02-22, 07:30 PM
This subject always reminds me of the Foreword to my revised AD&D PHB, by Steve Winter:

Before we even start, I want to make sure everyone understands one very important fact:


This is not AD&D 3rd Edition!

There, everyone can breathe again.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. :smallbiggrin:

PinkysBrain
2009-02-22, 08:10 PM
-On the other hand you can never spam a power more than once per turn, while in 4e you have at-wills wich can be used left and right.
These would have been the mundane class abilities.

-In 4e you automatically recover your powers with time. In ToB it's a lot more complex, from the Crusader's madness to the warblade and swordsage needing to spend an action to recharge their mini spells maneuvers.
Rest after an encounter does it too ... recharging is part and parcel of both manoeuvres and powers regardless of frequency, the recharge mechanic is also why players recognize both manoeuvres and powers as mini spells rather than purely mundane abilities. ToB admitted defeat in that regard and just made the fluff fit, 4e blindly charges ahead fighting a lost cause.

monty
2009-02-22, 08:32 PM
Rest after an encounter does it too ... recharging is part and parcel of both manoeuvres and powers regardless of frequency, the recharge mechanic is also why players recognize both manoeuvres and powers as mini spells rather than purely mundane abilities. ToB admitted defeat in that regard and just made the fluff fit, 4e blindly charges ahead fighting a lost cause.

Do any kind of real martial arts, and then try to do the same move over and over. To do anything of real complexity, it takes balance and positioning (and the element of surprise in some cases), and if you do something, odds are you'll have to put in a conscious effort to adjust yourself before you can pull the same move off again.

On the other hand, in 4E, the fighter can hit someone really hard, but only once a day. Explain that one.

PinkysBrain
2009-02-22, 09:11 PM
To do anything of real complexity, it takes balance and positioning (and the element of surprise in some cases), and if you do something, odds are you'll have to put in a conscious effort to adjust yourself before you can pull the same move off again.
Pulling it off takes context and preparation, preparation which would have been equally necessary the first time ... what does that have to do with recharging?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-22, 09:16 PM
On the other hand, in 4E, the fighter can hit someone really hard, but only once a day. Explain that one.

Well, I've already made my point about fluff, but here's my take:
As you said, Encounter powers are those which require a high amount of concentration, preparation, and energy to do. This is well within the realm of "normal" fighters. Daily powers are what Heroes do (classical definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hero)).

To pull off a Daily Attack, you need an extraordinary amount of skill, focus, energy, or what have you. Normal men and women lack this extra "above and beyond" capabilities, but a Hero is able to summon these characteristics, albeit briefly. Of course, such Heroic powers are terribly draining, and require full and total relaxation and rest to regain that inner fire.
This ties in mechanically, as monsters do not have Dailies, and a Long Rest already regains vital energies (HP and Healing Surges). Plus, I like how well it fits the classical definition of Hero :smallbiggrin:

monty
2009-02-23, 12:35 AM
Pulling it off takes context and preparation, preparation which would have been equally necessary the first time ... what does that have to do with recharging?

The point is, that's the purpose of the recovery mechanic - it's regaining your composure, switching tactics so they don't expect it a second time, and so on.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-23, 05:17 AM
Except it isn't a false dichotomy, as you yorself are saying right here. You either limit options, or you don't. Even a slight limiting is still limiting. And you say that you would limit options by quality.
Any ruleset will by definition limit your options. But yes, it is a debate about what constitutes quality of options.

For instance? Some people assert that 3E is boring because after a few rounds, the low-level wizard is reduced to spamming crossbow bolts. These people are very excited that in 4E, after a few rounds, the low-level wizard can still shoot magic missiles ad infinitum. But there isn't really any difference between either.



Thus in this matter, the disagreement between you and 4e supporters is over the degree of said limits, not over the existance of them.
Please read my sig. I am not what you assume I am.

Totally Guy
2009-02-23, 05:31 AM
Please read my sig. I am not what you assume I am.

And that's what makes him more dangerous than any other opponent.:smalltongue:

lesser_minion
2009-02-23, 06:04 AM
And yes, I have seen people dislike the balance itself. It's usually a (quite valid) matter of believing that magic should be stronger than non-magic because...well, it's magic.

When I read the PHB, I actually thought that 4e had done a reasonable job of making magic appear stronger than magic through the rituals system - the caster's most effective spells being highly limited.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-23, 06:38 AM
When I read the PHB, I actually thought that 4e had done a reasonable job of making magic appear stronger than magic through the rituals system - the caster's most effective spells being highly limited.

But upon closer reading, rituals are actually a caster's least effective spells, so no, that doesn't work.

The Minx
2009-02-23, 07:03 AM
To be fair, the mechanic "roll d20, add ability score modifier, add skill/talent modifier, add other modifiers/penalties, try to score above a target number" was not originally invented by WOTC. Not exactly, at any rate.

It is a mechanic near identical to the d10 system of Cyberpunk, though that does not have class & levels (those were retained from older versions of D&D). So, the die+mods vs DC is pretty elementary, and cannot IMHO be seen as the "skeleton" of a system by itself.



Dungeons and Dragons are SERIOUS BUSINESS! :smallmad:

Sigged. :smallbiggrin:

lesser_minion
2009-02-23, 07:22 AM
To be fair, the mechanic "roll d20, add ability score modifier, add skill/talent modifier, add other modifiers/penalties, try to score above a target number" was not originally invented by WOTC. Not exactly, at any rate.

It is a mechanic near identical to the d10 system of Cyberpunk, though that does not have class & levels (those were retained from older versions of D&D). So, the die+mods vs DC is pretty elementary, and cannot IMHO be seen as the "skeleton" of a system by itself.

It also features in Ars Magica (a d10 system), which I'm pretty sure is ancient. 3.0 and 5th edition Ars Magica share a designer, although IIRC the mechanic had already been chosen by the others beforehand.


But upon closer reading, rituals are actually a caster's least effective spells, so no, that doesn't work.

I've already had that argument - while it's a good mechanic, and seems quite fair, the general consensus of people who have played the game suggests that rituals have been relegated to a near-useless element.

I think I'd prefer the 'No Absolutes' approach, where a 20th level rogue who specialises in lockpicking can't be outclassed by a 2nd level spell once per day (or defeated by one!)

PinkysBrain
2009-02-23, 07:56 AM
The point is, that's the purpose of the recovery mechanic - it's regaining your composure, switching tactics so they don't expect it a second time, and so on.
Except the recharge mechanic doesn't work per opponent, it works per encounter or even per day ...

You could have been fighting one opponent for 6 seconds and be able to pull something off, a new opponent (who never saw what you did) can come in and fight you for 6 seconds and the same action is completely impossible ... the context is the same, your level of preparation is the same.

