[4.0] Insults intelligence. [Archive] - Page 2 - Giant in the Playground Forums

Poru93

2009-06-07, 01:29 AM

I've been following along with this thread, and I thought I'd toss in my two cents just for kicks. I'm fairly new to D&D, the first time I ever played was using the 4E rules. After a year's worth of time playing D&D, I've been both a player and a DM. Regardless of whether 4E is more balanced than 3.5 or which is better, I feel the books that have been published so far have done what they intended to do and haven't insulted my intelligence at all. If you think about it, they have the word Guide in the title for a reason. To me it seems perfectly natural to write the book with the idea in mind that the majority of readers won't have much of an idea of how to play. The same applies to the DMG. What I've found through my experience with 4E is that it actually gives the players and the DM more power to mold the game into what they want. The designers gave suggestions for worlds, rules, etc that they think might be helpful or an easy place to start. I know that in my group at least, we have deviated quite a bit from what was originally set down, whether it's changing how skill challenges are run to the fluff on powers, monsters, etc.

I suppose to put my feelings into as small a nutshell as I can, I mean that 4E, to me at least, allows the material published to be the whole of the game, but also allows the individual parts (combat, skill checks, even the world) to be taken apart and changed as you see fit. I personally have prefer this style, but I'm not saying it is any better or worse than the previous editions of D&D or any roleplaying game in general.

satorian

2009-06-07, 01:33 AM

:sigh:

As has been said, you can roleplay Monopoly - the real question with any system is what kind of story do you want to be in.

Sure yeah, you can role-play Go Fish, but that doesn't make it a game as conducive to role-play as say Mage:Ascension. role play is possible anywhere, but some systems are more conducive to it, and less gamist die-happy games tend to be more conducive. The reverse is true, as well. It's hard to play a hard tactical game where there aren't rules for it. Stratego and D&D 4e are great for tactics. Role play is possible, of course, in both, but less, shall we say, promoted by the system. That doesn't make them bad games. Not at all. I love stratego, and chess, and go, and gin, etc. But when I want to role play, I want fewer die rolls, no battlemat, and a rules-light system. Maybe the key is that tactics games can be won or lost, and it matters if you win or lose. When I role-play, I don't care if I win or lose.

warrl

2009-06-07, 01:41 AM

Strange. Maybe they aren't advocating removing RP after all! Amazing, that. Almost as if I used some bloody common sense.
I've been saying all along that you can still do neat things in 4.0 but that it takes some work and some actual role-playing (just as it did in earlier versions). 4.0 absolutely does not eliminate role-playing.

On the other hand, 4.0 certainly DOWNPLAYS role-playing (as opposed to combat) as compared to earlier versions.

Just as one example, consider how many non-combat-related spells are theoretically available to a first-level wizard in PHB1.

Version 4.0: Precisely four. Two more become available at level 2, and some more at level 6.

Version 3.0: 11 cantrips, 17 first-level spells. Some of these are available to 2nd- or 6th-level wizards in 4.0. There are more at EVERY spell level.

shadzar

2009-06-07, 01:52 AM

I think the point was that even if said player opens up, he's unlikely to be able to provide the sweeping prose that can make women faint and strong men cry; let alone fast-talk his way past the guards.

Is it so wrong to throw the guy a friggin' bone? :smallconfused:

Is the only reason this shy person is playing an RPG is to get fictional women?

If so there is more of a problem than the RPG system.

I got a similar analogy.

Why do people in a wheelchair not get allowed to play in the NBA, but have their own league?

Should they not have a league and be forced into the same standards of requirements to join the NBA?

Maybe those not able to cast off what is needed to play a personal interaction RPG, need one more tailored for them, rather than needing to be in the one that "everyone else plays", that requires that level?

What is wrong with having more than one game for people to play? What is the need for people to all do the same thing?

As with the discussion about gamers, does it make those unfortunately bound to a wheelchair have any less right to play basketball, or less right to be called basketball players, just because they are not a part of the NBA?

No they don't lose those rights because of a slight alteration. They would probably wish to play in the NBA, but that would entail more than a sport could offer for them for all else they lost. It is just not something the NBA can give them.

An RPG cannot likewise give people who will not try to interact with other people the ability to do so, because the game has a mechanic where they still do not actually have to do it.

Do it mean shy people don't have a right to be called gamers, or to play in an RPG? No. But it also doesn't mean every RPG has to be turned into something for them because of lack of skill, or lack of want to try to perform the social interaction.

This line of thinking is insulting to the entire race. One in which it would say people don't have a right to have something for themselves just because something they chose to try doesn't suit their needs.

This is overgeneralizing things for no reason but to hide inabilities in a game or people themselves.

NOTE TO ALL: (Sit down, this may shock some people!)

You don't have to play D&D to be a gamer or an RPG player. You don't even have to like D&D (any edition) to be a gamer or RPG player. :smalleek:

Likewise a game should not cater to those who do not like the game, but if something is needed for them then something FOR them should/can be created for their gaming needs.

So I would say the bone to throw would not be try to change the world for this guy at the cost of everyone else, but to make something more tailored to this guys needs.

Anecdote:

I once had a friend that was so curious about what D&D was, why the rest of us enjoyed it, and asked if he could try. This not only confused us but caused us to laugh, and tell him he didn't have to ask permission to join, but just tell us when he wanted to to get him into the game. He was not shy at all, and more outgoing than many of us. Even with the rest of us known to him and friends for a while, when it came to the game he hardly did a thing. After the game, he said he just didn't get it, but thanks for letting him try. We offered to help him "get it", and he just said it isn't his thing. Oddly enough none of us had a problem with it. He did his own thing when we played, and other times we all went out and did other things (shoot pool, etc).

He felt in no way left out of the group, or felt like he was any less a person for not playing.

With that in mind how is it that games keep getting made for people that don't like them rather than making thing people do like for them?

The D&D name is not the game. You don't play D&D to say you play D&D. Play D&D because you like D&D. That ideal has been lost with 4th edition because the game was changed to something other than it was for people that didn't like what it was. Why instead wasn't something else made for those that didn't like D&D, and D&D let continue on for those that did like it? Just because everyone wasn't doing the same thing at the same time? Everybody doesn't have to do the same thing.

Maybe the shy guy has other things they like that the "group" could do with them?

Bah. Find what you like because you like it and not because someone else does, and then don't worry with the things that you don't like that don't affect you. (I am waiting and ready for what I know to come to me in regards to this last line here. :smallwink:)

Oracle_Hunter

2009-06-07, 02:09 AM

Sure yeah, you can role-play Go Fish, but that doesn't make it a game as conducive to role-play as say Mage:Ascension.
nWoD Mage is no more conducive to roleplay than AD&D, or 3E, or Shadowrun - those are all just rules systems for adjudicating the outcome of actions, not for defining your character.

When you say "conducive to roleplaying", I think you must mean one of two things:
(1) The system does not define your character's social abilities
(2) The system focuses on social situations
In the first case, WoD is a pretty lousy example ("Expression" is a skill!) - AD&D is far better. In AD&D your DM would roll a Reaction Check based off of your CHA at the start of an encounter to determine the NPC's initial disposition; then it is pure RP from there on out. Naturally, the more rules-light the system is, the better it serves this first definition of roleplaying.

In the second case you're dealing with a mechanical question. Arguably, WoD is social-situation focused, but the mechanisms for doing this is lousy as well. Nature & Demeanor have never worked well by RAW (the whole Willpower-regaining system is easily metagamed), and in some of the more morality-focused games (oWoD Vampire) the Humanity System was an annoying way for the game to tell you when you're getting depraved. If you're not dealing with mechanical questions, then it is purely a storytelling decision; the DM decides whether you're going to be at a fancy ball or in a dank dungeon, not the system.
In either case, the game mechanics get in the way of playing out social situations more often than they help - which is why the broad 4E social skills system is going to be better than WoD Manipulation+Subterfuge checks; but you pointed that out already.

N.B. I am not going to push the "you can roleplay anything" line more than making the simple point that dialogue is not the be-all of roleplaying. It is probably obvious that a system needs at least a basic level of player autonomy to allow a player to adopt a persona - if dice determine your every reaction, then the dice, and not you, are playing the character. But, one must not confuse using dice to determine outcomes with using to dice to determine actions; the former allows the game to simulate the uncertainty of outcomes IRL, the latter limits the freedom of players to react to situations in-character.

EDIT:

I've been saying all along that you can still do neat things in 4.0 but that it takes some work and some actual role-playing (just as it did in earlier versions). 4.0 absolutely does not eliminate role-playing.

On the other hand, 4.0 certainly DOWNPLAYS role-playing (as opposed to combat) as compared to earlier versions.

Just as one example, consider how many non-combat-related spells are theoretically available to a first-level wizard in PHB1.
You're conflating character power with player agency. Being able to cast Grease does not give you more options for roleplaying; it gives you more options for resolving a given situation.

For clarity's sake, here's my definition of roleplaying

A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.
Roleplaying is the ability to adopt a persona (i.e. a different personality) and to act it out in a variety of situations - through word and deed.

Panda-s1

2009-06-07, 04:32 AM

I've been saying all along that you can still do neat things in 4.0 but that it takes some work and some actual role-playing (just as it did in earlier versions). 4.0 absolutely does not eliminate role-playing.

On the other hand, 4.0 certainly DOWNPLAYS role-playing (as opposed to combat) as compared to earlier versions.

Just as one example, consider how many non-combat-related spells are theoretically available to a first-level wizard in PHB1.

Version 4.0: Precisely four. Two more become available at level 2, and some more at level 6.

Version 3.0: 11 cantrips, 17 first-level spells. Some of these are available to 2nd- or 6th-level wizards in 4.0. There are more at EVERY spell level.

Uh, how does lack of non-combat abilities for a single class infer that 4e downplays roleplaying? I'm pretty sure I could cast Tenser's Floating Disk in 3.5 just by saying "My character casts Tenser's Floating Disk." Not exactly roleplay heavy.

Have you read the first two chapters of the 4e PHB? Thoroughly? I honestly can't see how someone can read through that, then say that 4e discourages roleplaying without deluding themselves.

jseah

2009-06-07, 04:46 AM

I think the divide in this roleplay argument is the difference in perception of your character.

Is your character a completely separate entity from you, (the player) with his/her own life, thoughts, skills and flaws?

Or is it more an extension yourself?

For example, if a character needs to talk his way past a pair of guards at a toll gate, his "skill" in talking can be determined in two ways:
1. Roleplaying it out. The player talks with the DM, both of whom play either side in the exchange. The DM makes a decision and success or failure is determined.

2. Using a die roll and diplomacy. The player rolls a die, adds skill or whatever, and compares that result to how "difficult" the guards are to persuade. If he succeeds, the game assumes his character did the talking necessary to convince the guards.

See the difference? In the 1st example, the player IS the character and is responsible for screwing up if he can't fast talk.
In the 2nd example, the player has barely anything to do with how good the character is in that situation. The character is independent of the player.

In a more detailed analysis, let's say we have two character skills called charisma and sense motive. (I chose these two because diplomacy is only vaguely defined)

In the 1st example, sense motive doesn't exist and charisma is a stat that governs some mechanics in-game but doesn't affect the exchange. The player has to talk, lie and read his/her DM in order to succeed. The player applies his/her own charisma and sense motive, so to speak.

In the 2nd example, the player causes his/her character to apply it's sense motive and charisma to the situation, the actual convincing handwaved away.

The arguement on either side is basically:
1. You need to actually talk to convince someone!
2. My character can talk better than I can!

Depending on which play style the group prefers, they may or may not need a mechanic to determine the outcomes.
That said, I did take the two extremes. Most groups use something in between, taking a diplomacy roll and the GM adjusting how favourable the reaction is to the roleplaying.

I'd say, put the rules in with a caveat added that these are optional rules and play groups are specifically suggested to tone it up or down depending on their playstyle.

Tackyhillbillu

2009-06-07, 06:07 AM

All of those neat utility Spells that you love so much? They are for the most part still there, just as rituals. The goal was to allow people to have all that neat stuff, without a)gimping themselves in combat, or b)abusing it to become earth shatteringly over powerful.

And the notion that balence is of no value to a narrative is ridicoulous. Characters have to have limits. There have to be things they cannot do, or the story becomes just one boring, pointless encounter (no matter what it is) after another. Tension, danger, drama, all these arise out of characters have limits placed upon them.

In 4e, their goal has been to sit down, and look at each class, and ask very simply, how can we make this character valuable to the story, without lessening the others. In 3.5, at any point in the game, there was almost always somebody who was god compared to the rest. Early on, Wizards were nigh useless. Fighters were everybodys best friends. Later in the game, Fighters were pissants, who pretty much ended up with the honor of watching their Caster Buddies kill entire armies with a single word, while they maybe swung their sword once in a while. Completely neutralizing a character, and making him fundamentally unimportant to the way the story unfolds weakens the narrative.

I also disagree the 4e is less conducive to Roleplay. Both have the exact same systemization of social systems. Honestly they are the exact same. Same skills, doing the same things. If you really want to, you can play it out the exact same way. The fact that the books rules focus on Combat is a good thing in my mind. Social interactions should be primarily narrative, and thats the DM's job.

The D&D name is not the game. You don't play D&D to say you play D&D. Play D&D because you like D&D. That ideal has been lost with 4th edition because the game was changed to something other than it was for people that didn't like what it was. Why instead wasn't something else made for those that didn't like D&D, and D&D let continue on for those that did like it?

D&D is a franchise, owned by WOTC. It isn't some overarching ideal, glorious and perfect, the Platonic form. It's changed over time, and will continue to. Each form of D&D has been very different from the others. Don't implicate that 3.5 was all there ever was, or will be. And no one is forcing you to give up your 3.5 books, or stop releasing content. Just because WOTC has moved on, you don't have to. I enjoy 3.5e. I also enjoy 4e. I know people who still enjoy playing 2e. Hell, I know a guy who refuses to play 3.0 and 3.5 because they aren't 'D&D as it should be.' Who cares that WOTC has stopped releasing content for it? WOTC content has always been hit and miss, at least from where I am sitting. So you can continue to play 3.5. Other people will play 4.0. Some will play 2.0. And none of them are wrong for doing so.

Talic

2009-06-07, 06:27 AM

And the notion that balence is of no value to a narrative is ridicoulous. Characters have to have limits. There have to be things they cannot do, or the story becomes just one boring, pointless encounter (no matter what it is) after another. Tension, danger, drama, all these arise out of characters have limits placed upon them.

To say that balance is meaningless to narrative is a fallacy, true.
To say that it's required is just as much a fallacy.

Yes, characters need limits. But balance is when all the characters have similar limits. That is not required. Many valid and useful tropes involve characters with vastly different levels of power. Is Superman remotely balanced? No. Even in superhero stories, he's much more powerful than 99% of anything else in the story.

In Lord of the Rings, were the hobbits on par with Sauron? Heck, were they on par with Legolas? No. They had to evade most challenges, because they were not capable of direct confrontation.

There is much imbalance in Good narrative storytelling. Balance is conducive to fun gameplay, which is why it's stressed. As such, it's importance almost directly stems from the fact that this is a game, not the fact that it's a narrative.

Totally Guy

2009-06-07, 06:31 AM

A character of a higher level has more power than a character that is a lower level. That seems to be ok to me.

Tackyhillbillu

2009-06-07, 06:44 AM

But there is a critical difference here. I'll take LOTR here, because I believe it is a better example. I find anything with Superman in it incredibly dull for the simple reason that he had no limits, if he honestly just used his powers.

In LOTR, the hobbits were not as powerful as Legolas, or Gimli, or even Hama the Doorwarden. But they were honestly more important characters then any of the others. That was because JRR Tolkein, using his fiat as an Author, made it so. The DM is in a similar place as JRR Tolkein. However, instead of being able to focus on one character, or even 2, he has to deal with the entire party at the same time.

The Hobbit's were made important by the simple fact that JRR Tolkein willed it so. If the DM did to a PC what Tolkein did to Legolas, he would claim that he is being ignored, and rightly so.

Who is more important to the Battle, the Wizard blowing up Orcs by the thousand? Or the Fighter, chopping down two or three at a time.

Balence is not required in all narratives. But in the narrative constructed by a Roleplaying game, either characters have a purpose, a role to play in the story, or they just become useless.

And Glug, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I'm speaking to the difference between a Level 20 Fighter, and a Level 20 Wizard (or, alternatively, a Level 1 Wizard, and a Level 1 Fighter.)

Totally Guy

2009-06-07, 06:58 AM

And Glug, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I'm speaking to the difference between a Level 20 Fighter, and a Level 20 Wizard (or, alternatively, a Level 1 Wizard, and a Level 1 Fighter.)

It is the same thing.

If you wanted a party where the Hobbits were weaker than the fighter and the wizard was more powerful than him you can have it.

Wizard is Level 16
Fighter is Level 12
Rogue is Level 8

The only difference is that the power level is explicit in a balanced system and implicit in an unbalanced one.

To emulate this party in 3.5 you could have
Wizard level 14
Fighter Level 14
Rogue level 8

Although the Wizard-Fighter balances correctly for what were trying to achieve the rogue doesn't. The problem is that the implicit power of the fighter is less than the implicit power of the rogue so we still need an adjustment on level to make the party.

Tackyhillbillu

2009-06-07, 07:06 AM

But that is hardly the point. Saying that means essentially that Wizards should have an ECL. Thats the whole point of that system.

My point is, players should not have the choice of a) play caster, b) be pointless at the higher levels. Or, alternatively, a) Die in one hit with no real utility, b) be an armored tank.

Wizards shouldn't be fundamentally more powerful then other characters (or casters shouldn't, if you prefer.) Say that they are... isn't really a response.

Totally Guy

2009-06-07, 07:13 AM

Wizards shouldn't be fundamentally more powerful then other characters (or casters shouldn't, if you prefer.) Say that they are... isn't really a response.

And in a balanced system they aren't. Yay!

I'm not against you. I'm showing examples of why you are right.

grautry

2009-06-07, 07:27 AM

Uh, how does lack of non-combat abilities for a single class infer that 4e downplays roleplaying? I'm pretty sure I could cast Tenser's Floating Disk in 3.5 just by saying "My character casts Tenser's Floating Disk." Not exactly roleplay heavy.

Have you read the first two chapters of the 4e PHB? Thoroughly? I honestly can't see how someone can read through that, then say that 4e discourages roleplaying without deluding themselves.

Look, 4E doesn't downplay roleplaying because it lacks some skills for social interactions.

Frankly? That's pretty meaningless. That's kind of like saying that any social interaction in a D&D system will be more shallow than in any WoD system because in the first you have one social stat and in the other you have three.

The problem with roleplaying in 4E is that there's TONS of crunch that has no reflection whatsoever in the fluff. This is especially apparent in daily abilities of martial classes.

Let's look at, oh, Rogue 1 Daily Powers. Blinding Barrage "A rapid barrage of projectiles leaves your enemies clearing the blood from their eyes.". For whatever reason can you only do this once per day? Is your skill in combat suddenly depleted? Are you like a 3.5 Crusader, relying on flashes of inspiration for your abilities? If so, where is the fluff for that? What about the other abilities? Trick Strike? Easy Target? Any other daily ability? For what reason can you not use those abilities again and again?

See, if I look at a 3.5 character sheet I see abilities that are reflected in the game world. 4E system is choke full of abilities that have no explanation whatsoever in-character.

And that is why roleplaying is worse in 4E. Because there's a fundamental disconnect between the mechanics of the game and the fluff of the game.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-06-07, 07:33 AM

Let's look at, oh, Rogue 1 Daily Powers. Blinding Barrage "A rapid barrage of projectiles leaves your enemies clearing the blood from their eyes.". For whatever reason can you only do this once per day? Is your skill in combat suddenly depleted? Are you like a 3.5 Crusader, relying on flashes of inspiration for your abilities? If so, where is the fluff for that? What about the other abilities? Trick Strike? Easy Target? Any other daily ability? For what reason can you not use those abilities again and again?
4E does ask more player creativity, that's for sure :smalltongue:

But seriously, 4E encourages you, the player, to figure out how a given power is executed in-game. It gives you a basic suggestion, the mechanical results, and lets you go from there. Why, I'd argue that increases roleplaying potential; instead of just point-and-click attacks (Full Attack, Cast Fireball) you can describe the set-up for a given attack. Do you fall back, as if wounded, before launching a fusillade of daggers into the faces of the eagerly advancing enemies? Or do you suddenly fan out a impossible number of daggers and fling them all at once, with panache. :smallbiggrin:

Ditto with the Scene-based System. You can go with the loss of inspiration, or that the Heroic Spirit becomes drained by such techniques (my Edition Warz Fluff), or that your character will only be able to pull off such a complicated move once in a day - whether through chance, fatigue, or some mystical explanation. Or you can not let it bother you; at least no more than Vancian Casting, spellcasting penalties while wearing armor, and Roguespace bothered you before :smallamused:

Malacode

2009-06-07, 07:38 AM

And that is why roleplaying is worse in 4E. Because there's a fundamental disconnect between the mechanics of the game and the fluff of the game.