Morty
2009-02-23, 08:18 AM
Well, I've already made my point about fluff, but here's my take:
As you said, Encounter powers are those which require a high amount of concentration, preparation, and energy to do. This is well within the realm of "normal" fighters. Daily powers are what Heroes do (classical definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hero)).

To pull off a Daily Attack, you need an extraordinary amount of skill, focus, energy, or what have you. Normal men and women lack this extra "above and beyond" capabilities, but a Hero is able to summon these characteristics, albeit briefly. Of course, such Heroic powers are terribly draining, and require full and total relaxation and rest to regain that inner fire.
This ties in mechanically, as monsters do not have Dailies, and a Long Rest already regains vital energies (HP and Healing Surges). Plus, I like how well it fits the classical definition of Hero :smallbiggrin:

Of course, such cheap, cliched heroism and the assumption that PCs are Speshul and unique is what turns some people(me, for instance) away fron 4th edition. That said, I don't have any problem with nonmagical per encounter abilities. It doesn't make much sense, but it's not stupid enough for me to dwell on. Daily abilities are worse, but I can swallow them.
As for the rituals, it's a good idea that more powerful spells should take time and resources to cast, but the execution is flawed, primarily because all it takes to use rituals is a feat. So you need talent and relentless traning to chuck fireballs around, but you can teleport people even if you spent your whole life bashing heads.

monty
2009-02-23, 01:44 PM
Except the recharge mechanic doesn't work per opponent, it works per encounter or even per day ...

You could have been fighting one opponent for 6 seconds and be able to pull something off, a new opponent (who never saw what you did) can come in and fight you for 6 seconds and the same action is completely impossible ... the context is the same, your level of preparation is the same.

It doesn't necessarily mean all of those things. For example, if you're doing a strike called "Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike," do you really expect to be able to do that over and over? Of course not. You'll have to focus to do it again, regardless of which opponent you're fighting. Or take some of the Setting Sun maneuvers. After you pull off a crazy trip attack or whatever, you're going to have to get back into the proper positioning before you can do it again.

OneFamiliarFace
2009-02-23, 02:50 PM
There's nothing wrong with 4E per se, however it's not really intended for the same people.

(not trying to pick on aje here, this is just for sake of example)

I hear people saying this a lot, but I have to disagree. I DM'd and played 2e for some 5 years, DM'd and played 3.x for its duration, and now am enjoying 4e character creation and world building.

Before someone says otherwise, I would spend hours packing together the right character in 3.x (and have a library full of unused characters with 3 classes). I owned pretty much every non-campaign world specific splatbook. I never much preferred optimization, so there is that. And I was always into roleplaying and often liked complicated characters who would fit that. (My longest played char was a half-orc fighter/half-orc paragon/some kind of prestige class with feats from 4 different books. Heck, my prestige class was from Races of Destiny.)

But, I still play and like 4e, and not for any different reason. It is the same roleplaying game with more succinct and easier to run combat rules. I understand that not everyone feels this way, but I do. I play D&D to roleplay fantastic characters, and 4e does that just fine.

It just confuses me when people say 4e lacks RPing rules over 3.x, because the only rules in 3.x which held sway over roleplaying in any respect were alignment, diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, sense motive, and a few classes with arbitrary moral codes. 4e has all of those but the latter, and nothing stops a player from upholding whatever moral codes he/she likes.

Actual Point: I'm with the OP that my experience isn't significantly different between the two editions. I like 4e because new players find it more easily engaging, and this fact in no way reduces my enjoyment with the system.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-23, 02:51 PM
I've already had that argument - while it's a good mechanic, and seems quite fair, the general consensus of people who have played the game suggests that rituals have been relegated to a near-useless element.

I heartily disagree here. IMHO, it appears that folks who think 4E Rituals are useless are thinking of them from a 3E mindset. Not just in terms of power-level, but also in terms of mechanical effect.

My favorite example is Arcane Lock:
This Ritual lets you lock any method of egress, while allowing free exit and entry for individual people, or for special passwords and such. Plus, if the Lock is ever broken, you immediately know.

Now the mechanics: your DC for picking the Lock or forcing open the door is the caster's Arcana Check +5. This puts many people off, because it means this Lock can be opened by non-magical means. However, look at a possible scenario.

Our 4th level Eladrin Wizard (INT 18) has an Arcana Check of +13. His Lock DC will range from 19 to 38.

A 4th level Halfling Rogue (DEX 20) Focused in lockpicking (+3), with lockpicks (+2) has a Thievery Check of +17. His pick checks will range from 18 to 37.

Comparable, yes? But the Wizard could also Focus in Arcana (+3), and have up to 4 assistants (+2 per); he could also have an INT of 20. It is relatively easy to create a lock which even the greatest Rogue of comparable level could not pick. At a maximum, a 4th level Wizard could have a Lock DC of 50. This is unpickable by an expert Rogue up to Level 16.

Needless to say, STR checks are going to be far lower.

Does this Ritual have limitations? Of course. It takes 10 minutes to cast, it costs money per casting, and any egress so Locked can still be smashed through as normal. But these are limitations, not crippling deficiencies; Arcane Locking sturdy doors that the BBEG expected to thwart the PCs now traps the BBEG in his own space. Locking a Portcullis, in particular, is extremely effective.

And this is a seemingly "useless" Ritual!


Of course, such cheap, cliched heroism and the assumption that PCs are Speshul and unique is what turns some people(me, for instance) away fron 4th edition. That said, I don't have any problem with nonmagical per encounter abilities.

I'd like to push back on this a bit. Aren't adventurers exceptional people already?

They're essentially one-man armies, with a greater power gain than any "mundane" profession. They have exceptional abilities (even in 3E - Evasion, for example) and have always followed an explicitly different path than "normal" people. This is not a cliche; it is both a Trope of Heroic Fantasy generally, and a fact of life in every D&D rule system.

So, if a 3E 2nd Level Rogue can stand in the middle of a naked room and "dodge" a fireball blast, why can't a 4E 1st level Fighter deliver a inhumanly strong blow with his Maul? And shouldn't such power be limited anyhow - would it make more sense for him to be able to be able to deliver such blows all day? Wouldn't that make him more "cliched?"

Morty
2009-02-23, 03:04 PM
I'd like to push back on this a bit. Aren't adventurers exceptional people already?

In 3rd edition, they're indeed exceptionally skilled, but there still are NPCs with PC class levels and PCs aren't much different than the rest of the worlds until they earn it, as is said in the DMG. As opposed to 4th edition, in which they're Speshul by definition and the only people who can stand up to them are equally cliched villains. There's a huge difference between an exceptionally skilled person and a cliched, overdone "hero".


They're essentially one-man armies, with a greater power gain than any "mundane" profession. They have exceptional abilities (even in 3E - Evasion, for example) and have always followed an explicitly different path than "normal" people. This is not a cliche; it is both a Trope of Heroic Fantasy generally, and a fact of life in every D&D rule system.