I'm sorry, what?
I personally dislike 4e, but I can't agree with you on that. It's a complete cop-out.
"Oh, look, the designers didn't tell me why my character can do all this stuff, guess I'll just not RP"
It's up to the -player- to decide why their character can do things, not the desginer. The designer's main concern should be Crunch, it's the players and DM who are responsible for Fluff. Sure, the designer can come up with fluff if s/he wants, but ultimately, it's -you-, the player, who decides who your character is and why he can cast spells/swing a sword/heal people/etc. -You- explain how his/her abilities manifest, why s/he has them, how s'he got them. Use your imagination. The designer just writes the rules for how they work.

Philistine

2009-06-07, 07:50 AM

Because you need a diplomacy skill to role play. Its impossible to role play without having social skills where you can just roll dice instead of talking. The essence of role playing is in rolling dice to mitigate the amount of actual talking needed. Similarly what you have your character do has nothing to do with role playing, only what you have them say. Or rather what you roll the dice instead of saying. 3e was somewhat better in this regard, although it took a step in the wrong direction.

You can role play without a single mental statistic, including social skills for your character. If anything, actually having these statistics gets in the way, as you now have to fiddle around with numbers to create a personality. Narrow mental statistics are fine, such as a knowledge skills, but intelligence, wisdom, charisma, smarts, guts, spirit, common sense, and whatever else there is tends to get in the way. The only real exception here is perception.
Didn't we just have this exact discussion? Yes. Yes, we did. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113378)

Starsinger

2009-06-07, 08:30 AM

<Bunch of crap about wheelchairs and the NBA> So, not really sure what paraplegics wanting to be in the NBA has to do with Charisma based skills... but while we're at it, shouldn't character intelligence be based solely on player intelligence? If your friend is "dumb" does that mean he's automatically banned from trying to play his Wizard like an intelligent person by relying on intelligence based skills? Or even, should a friend in a wheel chair be stopped from playing a character who can walk? If not, then why can't shy people have a Charismatic character?

Just because everyone wasn't doing the same thing at the same time? Everybody doesn't have to do the same thing.

No, it was because everyone wasn't doing something at the same time. My turn for an anecdote right?

So there's this game that my RL gaming group played in the past. And there were these different character types you could be. And there was this building which we had to infiltrate. And there were things designed for everyone to take care of, which in theory sounds awesome, I mean everyone wants to sparkle right? The security was to be taken care of by the skillsy people, and the guards were to be taken care of by the fighty people, and the magic threats were to be taken care of by the casty people. The casty people also ended up helping the fighty people and the skillsy people. The skillsy people could have thrown a few shots into the battle if they'd wanted. So we had the fighty people in battle, the skillsy people in battle and doing skillsy stuff, and the casty people doing both of those and taking care of the magical threats.

One of the fighty people actually got up and went to Burger King for half an hour, and wasn't even missed during the "Not for you" part of the game. That sounds like a fun use of time! Also, can you really tell if I was talking about 3.5 or Shadowrun?

jseah

2009-06-07, 09:06 AM

About the fundamental disconnect someone mentioned, it's a very simulationist point of view.
I agree completely with that. I like my systems to be internally consistent and have a logical explanation for everything.

But I do think (and I'm sure most people would agree) that needing a set of fully consistent rules with logical explanations is way hardcore. Most of everyone won't worry about it. It's not an argument that has merit for most people since it's "just fluff".

It is one reason why I dislike 4E, but that alone would not put me off a system. It's other things that do so.

Detailed examples:
For that matter, I can explain most of the powers being once a day. Give everyone magic, done. Re-fluff every single unexplainable thing as magic.
The rogue expends magical energy to fan knives all over the place. The fighter's mark is a magical connection to his/her target.
And magic can be limited use, 1/5mins or whatever, arbitrarily since it's fundamentally an arbitrary system.

You can even explain the weirdness like unconscious high level people are harder to hit than unconscious low level people. Make levels "gaining magical power" and the AC boost of +1 per half level is explained as high level things having a "deflector shield" of magic.
- And that this is inherent in life-force or something to explain why you can't opt out for more power.

See the problem yet? You can explain everything with magic but it gets... all weird. Very very weird. And I don't like to have to do that.

oxybe

2009-06-07, 09:10 AM

See, if I look at a 3.5 character sheet I see abilities that are reflected in the game world. 4E system is choke full of abilities that have no explanation whatsoever in-character.

Cronktar: RAAAWR! CRONTAR SMASH (activates rage) GRAWLGRALGRAFGRHLALARG!
mook 1: mommy:smalleek:

later that day...

Regdar: CRONKTAR! we could really use that beastial strenght of yours!
Cronktar: ya know, i'm just not feeling it for some arbitrary reason. it's like some grand designer decided that i can just become angry once per day...
Jozan:Great, the barbarian just took a level in philosopher. NOT HELPING RIGHT NOW!
-----------------------
to say 3rd ed did it better is false. 3rd ed has it's way of doing things, but it neither lends itself better or worse then 4th for the purpose of telling a story or sense in the game world.

why can my 4th ed fighter only use his "Daily" power once per day? i can use it more then once, but the opportunity doesn't present itself often as it's a difficult technique to pull off... so narrative control is handed to me, the player. when i use the power, the right circumstances happen in-game that allows me the chance to use it.

why can my swordmage only use his "Daily" power once per day? using it more then once is too taxing on his body, so he subconsciously restricts the uses of the powers.

why can my Cleric only use his "Daily" power once per day? who knows why the divine entities work in such ways? a test of faith? maybe they want to earn my place in the heavens, but still aid me? s'not my place to tell the gods what to do, i'll just do my best with what's given to me.

why can the Barbarian only use his "Daily" power once per day? those nature spirits are fickle things. call on them too often and it might just come back and literally bite you in the arse. and that hurts.

4th ed gives more narrative control to the player as to the why's and how's of their character's abilities. it gives a small bit of flavor on the end result, but it also tells to not be afraid to change the flavor around so it fits the character better.

-Warlock A's "Eldrich Blast" is just a generic Magic Bullet shot from his index & middle fingers in a "bang!" gun motion of the hand.
-Warlock B's "Eldrich Blast" is a chaotic swirl of unleashed raw magical energy that is hastily drawn and chucked at the target.
-Warlock C's "Eldrich Blast" is in the form a screeching skull lit aflame that he conjures in front of him via ominous chanting and seeks it's prey.

it's all "eldrich blast". it all has the same effect. all different characters. is that better or worse then it's 3rd ed equivalent? more importantly, should that matter?

4th ed tells you: here is a bunch of rules, make the character you want, reflavor as necessary.

Yora

2009-06-07, 09:32 AM

But I do think (and I'm sure most people would agree) that needing a set of fully consistent rules with logical explanations is way hardcore. Most of everyone won't worry about it. It's not an argument that has merit for most people since it's "just fluff".
And most, at least many, people seem to have no problem with 4th Edition.

ashmanonar

2009-06-07, 09:39 AM

elonin

2009-06-07, 10:01 AM

I consider the comment about WOD games and social interactions. MY experiences do tend to point to the notion that WOD games are more social by nature. Those are role playing games with some combat thrown in. DnD seems to be the other way around. Yes there are dnd groups that are roleplay heavy and WOD groups that are combat heavy but I'm talking the leaning of the games themselves and the groups that gravitate to those games. 4e pretty much threw role playing back to the back ground by ditching the non combat back ground skills (craft, profession). You can role play in 4 e but that's playing away from the focus of the game.

mrmaxmrmax

2009-06-07, 10:02 AM

Let's look at, oh, Rogue 1 Daily Powers. Blinding Barrage "A rapid barrage of projectiles leaves your enemies clearing the blood from their eyes.". For whatever reason can you only do this once per day? Is your skill in combat suddenly depleted? Are you like a 3.5 Crusader, relying on flashes of inspiration for your abilities? If so, where is the fluff for that? What about the other abilities? Trick Strike? Easy Target? Any other daily ability? For what reason can you not use those abilities again and again?

First, the back in your face response:

Why can't a paladin cast spells at 1st level? Why is a sorcerer never able to cast more than 6 cantrips per day in his entire career? That is because the designers put a number out for a paladin's first level spells (0) and a ceiling for spells per level.

Can you show me the fluff that says why you can only use the 3.5 rogue's defensive roll ability once per day? Is his skill in combat depleted? Is he like a Crusader, relying on flashes of inspiration for ability? For what reason can you not use that ability over and over again?

And that is why roleplaying is worse in 3.5. Because there's a fundamental disconnect between the mechanics of the game and the fluff of the game.

This is a joke quote and not actually what the poster said. Moving on, the level-headed response from page 54, 4ePH:

A daily power can be used once per day. Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your physical and mental resources. If you’re a martial character, you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit. If you’re an arcane magic-user, you’re reciting a spell of such complexity that your mind can only hold it in place for so long, and once it’s recited, it’s wiped from your memory. If you’re a divine character, the divine might that you channel to invoke these powers is so strong that you can harness it only once a day.

Hey, isn't that the fluff you were looking for?

Maxwell.

grautry

2009-06-07, 12:49 PM

Why can't a paladin cast spells at 1st level? Why is a sorcerer never able to cast more than 6 cantrips per day in his entire career? That is because the designers put a number out for a paladin's first level spells (0) and a ceiling for spells per level.

Which has a logical in-game explanation. It's freaking magic, that's how it works. Notice that I never asked about purely magical abilities as those are fairly easy to just handwave away.

Can you show me the fluff that says why you can only use the 3.5 rogue's defensive roll ability once per day? Is his skill in combat depleted? Is he like a Crusader, relying on flashes of inspiration for ability? For what reason can you not use that ability over and over again?

The difference is that those abilities are sprinkled in 3.5 while 4.0 is choke-full of them. Making up a house rule or two is not a problem. Making up a hundred *is*.

Hey, isn't that the fluff you were looking for?

Well sure. But what does that actually mean?

If you pull on your 'deepest reserves of energy' then shouldn't you be tired? Why are you not suffering a penalty of some kind? And if there's nothing mechanically wrong with you then why does the ability go *poof*?

Another example: the marking mechanic. A creature can only have one mark of one kind. Ostensibly done to preserve game balance and to simplify mechanics. Except that it makes no sense whatsoever. Why does a Paladin's Divine Challenge, empowered by magic of the gods interfere with the Combat Challenge of the Fighter, ostensibly powered by his skill with the sword?

If the Fighter marks a paladin-marked enemy then does he dispel the magic? Why does his sneaky swordplay interfere with magic? Or vice-versa?

How do you explain all of this?

4th ed tells you: here is a bunch of rules, make the character you want, reflavor as necessary.