First, because something is a "trope" doesn't mean it's not a cliche. Second, in both editions PCs aren't one-man armies until higher levels, which is immaterial, because it's not about power; it's about the way it's achieved.


So, if a 3E 2nd Level Rogue can stand in the middle of a naked room and "dodge" a fireball blast, why can't a 4E 1st level Fighter deliver a inhumanly strong blow with his Maul? And shouldn't such power be limited anyhow - would it make more sense for him to be able to be able to deliver such blows all day? Wouldn't that make him more "cliched?"

You're missing the point, I don't know whether intentionally or not but I assure you, I'm not as stupid as you'd like all 3ed proponents to be. It's not about dealing inhumanly strong blows. It's about being able to deal such a blow once per day and rationalizing it with stuff about "inherent heroism" and crap like that. And yes, I do think that the difference and a balancing point between magical and nonmagical characters should be that nonmagical people can use their abilities all day long, while casters have limited reserves.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-23, 03:23 PM
First, because something is a "trope" doesn't mean it's not a cliche. Second, in both editions PCs aren't one-man armies until higher levels, which is immaterial, because it's not about power; it's about the way it's achieved.

You're missing the point, I don't know whether intentionally or not but I assure you, I'm not as stupid as you'd like all 3ed proponents to be. It's not about dealing inhumanly strong blows. It's about being able to deal such a blow once per day and rationalizing it with stuff about "inherent heroism" and crap like that. And yes, I do think that the difference and a balancing point between magical and nonmagical characters should be that nonmagical people can use their abilities all day long, while casters have limited reserves.

*shrug* YMMV then. A lot of fluffing is just trying to find what sort of explanations an individual finds acceptable. I certainly did not intent to insult your intelligence, but I've found a mixture of analogy and tropes generally can help people deal with fluffing.

So you don't like "inherent heroism." You want powers to be earned. Is 2nd level really far enough to "earn" those powers? I don't know about you, but "extraordinary" powers strike me as more than merely being "exceptionally skilled." I'd say they were powers which are outside the scope of normal skill.

Also: 4E does allow for NPC adventurers. There are class templates that you can apply to monsters (to make life easy) or you can make full NPCs from scratch. The only difference is that you don't have to make a full character sheet to use them; they otherwise have all the class features of PC classes and access to PC powers. They even have Dailies.

Let's try another approach:
My point is not that PCs Are Just Better; my point is that anyone who is willing to go through the trauma that PCs suffer must be made of sterner stuff than the rest of humanity. If they did not have heroic willpower and fortitude, they would have either never left home, or they would have died on the way. So, by definition, a PC is drawn from that small pool of people who are capable of being adventurers, not that adventurers are some sort of natural aristocracy.

But that is just raw potential. A person's survival requires more than willpower or fortitude; they need to be clever and lucky too. A Classical Hero is "a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities;" ability comes from within, but to be recognized as a Hero requires those brave needs.

Any better?

Finally, while all cliches are Tropes, not all Tropes are Cliches (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreNotBad). In particular, it is difficult to see how one could denigrate a trope that is central to a genre as a cliche. If you are in a Heroic Fantasy setting, then there will be some Heroes who do things that others cannot. Unless they're just lucky (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BornLucky) at some point they will have to exhibit willpower or fortitude that is well in excess of their fellows. Are they not born with at least some of these heroic abilities?

Starbuck_II
2009-02-23, 03:24 PM
First, because something is a "trope" doesn't mean it's not a cliche. Second, in both editions PCs aren't one-man armies until higher levels, which is immaterial, because it's not about power; it's about the way it's achieved.

By level 11 in 3.5: you can easily be a one-man (well 4 person party) army taking out towns.

Morty
2009-02-23, 03:41 PM
*shrug* YMMV then. A lot of fluffing is just trying to find what sort of explanations an individual finds acceptable. I certainly did not intent to insult your intelligence, but I've found a mixture of analogy and tropes generally can help people deal with fluffing.

In order to avious unintentionally insulting people's intelligence, you shouldn't start from an assumption they simply don't know what they're talking about. I always assume that if someone says something, they have a good reason.


So you don't like "inherent heroism." You want powers to be earned. Is 2nd level really far enough to "earn" those powers? I don't know about you, but "extraordinary" powers strike me as more than merely being "exceptionally skilled." I'd say they were powers which are outside the scope of normal skill.

3rd edition fighters or even warblades aren't really that exceptional untll higher levels. Neither are 4ed ones. If it weren't for the Daily abilities, you wouldn't have to pull out stuff like "inherent heroism". You could of course, but it'd be optional.


Also: 4E does allow for NPC adventurers. There are class templates that you can apply to monsters (to make life easy) or you can make full NPCs from scratch. The only difference is that you don't have to make a full character sheet to use them; they otherwise have all the class features of PC classes and access to PC powers. They even have Dailies.

Believe me, I know that. Still, the range of abilities of NPCs when compared to PCs is laughable; they don't even get feats. And beliveve me or not, I like having NPCs fully written out.


Let's try another approach:
[spoiler]My point is not that PCs Are Just Better; my point is that anyone who is willing to go through the trauma that PCs suffer must be made of sterner stuff than the rest of humanity. If they did not have heroic willpower and fortitude, they would have either never left home, or they would have died on the way. So, by definition, a PC is drawn from that small pool of people who are capable of being adventurers, not that adventurers are some sort of natural aristocracy.

But that is just raw potential. A person's survival requires more than willpower or fortitude; they need to be clever and lucky too. A Classical Hero is "a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities;" ability comes from within, but to be recognized as a Hero requires those brave needs.

Any better?

A bit better, yes. But I still prefer adventurers to be a less elite group. The way I like it, PCs aren't adventurers because they are special, they're special because they're adventurers. And "special" isn't even the right word.


Finally, while all cliches are Tropes, not all Tropes are Cliches (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreNotBad). In particular, it is difficult to see how one could denigrate a trope that is central to a genre as a cliche. If you are in a Heroic Fantasy setting, then there will be some Heroes who do things that others cannot. Unless they're just lucky (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BornLucky) at some point they will have to exhibit willpower or fortitude that is well in excess of their fellows. Are they not born with at least some of these heroic abilities?

My extremely negative opinion on TvTropes doesn't belong to this thread, so I'll move along. I much prefer a heroic settings in which people become heroes instead of being heroes. So that not every skilled, strong individual is a "hero". A 10th level fighter might be simply an old veteran who has survived a lot of battles.


By level 11 in 3.5: you can easily be a one-man (well 4 person party) army taking out towns.

Yeah, because I didn't know this after four years of playing D&D and three years of browsing those and other forums. My point is, it's not about the power, it's about how it's achieved, not to mention that 11th level is, in fact a "higher level". And I'd argue that such a situation in 3rd edition is unintentional.