It's up to the -player- to decide why their character can do things, not the desginer. The designer's main concern should be Crunch, it's the players and DM who are responsible for Fluff. Sure, the designer can come up with fluff if s/he wants, but ultimately, it's -you-, the player, who decides who your character is and why he can cast spells/swing a sword/heal people/etc. -You- explain how his/her abilities manifest, why s/he has them, how s'he got them. Use your imagination. The designer just writes the rules for how they work.

I'll reply to both of you at the same time, because you're presenting a similar stance.

The problem is that if you make up a bunch of rules to explain why does something happen this way and not that way then you're admitting: yes, the system lacks those logical explanations and I need to make them up.

This really only proves the point that the system is lacking in certain areas.

MickJay

2009-06-07, 01:11 PM

This really only proves the point that the system is lacking in certain areas.

Just like every single system of every single game?

Artanis

2009-06-07, 01:19 PM

If you pull on your 'deepest reserves of energy' then shouldn't you be tired? Why are you not suffering a penalty of some kind? And if there's nothing mechanically wrong with you then why does the ability go *poof*?

The penalty is that you can't use that ability for the rest of the day :smalltongue:

oxybe

2009-06-07, 01:29 PM

I'll reply to both of you at the same time, because you're presenting a similar stance.

The problem is that if you make up a bunch of rules to explain why does something happen this way and not that way then you're admitting: yes, the system lacks those logical explanations and I need to make them up.

This really only proves the point that the system is lacking in certain areas.

still doesn't explain why 1st level barbarians could only rage once per day in 3rd

it doesn't actually explain why spell failure only applies to arcane magic and why bards can wear light armor without a problem.

to follow up on the last poin, it "states" the somatic components are simple, but the bard's spell list intersect with the wiz/sorc one on several occasion over all levels so i doubt casting detect magic is that much harder for a wizard then a bard (or why it would be).

really 3rd ed isn't that much better then 4th in that it lacks explanations as to why.

note that you're not making up rules in 4th ed, you're making up narrative elements: fluff. the rules already exists, it's up to you to make them your own, if you so wish.

you could play that a 4th ed fighter can use each daily once "just because" in the very same fashion that you played the 3rd ed barbarian that could only rage once "just because".

Asheram

2009-06-07, 02:03 PM

Barbarian is an really bad example for this, really.

"At the end of the rage, the barbarian loses the rage modifiers and restrictions and becomes fatigued (–2penalty to Strength, –2 penalty to Dexterity, can’t charge or run) for the duration of the current encounter"

It's basicly explained that the guy is too tired to do it again, even if you have to read just the little word between the lines.

It's not like the others where there's no real common sense explanation to why things can't be done again.

oxybe

2009-06-07, 02:08 PM

except he's fine after the encounter, no worse then before he raged. except he can't rage until the next day.

to say "read between the lines" is just as bad as "make up your own reasoning". you're asking the player to fill in the blanks.

Asheram

2009-06-07, 02:15 PM

I see the amount of reading between the lines here. There's a lot of ground between seeing that the guy is too tired to rage again and, say, the Blinding Barrage which frankly just doesn't explain anything.

Is the rogue too Tired in his arms to repeat the great feat of headshotting (which I figure the rogue is doing) the target repeatedly? Do explain why he can't do it again.

Edit: I frankly don't think "application of common sense" as having to figure out a reason for something. Atleast when it's this minor.

oxybe

2009-06-07, 02:45 PM

the guy's too tired to rage again, yet not too tired to power attack all day long? sorry to say but that doesn't trigger my "common sense". i just suspended disbelief and kept smashing skulls without needing every little thing explained.

why does the rogue only have one blinding barrage per day? fate smiled on him and he got the opportunity to use it, so he did. the game puts the narrative control of the opportunity in the player's hands, the chance never comes again. heck, some days he never uses it at all.

you're playing a game where the elven princess Starshimmer is throwing rainbows of doom at the poop-covered tentacle monster while riding a unicorn is a very possible scenario. wondering why the rogue can only throw a flurry of daggers once per day is a minor thing IMO.

shadzar

2009-06-07, 02:49 PM

D&D is a franchise, owned by WOTC. It isn't some overarching ideal, glorious and perfect, the Platonic form. It's changed over time, and will continue to. Each form of D&D has been very different from the others. Don't implicate that 3.5 was all there ever was, or will be. And no one is forcing you to give up your 3.5 books, or stop releasing content. Just because WOTC has moved on, you don't have to. I enjoy 3.5e. I also enjoy 4e. I know people who still enjoy playing 2e. Hell, I know a guy who refuses to play 3.0 and 3.5 because they aren't 'D&D as it should be.' Who cares that WOTC has stopped releasing content for it? WOTC content has always been hit and miss, at least from where I am sitting. So you can continue to play 3.5. Other people will play 4.0. Some will play 2.0. And none of them are wrong for doing so.

See now there is the problem started by LW and the Blumes, and continued with WotC to bastardize what it is for a quick buck.

I don't play franchise. I cannot go and play McDonald's can I? No because it is not a game. Likewise D&D is not longer a game nor has any meaning. It is Jello and Bandaids now. Only one company is allowed to use the name and logo for a product, but that name is used as a generic term by others and the name has no meaning.

Every time I ask for a bandaid I don't need a product made by Johnson & Johnson. Every time I eat jello it doesn't have the logo on it.

Wherein Jello doesn't have such a following to where eating it means something other than eating generic gelatin, and only the company has anything to really get upset about, likewise bandaid is the same way. When you have a product that is user configurable and the name carries weight to really identify what the product is, like D&D, when you turn it into something other than it is then the users like the product no longer have a purpose to using that name.

When they tried to turn D&D into a brand, a label just to stick on things, they diluted any weight that name carried. Like Jello is a product line, as well Bandaid, now so is D&D.

I didn't play D&D for many years because it was D&D. I played D&D for many years because everything else out there to me sucked. It didn't offer what I wanted form a game. Other games had some interesting things, but as a whole they were not something worthy of my playing. Now with 4th edition D&D has become something not worthy of me playing because it is so far from anything I would play.

No longer can you casually discuss D&D, especially after 3rd; and have decent talks about it, because the way the name/brand has been diluted to just mean (and many people use it this way) a generic term for fantasy RPGs.

Any other company that makes a product that its buying public doesn't acknowledge as worthy of carrying the name quickly hides that product and terminates its production in hopes that the buying public will forget it and forgive them. This buying public is often the supporters of that company and fans of its products, rather than random people that did not buy its products before if it carries a name well know to be a specific thing.

How many ET video games do you see today, and what happened to those made for the Atari?

With few exceptions, critics and gamers alike feel that it was a poorly produced and rushed game that Atari thought would sell purely based on brand loyalty to the names of Atari and E.T.

"4th edition D&D" is the "Atari 2600 ET" of the RPG world.

Kaiser Omnik

2009-06-07, 02:54 PM

A comparison between D&D and Jello. That's new.

Some people seem to think that gaming manuals need to explain everything in terms of fluff. Really, do you need to know the exact reason why every encounter and daily power in D&D 4th Edition cannot be used at-will? The general explanation given in the books is good enough for me. My players and I can make up other explanations if we wish too.

So, does 4th Edition really insult intelligence? After all, designers of earlier editions/some others games felt like they needed to explain everything to the players, like they weren't smart enough to make deductions or simply make up some stuff. Think about it.

To tell you the truth, I don't really think any game insults my intelligence. Thinking in those terms is a waste of time, anyway. It remains a matter of opinions and the question will never be "solved" here.

Tackyhillbillu

2009-06-07, 02:59 PM

...the fact that there are people here defending it says you are completely and utterly wrong. No one liked ET for the Atari 2600. No one. D&D 4e has plenty of people who are fond of it. And it's flaws aren't do to being rushed. Honestly, I think the system shows a great deal of careful forethought.

And D&D turned into a brand long before 4e. Or 3.5. Or 3.0. And the buying public doesn't hate 4e. No more then it hated 3.5. Or 3.0. Or 2.0. Every single version of D&D has had people saying it's horrible, it is awful, it destroys D&D. And they all sold, and they all were accepted as the standard. WOTC made money, put out some books, and eventually puts out the next edition, starting the cycle over again.

Just because you don't like something, don't claim it was poorly thought through, and doomed to be a massive commercial failure.

Asheram

2009-06-07, 03:12 PM

The problem is that while I can imagine a barbarian being both too mentally and physically exhausted to produce those extra strength and constitution.

When the rogue;
While spinning around, hits up to three targets in the head with such precision and strength to draw blood enough to blind them? When he usually can make just one attack?
And then call it "fate smiled on him"?

Do You really believe that?

Edit: Just.. nevermind. The whole ability is just too ridiculous for me to argue about
That kind of move is something the DM lets you do once a level if you're really Really close to dying and you're on his good side

Starsinger

2009-06-07, 03:18 PM

Why do high level barbarians have a /day limit to rage then? Once Tireless Rage kicks in your "Too tired to do it again" excuse flies right out the window. But that reminds me what other /day abilities are there in 3.5...

Bardic Music: I suppose this one can be fanned away as magic, but really that's a cop out.

Turn Undead: Again, I suppose this can be thrown out as magic, but really... what kind of loving god (especially an anti-undead one like Pelor) gives out strict Turn Undead attempts instead of giving them out based off need?

Wild shape: Thrown out as magical

Abundant Step/Empty Body: Magical, but as it's a monk ability it deserves extra mention for "Why bother?"

Smite Evil: Again, I'm sure this doesn't "count" because it's magical, but really, what kind of jerk god only gives you one smite per day? "Make it count!"

Defensive Roll: Totally a meta decision to be /day, and I doubt anyone can come up with a not "But but... cuz!" explanation otherwise.

Hail of Arrows (Arcane Archer): Yeah it's (SP) and yeah AA is a casting class, but come on, really? This is totally a Martial thing.

Breath Weapon (Dragon disciple): Not touching this one.

Defensive Stance (Dwarven Defender): Please don't tell me that after he uses this, he's too tired to stand there and not move anymore.

That's the core ones, I don't feel like digging through splatbooks (but I think Swashbuckler has a few. And I think Knight's Challenge is /day based too, he must be too tired to challenge anyone else.)

shadzar

2009-06-07, 03:19 PM

No, it was because everyone wasn't doing something at the same time. My turn for an anecdote right?

If you can only do something and enjoy it because of a few select people always being around, then you have more problems than D&D will ever help you with.

What if a husband asked his wife...Honey these are my best friends and I do everything with them as you know, they were at the wedding, so I invited them on the honeymoon too! Ok with you?

5 businessmen go to a bar together and leave together. While at the bar 3 play billiards, one tries hitting on every woman in the bar, and another spends the whole night sitting at the bar drinking alone. Were these people REALLY doing something together? They were doing something at the same time as each other, but didn't require each other for the most part in that activity.