Skjaldbakka
2009-02-23, 11:46 PM
My two bits. There are a handful of things in 4E that I like, and have considered implementing, either in homebrew 3.5, other systems, or in game systems of my own design.

However, 4E gacked a bunch of things I liked in 3ed.

On top of that, D&D is not the only system I like to play. I like WoD and BESM, being the two top contenders, along with D&D.

I really feel silly playing 4E, because I could be playing BESM if I want that style of game.

This is coming from the DM side of the board, mostly. I take no pleasure in creating anything with 4E. I like making characters in 3.5. It is really boring in 4E. That would make designing adventures an incredible chore if I ever ran a 4E game. Which I won't.

Tech
2009-02-24, 12:06 AM
I really feel silly playing 4E, because I could be playing BESM if I want that style of game.

What.

BESM and 4e are nothing alike.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-24, 12:12 AM
This is coming from the DM side of the board, mostly. I take no pleasure in creating anything with 4E. I like making characters in 3.5. It is really boring in 4E. That would make designing adventures an incredible chore if I ever ran a 4E game. Which I won't.

I'm surprised to hear this; 4E is my favorite system to DM. Putting together (mechanically) fun encounters are easy, homebrewing monsters & NPCs is quick and unlikely to blow up in your face, and the new classifications of magical items and the treasure packet system makes it easier to keep track of what is level-appropriate and what is not.

What don't you like about it? :smallconfused:

Skjaldbakka
2009-02-24, 05:38 AM
1- In what way do I see BESM as similar to 4E.

I don't, really. But if I want a fantasy game that isn't D&D, then I prefer BESM to 4E.

sorry, that was the knee-jerk reaction, there.

I think it boils down to this: Why even have classes in 4E? You could completly axe the class system, and just have a list of powers to choose from, and 4E would work. The class system is weak in 4E. If I want to play a fantasty game w/o any meaningful class system, I much prefer BESM.

2- Why don't you like DMing 4E, it is really easy?

That would be why. I thought I spelled that out when I said that I find 4e to be boring on a game mechanics level. There isn't anything for me to play with, (as a DM) and I can spit out a full adventure in 15mins if I had the inclination to do so. Good for some DMs, but it takes the fun out of it for me.


I have never had a homebrew monster blow up in my face, not counting BESM, which is an entirely different ballgame.

Maybe I'm just selfish, and like getting to spend twice as much time on my game than the players do...

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-24, 12:07 PM
1

2- Why don't you like DMing 4E, it is really easy?



Sometimes is not about difficult/easy. Sometimes it's about inspiring/uninspiring.

My previous campaing started from an idea that came in my mind after I read about Blood War.

In 4th, Blood war was removed by desing. Good Job, Mearls. Good Job. And Goodbye.

Morty
2009-02-24, 12:12 PM
2- Why don't you like DMing 4E, it is really easy?

That would be why. I thought I spelled that out when I said that I find 4e to be boring on a game mechanics level. There isn't anything for me to play with, (as a DM) and I can spit out a full adventure in 15mins if I had the inclination to do so. Good for some DMs, but it takes the fun out of it for me.


I have never had a homebrew monster blow up in my face, not counting BESM, which is an entirely different ballgame.

Maybe I'm just selfish, and like getting to spend twice as much time on my game than the players do...

Hear hear. For some people, easiness isn't the ultimate goal in game design. Sure, 4ed is easy to run, but on the altar of easiness too many game elements have been sacrificed. So I'd rather take my time to design adventures.


My previous campaing started from an idea that came in my mind after I read about Blood War.

In 4th, Blood war was removed by desing. Good Job, Mears. Good Job. And Goodbye.

Yeah, but man, it's so complicated! And now players aren't the only ones who are allowed to kick evil's butt! And the whole multiverse doesn't revlolve around a bunch of adventurers!
:smallsigh::smallyuk:
I should really stop getting into edition arguments, because I'm absolutely certain someone is going to take my post apart to show me how stupid and wrong I am, but it's stronger than myself.

Totally Guy
2009-02-24, 12:40 PM
My previous campaing started from an idea that came in my mind after I read about Blood War.

My last campaigns started from thing's I'd read in edition war threads.

1) 4th Edition is like an MMORPG. So I decided to see how far I could push a fantasy setting into a scenario that mimicked the rules of an MMORPG. It was 4 sessions before they'd noticed that my game was like a game.

2) The edition war. A new religion had popped up and everyone was being encouraged to worship it by the state leaders. The faith was being channelled into a trapped god which made the countries more powerful and the religion grow. The players finally spotted this when a debate was carried out in the town square using the 4th vs 3.5 arguments being directly applied to the situation. That was maybe 7 sessions into that story arch.

Keep it up. I need more edition debate for my next storyline...

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-24, 01:15 PM
I think it boils down to this: Why even have classes in 4E? You could completly axe the class system, and just have a list of powers to choose from, and 4E would work. The class system is weak in 4E. If I want to play a fantasty game w/o any meaningful class system, I much prefer BESM.

Curiouser and curiouser!

I've always found 3E to have the weakest class system. Nobody played a "class;" they played a bundle of templates made up of "base classes" and PrCs. Nobody aside from casters would play a straight-class, and even they usually got some PrC.

Of course, my definition of class came from 2E, where you were a Fighter and you liked it :smalltongue:

IMHO, 4E has been a return to the strong-class paradigm:
Limited Multiclassing has made your class important again. At 1st level you determine your at-wills, class features, and skill selection; no character of a different class can mimic these features in full. Additionally, multiclassing is slow and difficult to do; you have to take a feat for every power, including an initial one which usually grants a skill and a weak version of a class feature. Finally, even a fully multiclassed character can only swap 3 total powers; your base class dominates.

Paragon Multiclassing is a more powerful form of multiclassing, but even there your base class features rule.

And those Class Features are not weak! Prestidigitation (a suite of at-will utility effects), Rogue Weapon Talent (+1 to hit with daggers!), TWF Ranger (can wield any one-handed weapon in the off hand), Channel Divinity (flexible and powerful), Commanding Presence (+2 to party initiative) and so on. They define and differentiate the character classes, even within the broad groupings of Leader or Striker.

As an example: both Clerics and Warlords can heal and buff. However, Clerics have an inherent +WIS HP to all healing effects, while Warlords grant a universal +2 (and later +INT/CHA) Initiative. Those features very much make up the class, as much as Special Mount was part of the Paladin Identity in 2E.

What do you mean by a "weak class system" :smallconfused:

Artanis
2009-02-24, 01:22 PM
You need an army of clones. All the soldiers, wizards, clerics, archers, and even back-alley criminals look the same, act the same, and even fight with as similar actions (e.g. movements, battle cries, etc.) as possible. And they have to be fighting an army whose makeup is chaos incarnate: a half-dragon archer who uses his bow as a harp, a bookworm who transforms into a skeleton-raising dinosaur, a back-alley thug whose fists are lethal weapons that will also utterly obliterate the undead, that sort of thing.


Edit: @Glug

Reverent-One
2009-02-24, 01:25 PM
1- In what way do I see BESM as similar to 4E.

I don't, really. But if I want a fantasy game that isn't D&D, then I prefer BESM to 4E.

sorry, that was the knee-jerk reaction, there.

I think it boils down to this: Why even have classes in 4E? You could completly axe the class system, and just have a list of powers to choose from, and 4E would work. The class system is weak in 4E. If I want to play a fantasty game w/o any meaningful class system, I much prefer BESM.

By that line of thought, you could ask why there are classes in 3.5, and why you don't just pick from a list of special abilities and attributes each level. In fact, that is how 3.5 works, it's the very principle that allows you to "dip" levels into a class. On this very forum, someone suggested for a melee character to take a level of barbarian for rage, rogue for sneak attack, fighter for feats, ranger for free feat and skill points, and a couple of levels of paladin for the bonus's to saving throws. What class is that character? It's a member of the "hit things over the head with a weapon" class. :smallconfused: And that's just using core classes and no prestige classes.

4e classes are comparatively strong to 3.5 classes, you can't just take a level or two of a class in order to get it's best class features, the multi-class feat allows you to only make limited use of one or two of their inherent class features. Meaning that what class you pick to start with matters. Add on to that the fact that most, if not all, paragon paths and epic destinies require you to be a certain class to access them, and the feats that are class specific, and you see that your class choice, like your race choice, matters a lot for your character, while in 3.5, they don't.

EDIT: Ha-ha! Ninja'd by a couple of poeple.

MCerberus
2009-02-24, 01:33 PM
Recently I have purchased the 4e PHB with an early tax refund (yay for e-file), and have been able to give it a moderately attentive read through.



First thing I noticed was that there were, indeed, some mechanics that are influenced by newer and mmo RPGs. This is a good thing to me, as it means that the genre is advancing. I honestly don't have an issue with the role/class system. The next thing I noticed was many of the core mechanics staying the same. As it says, roll a d20, hope it's high.

The casters were toned down, but that's really for the better. Wizards have their place but they don't cheese down every encounter. Clerics can still melee, but they're not emasculating the other meleers CONSTANTLY.

Of course these are all initial impressions that will change. I'm currently looking for a 4e game (might just PbP on this board). Of course, as a Greyhawk fan, I'm a little bemused about the deities. I think I can guess the long forgotten name of the Raven Queen.

Morty
2009-02-24, 01:38 PM
1) 4th Edition is like an MMORPG. So I decided to see how far I could push a fantasy setting into a scenario that mimicked the rules of an MMORPG. It was 4 sessions before they'd noticed that my game was like a game.


You know, I think this "4ed=MMORPG" thing has become a double strawman. First, some people were shouting that 4ed is like MMORPGs. Now, people who like 4ed repeat that people are stupid because they think that way over and over again, even though not that much people say that anymore but hey, it's a nice argument, eh? That was a digression, carry on with your "Well, I don't like 4ed very mu- SHUT UP!!!!".

Reverent-One
2009-02-24, 01:44 PM
You know, I think this "4ed=MMORPG" thing has become a double strawman. First, some people were shouting that 4ed is like MMORPGs. Now, people who like 4ed repeat that people are stupid because they think that way over and over again, even though not that much people say that anymore but hey, it's a nice argument, eh? That was a digression, carry on with your "Well, I don't like 4ed very mu- SHUT UP!!!!".

So 4e supporters can't make their points without looking like they're shouting down other people? :smallconfused: Because it's been a rather civil discussion so far.

Totally Guy
2009-02-24, 01:46 PM
First, some people were shouting that 4ed is like MMORPGs.

That's when I did it. I think it was September. Good days.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be carrying on with though. Maybe I should pick a side or something...

Morty
2009-02-24, 02:06 PM
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be carrying on with though. Maybe I should pick a side or something...

That was to the 4ed proponents. But nonetheless, it was uncalled for. Sorry, everyone. It's just my short temper flaring up. That's why I try to bow out of such discussions normally.

Skjaldbakka
2009-02-24, 03:48 PM
I've always found 3E to have the weakest class system. Nobody played a "class;" they played a bundle of templates made up of "base classes" and PrCs. Nobody aside from casters would play a straight-class, and even they usually got some PrC. YMMV

Correction in bold.

Since no one defended the problem with 4E's class system, and instead just stated 'nu-uh, 4E has a strong class system', I don't really need to defend my point there.

4E doesn't need classes to function. It has all the powers written up, and you already choose powers when you go up in level. It would not meaningfully change the system if you could just pick from any class's power list. What defines the classes is what you get at first level. All the classes use the same advancement chart, for crying out loud. Although it makes churning out more classes really easy, since they all follow the same pattern (this ties into the 4E is boring - it lacks interesting game mechanics)

Heck, I was in a 4E game that used that paradigm. The DM threw the classes out the window. I played a fire mage, and he said ' pick out powers that use magic for power source, and change the spells to deal fire instead of the normal damage type'.

It worked out pretty well.

I should probably be fair, and point out what I see as the good in 4E:

- I like the new crit rules. A natural 20 deals max damage, combined with attacks that go up in dice instead of static modifiers was a good idea.

-I like how small modifiers always matter. Since you are always rolling 1d20+1/2 level + stat vs. 20+1/2 level+stat, getting a +1 or +2 will always matter. I don't like the reason that works that way (all classes work the same way, and may as well not even be classes), but it is favorable side effect. A silver lining on what I perceive to be the dark cloud of a horrible design philosphy.

-4E is a better game to play 'off-the-cuff'. If an old gaming buddy from my college days drops by, we can through together a 4E one-shot and have som fun for a few hours. Can't stomach running a campaign in 4E though.

- Umm, it is better balanced. Since everyone is doing the same thing, it can't really help but be balanced.

-It is not like an MMO. As was mentioned before, the warrior, rogue and mage in WoW have much more variation in abilities than the fighter, rogue, and wizard in D&D.

Reverent-One
2009-02-24, 04:00 PM
Correction in bold.

Since no one defended the problem with 4E's class system, and instead just stated 'nu-uh, 4E has a strong class system', I don't really need to defend my point there.

4E doesn't need classes to function. It has all the powers written up, and you already choose powers when you go up in level. It would not meaningfully change the system if you could just pick from any class's power list. What defines the classes is what you get at first level. All the classes use the same advancement chart, for crying out loud. Although it makes churning out more classes really easy, since they all follow the same pattern (this ties into the 4E is boring - it lacks interesting game mechanics)


Except that if you're going to say that 3.5 has a stronger class system than 4e, you should offer some evidence of that yourself. You can (and people most often do) the exact same thing in 3.5, so what's the difference? I mean, what you describe is exactly the 3.5 method of leveling.