If one person in a group doesn't like is is unable/unwilling to play D&D, then why do they go with the group when it is time for them to play D&D? Just so they don't feel left out? How pathetic is this? No, seriously.

There was nothing else in the world that person could do? Again if they have problems that they need to be a part of this group to function, then D&D (no edition) will not help them. The group shouldn't help them hide their problems with D&D, but rather help the person get the help they need for whatever confidence, independence, etc issues they have.

And you anecdote, while cute, made no sense in the context of the discussion at hand. I could care less about whether it was for 3.5, Shadowrun because I don't play them. But it could be for thousands of things. Actually your anedote does prove a point. Mine.

The person not willing to be engaged or otherwise disengaged from the thing the rest of the "group" is doing, doesn't have to be there and can find something else to do. I just hope they brought burgers back for everyone else.

Likewise The shy person needs to open up rather than being spoon-fed with rolling dice.

A player rarely if ever talking and just rolling dice in ANY game a group I would be in would soon be shown the door for being disruptive. If you aren't going to participate or put forth an effort, then you have no right to any of the hard work done by the others that are participating and showing effort.

Want to just roll dice, they sell Yahtzee at most gas stations.

Which is another insulting thing about 4th design.

Players don't need to show up, just give them XP anyway.

That BS. I want to know how this works for the RPGA? They canceled living games right?

What if an RPGA player misses a few games and wants to continue with his character, is it auto-leveled to where everyone else is?

This probably works there since most RPGA games are pick-up games, but for real game, home games, that have lasting campaign someone not showing up often will get the boot as disruptive. Why should any one person choose to do something else, and then expect to get the rewards the rest of the group worked for. Why should anyone else in the group drag the lifeless PC around and have to play it just so it doesn't get left behind in a port they took a ship to another island form, or city they are now not able to return to, etc.

Who are the designers to even put that nonsense in the book? Are DMs stupid to not know when such cases may exist that you need to work with the players on things, and when the player is just being an arse and not showing up because they choose something else to do and just want a free ride?

That is where store games like RPGA games come into play where pick-up games have random character people can assume even in long-haul campaigns. So you lose something including maybe your character you played last time if you don't show up next week and someone else plays it.

That isn't how home games work though where people make their characters, but since 3rd (cannot really blame this all on 4th), people haven't been playing characters but stacks of powers/stats; so to those players it really doesn't matter what character they play right?

The 4th edition books step over the line in what they should say. Rather than stating what is and is not fun, they should say how to make sure your own group has fun the way they play instead of telling people the only way to play is how the designers choose for you to play. THAT is what D&D is about. No two groups will EVER play the same way, no matter how codified the rules get for ease of RPGA use. You cannot play D&D with DCI floor rules for Magic the Gathering, because there is not a finite list of things the players of D&D can do as is with MtG.

:smallsmile:

Oslecamo

2009-06-07, 03:23 PM

the guy's too tired to rage again, yet not too tired to power attack all day long? sorry to say but that doesn't trigger my "common sense". i just suspended disbelief and kept smashing skulls without needing every little thing explained.

Don't worry, common sense is anything but common.

For example, I could easily argue here that the barbarian can only rage a limited number of times per day because it's a extreme focus of his primeval instincts to a point he starts foaming from his mouth unable to rationalize and doesn't care if half his blood is splatered on the ground.

Power attack is just swinging more wildly. It really doesn't demand much focus nor does it strain the body to it's limits like the rage does.

Remember whenever you argue for "common sense", that people believed the earth to be flat and the center of the universe for centuries despite the proofs against it being literally on front of their noses.

hamishspence

2009-06-07, 03:25 PM

4th ed rages involve invoking primal spirits- a little more consistant.

Mando Knight

2009-06-07, 03:28 PM

Which is another insulting thing about 4th design.
Players don't need to show up, just give them XP anyway.

[citation needed] (http://xkcd.com/285/)

The suggestion that was made in the DMG was to grant a player's character some XP to keep them level with the group if they had to miss a week or two. Perfectly reasonable.

Asheram

2009-06-07, 03:29 PM

I'm not defending the others, I'm just defending the Barbaric Rage because it's simply too obvious.

I figure that the reason to why they didn't put note of the mental and pysical fatigue is because it's quite obvious. But if you don't realise that, then I guess it's not that obvious after all.
Authors mistake. But if they put down all that information, we'd be probably be complaining instead.

shadzar

2009-06-07, 03:36 PM

A comparison between D&D and Jello. That's new.
I think the Jello comparison may be the only food analogy that can ever work with D&D because they are both names of specific things that have been turned into generic terms for all things similar to that named thing itself.

Some people seem to think that gaming manuals need to explain everything in terms of fluff. Really, do you need to know the exact reason why every encounter and daily power in D&D 4th Edition cannot be used at-will?

It is called game transparency. Why can you move only 6 space on a Monopoly board when you roll a 6 on the two dice combined? Because the rules state so. You cannot empathize with the shoe, thimble, or the race car as to how far they could move by themselves in a given time, and when placed along side the puppy, then it makes no sense these pawns should be able to move at all. These pawns just represent a location on your 2-dimensional map as reference to where you are now, and when your next turn starts.

This is the transparency of the game.

When dealing with D&D, you look at a daily power in 4th and question just why someone thinks a person could not be able to do this more than once per day? Really it makes no sense as you CAN empathize with the playing pieces as one of the represents a human. What the players themselves are. So the players know how a human should function, and may know people that can do these actions beyond what a D&D PC fighter could do. Then it makes you wonder why a mere human in the real world can do this and anything beyond what a fictional character in the game can do that is supposedly representing of a vastly superior set of abilities than a mere human. Or worse those other races that are superior in strength or such to humans and still cannot perform any better than them?

The balance of this system doesn't work when you can see how reality interacts with it. Gravity is still in effect otherwise you would never need spells for fly or levitate, and many other things from reality exist in the world for you to connect to it. Then when something by design disconnects you from the game world, it makes everything else start to be questioned. Usually this is when homebrewing starts and house-rules are made because the game failed to note something wasn't quite right.

So if you have to house-rule a major system within the game, then the game has a problem.

The fluff for the crunch to many can only be seen as an excuse or just a design flaw. Many people don't have the same philosophy the designers have of have that game transparency of the rules that they do, so you do need to ask "why" to make an informed decision about it.

Otherwise the game becomes, as many people feel it plays thanks in part to the powers system and limitation on powers, a bloated-rules tactical miniature game.

...the fact that there are people here defending it says you are completely and utterly wrong. No one liked ET for the Atari 2600. No one. D&D 4e has plenty of people who are fond of it. And it's flaws aren't do to being rushed. Honestly, I think the system shows a great deal of careful forethought.

The comparison was directly in regards to being a franchise, as in trying to sell the name and make money on the names of Atari, E.T., and D&D. Many people do feel this is EXACTLY what 4th edition does, because it is so divorced from any previous version of D&D, and more closely resembles the original Chainmail game that was evolved into D&D.

So I stand by what I said. 4th is the ET of RPGs. Its only interest is selling the name stuck to something.

Mando Knight

2009-06-07, 03:44 PM

The comparison was directly in regards to being a franchise, as in trying to sell the name and make money on the names of Atari, E.T., and D&D. Many people do feel this is EXACTLY what 4th edition does, because it is so divorced from any previous version of D&D, and more closely resembles the original Chainmail game that was evolved into D&D.

So I stand by what I said. 4th is the ET of RPGs. Its only interest is selling the name stuck to something.

Hi. Citation is needed again. Also, you probably have to contend with Mike Krahulik (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PennyArcade).

shadzar

2009-06-07, 03:57 PM

[citation needed] (http://xkcd.com/285/)

The suggestion that was made in the DMG was to grant a player's character some XP to keep them level with the group if they had to miss a week or two. Perfectly reasonable.

There was the DMG, and I think something Jonathan Tweet said, as well maybe from James Wyatt.

It is also perfectly reasonable that is a player misses for a week or two they are no longer a part of the group including due to them choosing not to show up, or not having a choice in the matter. because of the reason I previously mentioned.

If they want to play, then they play at a crippler level, if the absences were not so grievous, any other people decided to keep the character with the group rather than leave it behind. Again the idea is trying to define the playstyle of D&D, rather than leave it up to players.

People that want to invest in their character like myself, may not even want the DM playing it, because they want it to perform the way they choose, rather thaan be a playing piece in the game.

Other that want a character to just be a playing piece have their own options.

For me I wouldn't play in a game where my character was just a playing piece. The closest I get would be pick-up games ot help fill in a party where a spare character exists, or a one-shot where you go all out with crazy stuff or that teaches new players.

But I don't like playing one-shots all the time, nor the RPGA play method.

So to me dragging another PC around just for someone to not show up isn't going to happen. That means the PC wasn't anywhere to get XP or be able to level.

Do I get paid at my job for not showing up?

D&D is a game where your actions affect other real peoples lives. It isn't another type of game that each time you play you can play with anyone else, like MtG, monopoly, etc. If you are playing in a campaign/adventure path/etc and decide not to show up for extended periods of time, then that tells me you weren't really interested, and I as player or DM, would not tolerate the disruption of the game, or the lives of the other players.

Again it boils down to the different philosophies the designers have from many of the players, and the course the designers took to change the game for people who didn't want to work with the way it was. o now those flakes that don't want to show up don't have to? :smallconfused:

That is what the RPGA is for, and they should play in its little one-shot type events as well as Game Days, rather than infesting home games with their disruptive nature toward the game.

4th allows for more disruptive players in the way it is written, so they feel welcome to the game, wherein it should be making the game stronger with better players, and making the game for those players that aren't disruptive to others, in this regard.

Nightson

2009-06-07, 04:05 PM

The alternative, of course, is to give XP only to the characters who are present and who participate in each encounter. If a character is dead while the rest of the party faces an encounter, that character doesn’t get XP for the encounter. If a player misses a session, that character doesn’t get XP for the whole session. The result is that players who never miss a session get ahead of those who miss the occasional game, and eventually they wind up a level or more ahead. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Oh look, you're totally wrong.

shadzar

2009-06-07, 04:07 PM

Hi. Citation is needed again. Also, you probably have to contend with Mike Krahulik (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PennyArcade).

Citation for what? Have you read the various forums online around the time of June 8, 2008?

Also you need to explain your link and its relevance. :smallconfused: I don't read Penny Arcade....

Mando Knight

2009-06-07, 04:11 PM

It is also perfectly reasonable that is a player misses for a week or two they are no longer a part of the group including due to them choosing not to show up, or not having a choice in the matter. because of the reason I previously mentioned.

If they want to play, then they play at a crippler level, if the absences were not so grievous, any other people decided to keep the character with the group rather than leave it behind. Again the idea is trying to define the playstyle of D&D, rather than leave it up to players.If that is how your group plays, and they agree on it, fine. If the player comes down with an illness unexpectedly, it's not that great of an idea to punish them by cutting out their share of the treasure and experience because of reasons beyond their control.

Do I get paid at my job for not showing up?Paid sick leave.

4th allows for more disruptive players in the way it is written, so they feel welcome to the game, wherein it should be making the game stronger with better players, and making the game for those players that aren't disruptive to others, in this regard....
...
...
...What? I'm sorry, but this is seems to be an unsupported ad hominem argument.

shadzar

2009-06-07, 04:11 PM

Oh look, you're totally wrong.

Then why even state it the other way? Why mention it at all except for filler in the books, where there is already so much wasted space with oversized headers, and wasted landscaping from the excessive margins.

"Hey, the players are stupid; so lets tell them to give XP and to NOT give XP as valid options for players missing sessions."

Which other option is there in a binary choice? :smallconfused:

Well one which makes.

Give all.
Give some.
Give none.

:smalleek: People are too stupid to figure that out? Even a brand new player can make that choice for themselves without needing to be hand-held through it.

:smallconfused:

shadzar

2009-06-07, 04:24 PM

If that is how your group plays, and they agree on it, fine. If the player comes down with an illness unexpectedly, it's not that great of an idea to punish them by cutting out their share of the treasure and experience because of reasons beyond their control.

Paid sick leave.
...
...
...
...What? I'm sorry, but this is seems to be an unsupported ad hominem argument.

No it is a difference in what some people consider disruptive. Players coming when they want and leaving when they want from games on a whim, are disruptive and likely not to be interested in playing, so like anyone else that isn't interested in playing is going to end up being disruptive to the other players. Having to start or stop at odd times to accommodate this one person.

Even for someone that got ill, there is really no excuse for needing the "treasure". I can see a difference in what is considered treasure as the saying goes, one man's trash is another mans treasure. I wasn't talking about loot given, but the ability to continue with the group.

Yeah it sucks to be sick, and something can be done about it, but if someone is hospitalized then they are pretty much out of the game that is going on.

If they are too sick to make it and make plans ahead to inform people, you can reschedule.

The thing I am talking about is the flat out no-shows that do it constantly. The way it is written in the books is blanket statements with little to no examples. If you are going to make such a statement as to give XP for not even showing up, you need more explanation as to the reason.

Does the DMG say anything about disruptive players, or anywhere that you should remove a player from the game? If so, what reason does it specify that are classified as being disruptive?

Again the problem is the generalization made here, and in the books themselves.

So again, someone constantly not showing up, has pretty much removed themselves as a player for the game, so their character should be removed, rather than being a body dragged along by the other people.

If you don't give another player the JOB of taking this missing player's PC with the group, then how do you explain the player showing up in a place that he couldn't just be with the group at?

The fighter mysteriously appears in the bowels of the dungeon 4000 miles away from the place the last time the player played was?

Well what reason did any of the other players play through getting there when they could have just gone ~BAMPF~ themselves to show up?

Why travel at all through any dungeon. Just ~BAMPF~ in and take the loot and ignore the monsters. Twink up with gear that way, and then go through and kill anything and everything until your heart's content.

We'd like to welcome you....
http://www.toplessrobot.com/lollipop%20guild-thumb.jpg
....to Munchkinland.

oxybe

2009-06-07, 04:46 PM

shadzar, there is no pleasing some people, and you are proof of it.

what you want the DMG, the BOOK ABOUT HOW TO RUN THE GAME, to do? it's a whole book of suggestions on how the devs believe the game should be run and some extra rules that really only work in the backgroun. i'm having a very hard time believing you're telling us having the books give some guidance is "wrong".

believe it or not, some people are just picking up the game. they don't have a decade or two (or three) of playtime under their belts. they don't have other GMs to show them the ropes. it's fine if you or me don't need the suggestions as written but honestly, i like knowing that the books suggest a playstyle that is not geared towards not being a jerk and more towards just having fun playing a magical elf and his drunk-on-his-arse dwarf friend.

once you've played the game a bit you will change it to suite your tastes. that's normal and will probably happen if you're unhappy with a few things.

jseah

2009-06-07, 05:08 PM

<...>

The balance of this system doesn't work when you can see how reality interacts with it.
<...>

Exactly what I wanted to say but couldn't find the words for.
Although I feel I have to reiterate my point that it is a simulationist approach and that most gamers won't see this as a problem.

Perhaps we could say that 3.5E was built on a simulationist (sort of) system, with some failings. While 4E threw it out the window completely and started from game balance then went in and patched things up.

It's like a fundamental shift in game design.

3.5E starts from a semi-realistic simplification of real life and modifies it. Doesn't get it all right and glaring errors exist, but the logic on which modifiers to apply when was obvious and intuitive. Dexterity controlled reflexes, and so you lost it's bonus when you were unable to apply it.
This design philosophy is something you would have in an abstraction of reality. Like Dwarf Fortress or Civilization (to a certain extent). Most strategy games also use something like this but with elements of game balance.

4E starts from a game balance perspective. Any ability that was too powerful got moved to higher levels and restricted. Or removed completely. Core elements of the system got rebuilt completely to make the game less complex and more balanced.
This design philosophy is similar to most MMORPGs, which is, I suspect, the reason why so many complain it's similar.

Then there's the another way. The one that results in Rules-lite systems or more niche ones, like Wu Shu. These aim to make a good story/scene and are designed to reward good storytelling and roleplaying.
I can't think of many games like this, but it's very much like make-believe games children play.

Mr.Bookworm

2009-06-07, 05:21 PM

No it is a difference in what some people consider disruptive. Players coming when they want and leaving when they want from games on a whim, are disruptive and likely not to be interested in playing, so like anyone else that isn't interested in playing is going to end up being disruptive to the other players. Having to start or stop at odd times to accommodate this one person.

Uh, what? Seriously, what? The exact text is "make a policy and stick to it." It then goes on to suggest that it's probably more convenient if you just assume that everyone advances at the same rate, and some more on why that's probably best. Then it talks briefly about only giving XP to those that only show up, saying "there's nothing wrong with that".

It then talks for a bit about how to handle players that have to take extended breaks for whatever reason, saying that you should consider letting them catch up.

(pg. 141-142, DMG)

Even for someone that got ill, there is really no excuse for needing the "treasure". I can see a difference in what is considered treasure as the saying goes, one man's trash is another mans treasure. I wasn't talking about loot given, but the ability to continue with the group.

Treasure is one of the two fundamental crunch rewards of D&D, the other being XP. As the same with XP, a player that is deprived of either in regard to their fellow players is going to be severely hampered.

Yeah it sucks to be sick, and something can be done about it, but if someone is hospitalized then they are pretty much out of the game that is going on.

If they are too sick to make it and make plans ahead to inform people, you can reschedule.

Yes, if someone is hospitalized, they're going to be out their game for the immediate future, but what about when they get out? I'd imagine most groups that aren't total ***** would be willing to let their hospitalized buddy back in.

It's also pretty common to get sick fairly suddenly. Not to mention that for more than one person, it's hard to find time to fit in a multi-hour social activity. It's completely possible that you can't reschedule.

The thing I am talking about is the flat out no-shows that do it constantly. The way it is written in the books is blanket statements with little to no examples. If you are going to make such a statement as to give XP for not even showing up, you need more explanation as to the reason.

As I said above, it makes no such statements. It just says that you should figure out way of dealing when people can't or don't show up for whatever reason, going on to give suggestions, which is most certainly not a blank statement.

Not to mention that dealing with constant no-shows is a complete group thing. I don't think I've ever seen a gaming system that flat-out told you how to do your gaming group.

Does the DMG say anything about disruptive players, or anywhere that you should remove a player from the game? If so, what reason does it specify that are classified as being disruptive?

In a very broad sense. It specifies some common problems, and some common advice on how to deal with those. It also says, however, that this is a player issue, and therefore needs addressing outside of the game.

Again the problem is the generalization made here, and in the books themselves.

It's generalized because it's such a player-specific topic that it's impossible to discuss in terms other than generalizations. Hence that little disclaimer I mentioned above.

So again, someone constantly not showing up, has pretty much removed themselves as a player for the game, so their character should be removed, rather than being a body dragged along by the other people.

If you don't give another player the JOB of taking this missing player's PC with the group, then how do you explain the player showing up in a place that he couldn't just be with the group at?

The fighter mysteriously appears in the bowels of the dungeon 4000 miles away from the place the last time the player played was?

Well what reason did any of the other players play through getting there when they could have just gone ~BAMPF~ themselves to show up?

Why travel at all through any dungeon. Just ~BAMPF~ in and take the loot and ignore the monsters. Twink up with gear that way, and then go through and kill anything and everything until your heart's content.

Er. No. The advice in the 4e DMG can basically be summed up as "Find a way to deal with it. Here's some tips on some ways to do that."

chiasaur11

2009-06-07, 05:21 PM

Don't worry, common sense is anything but common.

For example, I could easily argue here that the barbarian can only rage a limited number of times per day because it's a extreme focus of his primeval instincts to a point he starts foaming from his mouth unable to rationalize and doesn't care if half his blood is splatered on the ground.

Power attack is just swinging more wildly. It really doesn't demand much focus nor does it strain the body to it's limits like the rage does.

Remember whenever you argue for "common sense", that people believed the earth to be flat and the center of the universe for centuries despite the proofs against it being literally on front of their noses.

Actually, at bare minimum as early as the Inferno by Dante the roundness of the Earth was known. Proven by the Greeks, accepted by the Romans, and not discarded by the later European empires. And Earth not being the center of the universe, while it is true it took a while to be accepted, is not the kind of thing that's a gimmee without some heavy math work in a field not directly related to day to day life.

Sorry. Just a need to correct a surprisingly common misconception.

Dagren

2009-06-07, 05:40 PM

Actually, at bare minimum as early as the Inferno by Dante the roundness of the Earth was known. Proven by the Greeks, accepted by the Romans, and not discarded by the later European empires. And Earth not being the center of the universe, while it is true it took a while to be accepted, is not the kind of thing that's a gimmee without some heavy math work in a field not directly related to day to day life.

Sorry. Just a need to correct a surprisingly common misconception.Right. People refused to sponsor Columbus not because they thought the world was flat, but because they knew it was a lot bigger than he thought. If America hadn't been there, he would have starved to death before reaching India.

Dixieboy

2009-06-07, 05:55 PM

Right. People refused to sponsor Columbus not because they thought the world was flat, but because they knew it was a lot bigger than he thought. If America hadn't been there, he would have starved to death before reaching India.

No, PEOPLE refused to believe him because they believed the earth was flat, the church told them so, and the church was ALWAYS right.