Artanis
2009-02-24, 04:31 PM
It would not meaningfully change the system if you could just pick from any class's power list.
But this is not the case. This is very, VERY not the case. In a current campaign, my Ranger is vastly different from the class's Warlock in not just capabilities, but in playstyle as well. The difference between my Ranger and the non-Strikers in the party (Wizard, Swordmage, Paladin, and Warlord) is even greater. If any of us was able to choose whatever power we wanted, this would not be the case.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-24, 04:32 PM
Since no one defended the problem with 4E's class system, and instead just stated 'nu-uh, 4E has a strong class system', I don't really need to defend my point there.

I guess you missed it. Here, I'll repost:

Limited Multiclassing has made your class important again. At 1st level you determine your at-wills, class features, and skill selection; no character of a different class can mimic these features in full. Additionally, multiclassing is slow and difficult to do; you have to take a feat for every power, including an initial one which usually grants a skill and a weak version of a class feature. Finally, even a fully multiclassed character can only swap 3 total powers; your base class dominates.

Paragon Multiclassing is a more powerful form of multiclassing, but even there your base class features rule.

And those Class Features are not weak! Prestidigitation (a suite of at-will utility effects), Rogue Weapon Talent (+1 to hit with daggers!), TWF Ranger (can wield any one-handed weapon in the off hand), Channel Divinity (flexible and powerful), Commanding Presence (+2 to party initiative) and so on. They define and differentiate the character classes, even within the broad groupings of Leader or Striker.

As an example: both Clerics and Warlords can heal and buff. However, Clerics have an inherent +WIS HP to all healing effects, while Warlords grant a universal +2 (and later +INT/CHA) Initiative. Those features very much make up the class, as much as Special Mount was part of the Paladin Identity in 2E.

This is why I think 4E has a strong class system. Now, you haven't defined what you mean by a "weak class system" so I can't be sure this is responsive, but IMHO a weak class system is one in which your character is not defined by any single class.

2E had a strong class system. Your class determined your THAC0, Saving Throw progression, weapon selection, # of weapon proficiencies, # of NWP, your other skills and powers - heck, it even defined your rate of advancement!

3E, by comparison, looks like a weaker class system. Levels determine the amount of classes you can have at a time, and their relative power. There is no barrier to picking up a level of any particular class (and its various benefits) and there are few penalties (by RAW) to having multiple classes. PrCs have barriers to entry, but those barriers are seldom linked to class; usually it is to particular abilities that could come from any number of classes.

A preference for a strong or weak class system is indeed a YMMV opinion. However, if you make a general claim about a system it is considered good form to explain what you mean; if not for idle forum fighters, then for someone who is looking for information on the editions.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-24, 05:06 PM
2- Why don't you like DMing 4E, it is really easy?

While I can't speak for other people, I'm actually much faster writing adventures in any rules-light system, and winging the parts of it that need winging. It is faster for me to make up an appropriate semi-mythological critter to fight, than to search through the monster manual for what abilities might be level-appropriate. Then, I find grids overly constraining for flashy action scenes, and they slow down gameplay. And I dislike that the default reaction of many players to any situation is to think which of their discrete Powers would be most helpful.

Tech
2009-02-24, 06:21 PM
Correction in bold.

Since no one defended the problem with 4E's class system, and instead just stated 'nu-uh, 4E has a strong class system', I don't really need to defend my point there.

You claimed it had a weak class system, so the burden's on you to prove it that way.


4E doesn't need classes to function. It has all the powers written up, and you already choose powers when you go up in level. It would not meaningfully change the system if you could just pick from any class's power list.

Yes it would, because you'd have characters deviate majorly from their general schticks, you'd have relentlessly silly combinations that would make certain builds be incredibly hilariously good, or make monsters that should never come into being, because they're either retardedly good, or just dumb in the first place.


What defines the classes is what you get at first level. All the classes use the same advancement chart, for crying out loud. Although it makes churning out more classes really easy, since they all follow the same pattern (this ties into the 4E is boring - it lacks interesting game mechanics)

What defines the classes are the class features, and the powers and utilities you get, yes. Does it make churning out classes easy? Yes, and no. Are they boring because they all follow the same advancement chart? Gods no they're not. On paper it might be boring, but in actual play, it isn't.


(all classes work the same way, and may as well not even be classes), but it is favorable side effect. A silver lining on what I perceive to be the dark cloud of a horrible design philosphy.

This is in fact wrong and a good design philosophy.


-4E is a better game to play 'off-the-cuff'. If an old gaming buddy from my college days drops by, we can through together a 4E one-shot and have some fun for a few hours. Can't stomach running a campaign in 4E though.

I've been in several 4e campaigns, all of which were good. In the same vein, I've been in a myriad of one-shots to test out builds and characters.


- Umm, it is better balanced. Since everyone is doing the same thing, it can't really help but be balanced.

Yeah, no.


-It is not like an MMO. As was mentioned before, the warrior, rogue and mage in WoW have much more variation in abilities than the fighter, rogue, and wizard in D&D.

I've barely played WoW, but uh...

Wizards can be control and do nothing but deny enemies. They can also focus on pure damage. With the new articles that came out, Wizards can actually make a viable melee threat if they're ever able to make an OA (2d4+implement+int+misc damage and several squares of push on an OA is nasty).

Fighters can pick up a spear and do nothing but push, prone, and deny movement in exceedingly cruel ways. Two weapon fighters are sturdier strikers that deal pain and are fairly mobile. Two hand weapon fighters "defend" by threatening to deal gross amounts of damage if the enemy takes a misstep. Battlerager fighters are the traditional tank that pretty much never dies (unless you hand them ranged enemies or anything that targets something that isn't AC/Fort)

Rogues have an absurd amount of options and can make their own viable, if not severely unconventional party.

There's the Swashbuckler (Defender, also he isn't actually a 100% Rogue, but very, very close to one) who is a Tempest Fighter, picking Ruthless Efficiency to get rogue multiclass and training in Stealth. (So he can join in on getting the drop on enemies). Rakish Swashbuckler paragon path for Vexing Foe (target marked by him grants Combat Advantage to all allies). Gets a free attack if an ally crits against the target.

The Sniper(Striker/Controller): Rogue baseclass, Brutal Scoundrel. Uses rattling powers (Disheartening Strike, mainly) from stealth with a mindiron crossbow and Underhanded Tactics for -6 to the enemy's attack rolls. Goes Ranger for a few control powers, such as Confounding Arrows. Also has several close blast powers from the rogue to clear minions. Cloaked Sniper as the paragon path.