However some of the more brainy types might have known he was right.

Dagren

2009-06-07, 05:59 PM

No, PEOPLE refused to believe him because they believed the earth was flat, the church told them so, and the church was ALWAYS right.

However some of the more brainy types might have known he was right.A group to which I should think potential sponsors belonged. Besides, I didn't think that position was one the church had supported for a while. It's a myth.

shadzar

2009-06-07, 06:04 PM

shadzar, there is no pleasing some people, and you are proof of it.

what you want the DMG, the BOOK ABOUT HOW TO RUN THE GAME, to do? it's a whole book of suggestions on how the devs believe the game should be run

That is where my problem with it lies. They are trying to do either of 2 things:

-Tell you to play the way they play.

-Tell you to play trying to combine every playstyle they took into account when the system was made.

Neither of these work.

How many people read the foreward in the books? I cannot tell you how many people skipped over the 2nd edition forward in the DMG and missed the entire explanation of what the book was for and how to play given by, I think, the design lead of it.

But since the foreward isn't hard coded rules, it doesn't matter right?

Like 'Zeb' said, the book is presented as-is. Each DM should make up things for how they work with your group.

That foreward says that people behind 2nd edition knew they couldn't please everyone, and everyone didn't want to play the way the designers did.

Now do you really get any of that in the books? Or does it read more like the designers ordain that this is how it will be, with the surge in rules-lawyers and their kin optimizers.

The first time they try to define "fun", they completely lose sight of the purpose of the game, in thinking they can please everyone....

It’s not fun to make characters guess what a magic item is or try to use a magic item without knowing its capabilities.

An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun.

They declared themselves final arbiter with statements like these. The kind of statements forums would laugh people off of for as putting subjective opinions as facts.

I, as a DM, will not find it fun, nor will my players find it fun to learn what a magic item is, and it is more fun to go to Ye Olde Magick Shoppe and just buy any magic item like a new toy is the definitive on fun?

Likewise roleplaying with those gate guards isn't fun? Hell I enjoyed it for years, I must be a retard for thinking it was fun, and that I could use this interaction for MANY various things later in the game.

Fun is one element you shouldn’t vary.

Fun is by definition a subjective idea, and explicit varies form person to person, so that section should NOT exist as you cannot define "fun".

What I would want them to do is use more common sense, rather than playing dictator over games to make sure their RPGA functions smoothly a the sole reason for something being in the rulebook.

It may not be fun for a player to spend lots of time trying to figure out what a magic item is, and for those cases, you should try to help by making the magic item's functions and purpose come through when playing even without dedicated attempts at learning about it.

There is a factual statement, with an idea for resolution of a potential problem, rather than trying to define what fun is.

Every guard at every city gate will not always need to stop the PCs to talk to them, and if they do; you can expidite the actions to state what transpired rather than forcing the players to actively take part in each encounter with gate guards when they would prefer to just go ahead in or out of the city.

Another one that doesn't try to define fun, but gives ideas for both sides of the "fun equation" at once.

My favorite telling me what is fun one....

Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun.

So they are admitting that sometimes resource management is fun, but saying skip it anyways because it isn't fun? :smallconfused: Can you contradict yourself anymore?

Then just flat out again trying to tell people what is fun, by defining it, as to how it measures up to their self-delusional yardstick.

All those things they say aren't fun, is why I chose D&D decades ago over every other system, because it DID include them.

To me it is like they are telling me. D&D was never fun before, so you should never have played it, and only now that we own the name, because you know we didn't create it just bought someone else's creation; we are the only ones that know what D&D is and what is fun about it.

:smallfurious: Who the hell do they think they are?

What it should do is not try to define anything outside of mathematically expressed facts. They should present both sides of what could be fun, instead they only stick their ideals into it, and page 42, in no way is an apology for that attitude presented in the books, or an excuse for it.

If I were to start saying such that 3.5 wasn't fun or 4th edition wasn't fun, and presenting my subjective views as fact, I would be laughed off a forum, or banned for trolling.

Yet somehow the designers get to troll players and present their misguided ideals and philosophies as concrete fact within the books just because they own the name of the product line?

WotC gets no say in what people find fun about D&D, or anything else.

So present things in the books with common sense and not blatant atacks on people with a differing opinion. Otherwise it is as though your intent IS to insult people just because you think you are the final arbiter on what is and is not fun. :smallconfused:

Everybody doesn't like taking time after every action to count up spent ammo, or recount what they had for breakfast. Make sure time is taken for these actions throughout the day of the PCs lives, and set aside time during the game, maybe even a small break in playing; for those who do like to keep track of these things. It needn't always been done after every arrow is shot during battle to disrupt the flow of the game, but at least allow for it after each battle.

This is my version of a way to fix that last one about resource management not being fun. Again I find it the funniest because MANY game companies have made MANY dollars off off games that are JUST that. resource management. So someone out their thinks its fun...those who played Warcraft enough for it to become popular and earn itself an MMO for example. You know, the game that 4th edition itself takes a lot from as the forefront MMO of today.

So I would remind those making these books of something said by...

Its better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

Asheram

2009-06-07, 06:13 PM

Remember; Fun is mandatory.

... To not have fun is Treason. All hail the Friend Computer.

Dixieboy

2009-06-07, 06:14 PM

A group to which I should think potential sponsors belonged. Besides, I didn't think that position was one the church had supported for a while. It's a myth.
He was being sponsored by Queen Isabella if i remember correct?

She was a crazy catholic, who, as all crazy catholics do, ignored the ten commandment with a passions most devout believers reserve for pursuing their faiths.

I am 100% sure that if she was told by the clergy that the earth was flat, she would start lobbing at mountains for denying the "word of god" :smallannoyed:

Don't forget that she started an inquisition.

nightwyrm

2009-06-07, 06:20 PM

He was being sponsored by Queen Victoria if i remember correct?

She was a crazy catholic, who, as all crazy catholics do, ignored the ten commandment with a passions most devout believers reserve for pursuing their faiths.

I am 100% sure that if she was told by the clergy that the earth was flat, she would start lobbing at mountains for denying the "word of god" :smallannoyed:

Don't forget that she started an inquisition.

Queen Isabella of Spain.

Dixieboy

2009-06-07, 06:25 PM

Queen Isabella of Spain.
I hate it when i get names mixed up, you are actually right, and i just insulted Victoria for something she did not do.

*Begs for forgiveness from all Brits*

oxybe

2009-06-07, 06:26 PM

Panda-s1

2009-06-07, 06:28 PM

I hate it when i get names mixed up, you are actually right, and i just insulted Victoria for something she did not do.

*Begs for forgiveness from all Brits*

Um, most Christian scholars agreed that the earth was round: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth#In_the_Middle_Ages In fact, the only real argument was whether or not there was people on the other side of the world, which there were.

Mr.Bookworm

2009-06-07, 06:30 PM

No, PEOPLE refused to believe him because they believed the earth was flat, the church told them so, and the church was ALWAYS right.

However some of the more brainy types might have known he was right.

Er, no. The widely accepted belief at the time was the world was round, as it had been since ancient Greece. The whole flat-earth/Columbus thing comes from the "biography" published in 1828, called The Life and Times of Christopher Columbus, by Irving Washington. As someone else said, the real reason no one wanted to sponsor him is because he thought the Earth was smaller than the accepted measurement of the time. A measurement that was actually pretty close.

So Christopher Columbus is basically one of the luckiest idiots in the history of the world.

Panda-s1

2009-06-07, 06:31 PM

you're playing a game where the elven princess Starshimmer is throwing rainbows of doom at the poop-covered tentacle monster while riding a unicorn is a very possible scenario. wondering why the rogue can only throw a flurry of daggers once per day is a minor thing IMO.

Can I sig this? Pleeeeeeease?:smallbiggrin:

Dixieboy

2009-06-07, 06:35 PM

Er, no. The widely accepted belief at the time was the world was round, as it had been since ancient Greece. The whole flat-earth/Columbus thing comes from the "biography" published in 1828, called The Life and Times of Christopher Columbus, by Irving Washington. As someone else said, the real reason no one wanted to sponsor him is because he thought the Earth was smaller than the accepted measurement of the time. A measurement that was actually pretty close.

So Christopher Columbus is basically one of the luckiest idiots in the history of the world.In that case i must go smite the the authors of three seperate history books, i KNEW something was wrong with them.

'scuse me.

Starsinger

2009-06-07, 06:37 PM

Can I sig this? Pleeeeeeease?:smallbiggrin:

If you sig it, change it so Starsinger :smalltongue: we might as well both enjoy it

oxybe

2009-06-07, 06:45 PM

be my guest, sig away.

shadzar

2009-06-07, 06:47 PM

preach on shadzar, preach on! show us that a rulebook on how to run the game should not have the gall to instruct us on how to run a game as the devs intended, that even the newest neophyte should go uninstructed or unaided and wade through the rules without any guidance!

the 2nd ed DMG isn't the best book to use to prop up your position. it's almost entirely a book full of rules the designers didn't want the players to see that does little to help a fledgling DM learn the ropes or give him advice on how to run a game other then:
A) join a group and see how they do it
B) buy the intro game and hope you learn that way

2nd edition AD&D, nor 4th edition or anything in between and even including 1st edition AD&D, are NOT entry level games into RPGs.

1st edition assumed you already had played an RPG before.

If people want to start by themselves, then they need to get a copy of the basic red-book set and start there a many other people did.

You cannot have such a complex ruleset such as 4th and even remotely consider it to be an entry level game. No matter how they try to drop the term Advanced from 3rd to make it look less intimidating, and no matter how they try to simplify the system in 4th. They are just not entry level RPGs, and there really is no such thing as an entry level RPG anymore. Why? Because for years it was assumed by all the RPG makers that you would start playing hte way you found out about the game via word of mouth, and from that same mouth would come assistance in playing.

Anyone thinking any game D&D or AD&D since 1st edition came out was entry level is deluding themselves. The closest you could come would be First Quest with its CD Audio disk to walk you through a few things, but it is a poor representation of actual gameplay.

I have taught enough people to play 2nd edition to know that there just isn't anything for new players to learn on their own in the world today. You pretty much need some kind of RPG background to play D&D unless you are starting with the red-book set, or the Rules Cyclopedia, not to be confused with the Rules Compendium part of the failed DDI suite of tools.

Maybe more later after this movie goes off. tired of missing when the commercials have gone away.

Panda-s1

2009-06-07, 06:49 PM

be my guest, sig away.

Awesome, thanks!

If you sig it, change it so Starsinger :smalltongue: we might as well both enjoy it

Wait, what?

oxybe

2009-06-07, 06:58 PM

2nd edition AD&D, nor 4th edition or anything in between and even including 1st edition AD&D, are NOT entry level games into RPGs.