The Talker(Leader/Striker): Rogue baseclass, Artful Dodger. The party face, using daggers for throwing and stabbing. Helps the party out while still doing great damage with Sly Flourish. Capitalizes on extra mobility to get to places fast, as well as using sliding and shifting powers to position the battlefield. Picking either Master Spy or Guildmaster Thief as his paragon path (I prefer Guildmaster Thief, the abilities are so good). Multiclasses to Warlord for Bravura/Inspiring powers to get a kick out of the high charisma. Tends to seek to flank enemies with the Swashbuckler or the Brute.

The Brute(Defender/Striker): Rogue baseclass, Brutal Scoundrel. Uses a gith silver double sword (with psychic lock) to deliver Disheartening Strike. With Cincture of the Dragon Spirit he uses his high strength instead of his charisma for Intimidate and Untamed Berserker Style to get his Strength modifier as a bonus to Intimidate checks. He goes Strong-Arm Enforcer as a paragon path to become a secondary tank, able to pull an enemy off the Swashbuckler with his encounter attack, if needed. His Implied Threat encounter power gives him his Strength modifier once more onto his Intimidate, leaving him at 3xStr Mod + Training + misc bonuses, easily scaring any bloodied enemy into submission.

The Thief(Striker). Rogue baseclass - Anything you want, really. Probably Artful Dodger using a dagger/hand crossbow combo, going skill monkey and probably dabbling in an Arcane class to get Arcana training (so he can break the locks of portals too). The "thief in the night" stereotype varies a lot.

I am possibly missing out on more viable combination of classes, but to be quite honest my most used characters have been primarily Strikers, so I can spot the various combos better.

Mando Knight
2009-02-24, 06:27 PM
My previous campaing started from an idea that came in my mind after I read about Blood War.

In 4th, Blood war was removed by desing. Good Job, Mearls. Good Job. And Goodbye.

...So? Many people apparently just didn't care that the Baatezu and the Tanar'ri fought each other for just about forever. Rich apparently thinks it's amusing to have them all ally. 4E is mostly silent on the matter until you get into the Forgotten Realms, which has... other changes that seem to be debated. Just put the Blood War back in. You're only missing the Yugoloths, and they might show up in the MM II.

Thurbane
2009-02-24, 08:35 PM
...So? Many people apparently just didn't care that the Baatezu and the Tanar'ri fought each other for just about forever.
Conversely, many other people did. I'll put up my hand. I had often worked the Blood War into campaign plots and even one shot adventures. :smallsmile:

Sure, if I were playing 4E, I suppose I could handwave the Blood War back into existence - no problem. I'm just puzzled by the fact they totally changed the planar cosmology, seemingly for nothing more than the sake of change itself. :smalleek:

Changing window dressing between editions is a pet peeve of mine. I can totally see why they do it - to earmark the new edition as "exciting, different and new". Which is fine, but creates more work for loyal customers who have ongoing campaigns they want to port accross from edition to edition. It's a not a game design flaw, but it is something that annoys me - it feels a little like I'm being punished for upgrading. :smallfrown:

nightwyrm
2009-02-24, 09:02 PM
I think one of the reasons they changed the cosmology was because the Great Wheel was heavily influenced and dependent on the 9 point alignment system. Since they had changed the alignment system, the position of the outer planes on the Great Wheel no longer make much sense.

Knaight
2009-02-24, 09:55 PM
While I can't speak for other people, I'm actually much faster writing adventures in any rules-light system, and winging the parts of it that need winging. It is faster for me to make up an appropriate semi-mythological critter to fight, than to search through the monster manual for what abilities might be level-appropriate. Then, I find grids overly constraining for flashy action scenes, and they slow down gameplay. And I dislike that the default reaction of many players to any situation is to think which of their discrete Powers would be most helpful.

I agree with all of this. Every, single bit. This is what turned me off of third edition, and fourth edition, although the parts in each vary (fourth is more towards the discrete powers, and grid heaviness, third is on the rules heavy side. That and I'm not a fan of the class system in fourth, I like classless systems most, but 3e was workable with the multiclassing. Not great, but workable.). I usually don't bother to write adventures, although I do plan out enemy reactions some after a game, but thats mostly because I stick to systems that are light enough, and that I know well enough that I can improvise a monster on the fly.

krossbow
2009-02-24, 11:05 PM
How about a Paladin that can't fall. Do that in 3.5. Even the Prc like Grey Guard can fall.

A paladin who can't fall isn't a paladin anymore; they're just a generic divine magic warrior. Nothing wrong with that, but a paladin isn't defined by something like that, they're defined by being a warrior dedicated to righteousness.


3.X characters are like characters from One Piece that can remain standing after being repeatedly shot, blown away by explosions and hit by an object that weights a ton.

and how is that neccecarily a cardinal sin? When properly described, characters taking large amount of damage can be quite entertaining. simply narrarate the blows as landing primarily on their armor, the wounds being grazing ones, or concussive damage resulting from the spells (such as magic missle). High level characters taking large amounts of damage and keep coming makes things terse often.


If i can ignore the problems explaining game mechanics of 4th edition, i have issues whatsoever believing that the PC's are preposterously powerful individuals who you have to beat with a building to take down.


In 4th, Blood war was removed by desing. Good Job, Mearls. Good Job. And Goodbye.


agreed. I LOVED the blood war; i'm sorry, but adding some actual DEPTH to villians and interplane relations is terribly interesting to me and all the people i've ever played dungeons and dragons campaigns with. It allows for deeper thought to dealing with such individuals.

With blood war, your not just dealing with "generic fiendish evil Ted" who's only real role is to die on sight from all people; you have to actually take into account situations. They were individuals with actual motivations and conflicts!
do you really have to believe that its impossible to deal with such individuals? with a reliable situation like the blood war, it became possible to peacefully and easily interact with individuals such as devils or demons in regards to fighting common foes.

Zeful
2009-02-24, 11:21 PM
Agreed. I LOVED the blood war; i'm sorry, but adding some actual DEPTH to villians and interplane relations is terribly interesting to me and all the people i've ever played dungeons and dragons campaigns with. It allows for deeper thought to dealing with such individuals.

With blood war, your not just dealing with "generic fiendish evil Ted" who's only real role is to die on sight from all people; you have to actually take into account situations. They were individuals with actual motivations and conflicts!
Do you really have to believe that its impossible to deal with such individuals? with a reliable situation like the blood war, it became possible to peacefully and easily interact with individuals such as devils or demons in regards to fighting common foes.

Adding Depth to villains is the DM's job. Not the setting's. If you or your DM need to be spoon-fed plot hooks to write a convincing villain then I find you need to read more. I've never had a problem giving my villains proper motivations, regardless of the setting. On top of that the Blood war gives no actual depth to any one villain, instead it adds depth to the setting. Which can be a good thing in it's own right.

krossbow
2009-02-24, 11:50 PM
Adding Depth to villains is the DM's job. Not the setting's. If you or your DM need to be spoon-fed plot hooks to write a convincing villain then I find you need to read more. I've never had a problem giving my villains proper motivations, regardless of the setting. On top of that the Blood war gives no actual depth to any one villain, instead it adds depth to the setting. Which can be a good thing in it's own right.




Lawful evil vs. Chaotic evil adds tons of depth. We never read up on who the leaders of the blood war were; WE add that ourselves. However, we always held to the principal that chaotic evil would neccecarily find itself in conflict with lawful evil, and took to that with much gusto.




Besides, to say that adding depth is "the DM's job" is like saying that The DM is a hack for using the faerun setting.

THAC0
2009-02-25, 01:22 AM
Lawful evil vs. Chaotic evil adds tons of depth. We never read up on who the leaders of the blood war were; WE add that ourselves. However, we always held to the principal that chaotic evil would neccecarily find itself in conflict with lawful evil, and took to that with much gusto.




Besides, to say that adding depth is "the DM's job" is like saying that The DM is a hack for using the faerun setting.

If you want to buy and use a setting, buy and use a setting.

However, condemning a system for a lack of specific setting fluff is a little crazy in my mind.

But I've never been a big setting person anyway.

Artanis
2009-02-25, 01:58 AM
You guys do realize that Demons and Devils can fight each other even without the Blood War, right? In fact, such a conflict can have implications that the Blood War might not (and vice versa, of course).

OneFamiliarFace
2009-02-25, 02:14 AM
Since no one defended the problem with 4E's class system, and instead just stated 'nu-uh, 4E has a strong class system', I don't really need to defend my point there.

4E doesn't need classes to function. It has all the powers written up, and you already choose powers when you go up in level.

Not to cherry-pick your post which was very well thought out, but I'm taking this for example. I think Oracle has done a fine job in explaining it, but I wish to tackle this from a different angle. (For the record, my point of view = like class systems for heroic fantasy, dislike class systems for modern stuff.)

On How Classes are distinct in 4e:

I think that a major part of what 4e does over 3.5 is that a class is THAT class at 1st level. What I mean is this: In 3.5, a person couldn't much call themselves a fighter (over, say, a warrior), because there was little to nothing to distinguish him from a warrior. One couldn't very well call himself a fighter until he had taken sufficient levels so as to prove he wasn't going to move on to any class. Likewise, someone who dipped a level of Barbarian or Rogue wasn't anymore a Barbarian or Rogue than the full progression Wizard.

In 4e, however, there is a pronounced difference between the way a Fighter operates and, say, a Ranger, Barbarian, or any other martial melee class. This is because of the Fighter's marking capabilities. In essence, he acquires everything that makes him a Fighter at 1st level, and these abilities become more pronounced as the game continues.

In 3.5, a Fighter got nothing that was uniquely "Fighter-esque" until Level 4, and even then, that was an uninspiring +2 to damage with one weapon. By level 4 in 4e, a Fighter has had Fighter-like qualities (as compared to other classes) since level 1, and has even made a pronounced weapon choice in choosing his level 3 power.
On Comparing 3.5 to 4e in this respect:

As to the claim that you can just throw all the spells for a wizard into a bucket and pick and choose from them. This is certainly the case. As powers are balanced by level, there isn't too much lost in allowing a wizard to pick a socerer's power (or even a cleric's).

But, in 3.5, there really isn't anything stopping me from doing the same. I can just say that every spellcaster has access to all the spells available to any class, so long as he spends time and money researching them. Likewise, I could allow a melee class to just choose the ability they wanted from any melee class, once they hit the appropriate level, so long as they had the prerequisites (uncanny dodge to select i. uncanny dodge, for example).

Importantly, it isn't different class mechanics that prevent me from doing this in 3.5 core, it is simply balance issues.
On all 4e Classes and Powers being the same:

Finally, as to the claim that this swapping of powers is possible due to all 4e classes being the same. I merely challenge you to run a normal 4e game with a party in which the single-classed Rogue attempts to be the Defender, in which the Wizard attempts to be a melee beater, or in which the Fighter only seeks to be ranged support. It can't be done effectively, even at 1st level, because the classes are distinctly different and useful in their own ways.

Also, this same argument is often side-by-side with the notion that every power in 4e deals damage. This is patently untrue, as by the end of your career, you have 10 attack powers and 7 utility powers. So nearly half your class-based powers do no damage at all, and (especially for the Rogue, Ranger, Warlock, and Wizard) many of those utility powers have nothing to do with combat. Further still, classes like the wizard come with Cantrips, none of which deal damage and all of which can be useful outside of combat.

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-25, 07:48 AM
You guys do realize that Demons and Devils can fight each other even without the Blood War, right? In fact, such a conflict can have implications that the Blood War might not (and vice versa, of course).

This is undoubtly true, Artanis, but what I said was referred to:

- A removal of something anyway helping you (or at least, me, maybe you hated BW, and I respect your point of view :smallsmile:) to imagine a dynamic multiverse

- The whole "if is useless to PCs, remove it" thing.

-BTW, BW is a conflict between Law and Chaos. So its removal is connected to the whole alignment thing, and the new alignment axis. And the new, alignment system is not in my tastes, so, you see, I feel the BW removal more.

Artanis
2009-02-25, 12:34 PM
Those are all legitimate points, Kaiyanwang, and I respect them. I was replying to how, to me, it sometimes seems like some people act as though Demons and Devils are completely barred from fighting each other in 4e.

[hr]

RE: "classes might as well be able to pick any power they want"

I thought of a good example of what I (and others) are trying to convey.

Imagine two 3.5 Druids. One of them is allowed to Wild Shape into a Lion, a Tiger, a Bear, or a Wolf. The second is also limited to 4 creatures, but is allowed to choose any four creatures from any splatbook ever produced for 3.5. There is most certainly a very meaningful difference between the two, just like there would be between a normal 4e character vs. a character allowed to choose whatever power he wants.

Izmir Stinger
2009-02-26, 04:41 PM
I think it boils down to this: Why even have classes in 4E? You could completly axe the class system, and just have a list of powers to choose from, and 4E would work. The class system is weak in 4E. If I want to play a fantasty game w/o any meaningful class system, I much prefer BESM.

Indeed, why not? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105761) Introducing a new custom not class for 4E.

aarondirebear
2009-03-02, 08:38 AM
A fireball does how many D6's of damage now again?

In 4th Edition?
1d6, with the damage divided by the amount of targets.

Well they HAD to nerf the damage, they didn't want to offend the fighters by making magic any better than a sword!

Mobey_Wee
2009-03-02, 09:35 AM
In 4th Edition?
1d6, with the damage divided by the amount of targets.

Well they HAD to nerf the damage, they didn't want to offend the fighters by making magic any better than a sword!

huh? divided by number of targets? did i miss something? oh and i'm not baiting. i don't feel like getting my books out right now, and i'm really wondering if i missed something...