1st edition assumed you already had played an RPG before.

If people want to start by themselves, then they need to get a copy of the basic red-book set and start there a many other people did.

You cannot have such a complex ruleset such as 4th and even remotely consider it to be an entry level game. No matter how they try to drop the term Advanced from 3rd to make it look less intimidating, and no matter how they try to simplify the system in 4th. They are just not entry level RPGs, and there really is no such thing as an entry level RPG anymore. Why? Because for years it was assumed by all the RPG makers that you would start playing hte way you found out about the game via word of mouth, and from that same mouth would come assistance in playing.

Anyone thinking any game D&D or AD&D since 1st edition came out was entry level is deluding themselves. The closest you could come would be First Quest with its CD Audio disk to walk you through a few things, but it is a poor representation of actual gameplay.

I have taught enough people to play 2nd edition to know that there just isn't anything for new players to learn on their own in the world today. You pretty much need some kind of RPG background to play D&D unless you are starting with the red-book set, or the Rules Cyclopedia, not to be confused with the Rules Compendium part of the failed DDI suite of tools.

Maybe more later after this movie goes off. tired of missing when the commercials have gone away.

just because the game is not "entry level" to use your words, doesn't mean you need to stick a sign that says "You need X many years of experience before you can play this game".

4th ed might not be "entry level", but at least the DMG tries to help out the new player by offering some solid advice instead of flooding him with more rules.

shadzar

2009-06-07, 07:30 PM

just because the game is not "entry level" to use your words, doesn't mean you need to stick a sign that says "You need X many years of experience before you can play this game".

4th ed might not be "entry level", but at least the DMG tries to help out the new player by offering some solid advice instead of flooding him with more rules.

No advice, is better than the bad advice it does give.

Kemper Boyd

2009-06-07, 07:32 PM

4th ed might not be "entry level", but at least the DMG tries to help out the new player by offering some solid advice instead of flooding him with more rules.

Just last week my D&D DM was talking about how 4E got people he knows to try out RPG's for the first time since it's so much more approachable than the previous versions.

It's a good entry level game, I think. Definitively better than AD&D or 3E.

Tackyhillbillu

2009-06-07, 07:48 PM

Honestly, 4e works very well as an entry level game. Character Creation is smooth and intuitive, compared to the very complex system in 3.5 (not that such is a problem, but it is turn off when first playing the game) trained skills make allocating such much easier, and the powers give identity to your character from the first moment you make him.

The focus on the battlemap and the minatures gives players an aid in visualizing combat, instead of having to guess at it as in most 3.5 games. The very elements you seem to hate it so much give it a quality that makes it more attractive to entry level gamers.

oxybe

2009-06-07, 07:52 PM

No advice, is better than the bad advice it does give.

i guess that good advice is in the central eye of the beholder.

Starsinger

2009-06-07, 08:00 PM

Wait, what?

Instead of Starshimmer.

shadzar

2009-06-07, 08:34 PM

i guess that good advice is in the central eye of the beholder.

Only if you can't see but out of it to be able to tell that what is said isn't the best way to say it.

If I am right aren't you the person from the WotC forums that tried to pas off 2nd edition page having a hex based flanking description as claiming 2nd extensively made use of minis when DDM 2.0 came out fashioned as near identical system for combat in 4th edition when people were claiming needing mini for 4th almost a year ago?

I think that is where I saw your name before.

I found your position in that thread quite amusing. Wish I knew how to find it again over there.

You said something about you should be able to fashion one game based on another and it being alright, but didn't seem to see how the secondary game was just a part of the primary game...int his case 4th edition. The minis game new version was made to be 4th edition combat before its demise when people didn't like the new minis game, and oddly enough they still like the same thing from the RPG, that used those minis game type rules for itself.

So you don't see how the advice given in the books or in regards to the minis either were not well founded ideas, but just something to be put there to make it look like good design.

Again the designing of a game needs to be unbiased. You don't sit and try to tell people how to have fun as a matter of fact.

You tell people how things work within your design. Leave the fun to be had how the actual players deem it.

The designers get to choose what is fun when they are DMing, for fun for the DM, and what is fun for players when they are the player; and no other time.

Panda-s1

2009-06-07, 09:27 PM

Instead of Starshimmer.

Oh. OOOHHHH. Okay, I see what you mean...

oxybe

2009-06-07, 10:19 PM

i found the thread you're talking about. here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1017812). took a bit of a while, but i found it. i had to use forums.gleemax.com instead of boards.wizards.com for my normal google search queries when trying to find something on the WotC forums.

i guess you weren't paying attention or you forgot the part where the book in question was the "player's options" book which had pictures and description of mini combat and it took a large part of the book. later on i did post a picture from the 2nd ed DMG about facing rules and how creatures of different size surround a fig, which IMO, are a bit difficult to follow if you don't actually have something to visualize the actual facing. 2nd ed might not have outright stated "use minis" at the start, but rules like those i used as an example are less confusing if you do have them (minis).

You said something about you should be able to fashion one game based on another and it being alright, but didn't seem to see how the secondary game was just a part of the primary game...int his case 4th edition. The minis game new version was made to be 4th edition combat before its demise when people didn't like the new minis game, and oddly enough they still like the same thing from the RPG, that used those minis game type rules for itself.

what you're misremembering (and i might honestly not have made myself clear. English is not my first language and my roommates are quick to laugh at my mistakes) is how the poster before me was stating his dislike for WotC trying to sell their minis alongside their RPG by showing them in their books. i replied by clarifying what i said:

they're saying: "we have rules for combat, which are best played on a mat with markers of some sort. we also sell markers, in the form of mins, that can be used for a whole other game." i have yet to hear other then that. it might be "dirty", but honestly, i rather a one-stop shopping for my gaming needs then have to go to several different places.

i will say this much: i like visual aids. i'm a very visual person and when a lot of stuff is going on i like having a point of reference. i've yet to meet a DM that describes something and all players around the table have the exact same mental image. a visual representation helps keep everyone on the same page. a mini is just that: it doesn't replace imagination, it just makes sure everyone knows where they are in relation to one another.

shadzar

2009-06-07, 11:51 PM

i found the thread you're talking about. here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1017812). took a bit of a while, but i found it. i had to use forums.gleemax.com instead of boards.wizards.com for my normal google search queries when trying to find something on the WotC forums.

what you're misremembering

No wonder I couldn't find it...stupid needles domain changes. I was probably misremembering a lot, but it was you, and I have the link to look back at, so will look over the thread itself to see what was said.

I like visual aids at time as well, but always found minis to be a problem for many players. Maps only useful for overland travel, and prefer the player, and myself as a player to create their own maps for other things. Imean there wasn't GPS at the time when we started playing, and their wasn't really good mapping done in D&D by the average Joe, so detailed maps everywhere like the tiles use is a bit overboard.

I found my dislike for "players options" early, and that dislike continued when they continued that style of game design in 3rd and further 4th. It stepped too far out of what I liked int he game, and added too much I didn't like. Minis for combat was one of those things since most times I could calculate it up for any angles needed for attacks and such for the players and allow them to delve into their own imaginations to provide the images of the battle. So while everyone shares the experience we each experience it differently as we all should.

Having something for those that want some kind of markers is nice, but pointing to them too often is like me constantly telling my players about product X. I don't make any money off of them buying it, but can kind of pressure them into it.

You don't need minis, and candy is more fun cause you eat what you kill.

Those were some hostile times on the WotC forums. Everyone in that thread seemed pretty hot-headed about their ideas.

But thanks for the lookup where I couldn't find it, and your English isn't that bad at all. If not for your location in the forums over there I wouldn't know it wasn't your native language.

What is up with the pathetic internet services in Canada anyway? You guys are getting it worse than we are with the attempts at caps and metered billing. Hope it becomes declared a municipal area so you don't remain a technology backwater too much longer!

TheThan

2009-06-08, 03:59 AM

Ok first off I haven’t had the time to read past what was directly directed at me, so I’m responding to that, I’ll read the rest of the thread later.

I think you're misreading those passages.
[spoiler]When someone tells you the "core assumptions" about a game world, they usually are talking about elements of the world that were contemplated by the rules; such as it taking place in a medieval-esque world with magic, ruins, and adventure. As far as assumptions go, I wouldn't find those particularly onerous ones to make - particularly since the actual text in that section is woefully insufficient to constitute a setting of any stripe.

In short, 4E provides the reader with the "designer's notes;" the very tools used by the designers to build up the system from a rules foundation are laid out in a clear and concise fashion. IMHO this shows, if anything, that 4E respects the intelligence of its players - it assumes that the players and DM are going to adapt the rules to best suit their tastes rather than relying wholly on published materials.

On an unrelated note: Complicated does not equal complex. Complex games can be built from simple and transparent sets of rules - Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)), for example.

I very well may be taking things out of context, maybe a lot of others are also. If their intent was to simply provide the players with a “designers’ footnote” or “design intent” that’s great. It gives the players insight into what they had in mind when they made the game. But it’s very easy to take it the wrong way, as if “this is what we want you to play, regardless of what you want to play”. I can see people coming off feeling sour because of passages like this, particularly when they are already feeling hostile to the idea of a new edition, not to mention the general hostility shown towards WOTC, on this forum and others. It probably would have been a good idea to put a header showing that they are trying to show you what was going through their heads.

Another thing is that it feels like WOTC wants people to be blindly and loyally purchase every bit of product they put out. To me at least this seems to go beyond simply making money, as if they feel they are entitled to the community’s loyalty.

When 3.X came out there were parades in the street; seemingly everyone that was in the hobby back then was thrilled that there was a new edition being released. But with 4E there is barely a ripple in the pond. Sure there will always be first adopters, but it didn’t cause a tremendous amount of excitement, it didn’t even make the news like 3.0 did. I guess it shows that the majority of the community wasn’t really ready for 4E. They were still busy having fun with 3.X.

Tackyhillbillu

2009-06-08, 04:24 AM

oxybe

2009-06-08, 06:10 AM

heh, i'll admit to my hot-blooded-ness... especially in the "edition war" days where i hung out in the (tongue-and-cheek) troll-trap called "concerns and criticisms". everyone was pretty high strung a year ago and some of the stuff said on that forum... well... it was actually pretty horrible. i believe it was one of the few instances of a perma-ban attempt on WotC's part after the insults got way too personal.

as for the emphasis on minis, i can see how some people are turned off by it, but i really don't mind as it really gets the gears in my head going at full speed and help me visualize what everyone is doing better. i like the WotC minis because they look ok and serve their purpose, but for the longest time i just used my legos when i was younger. when i moved out, i couldn't bring them along so i got the next best thing: actual minis.

i don't really care if WotC uses their own minis in their books they've made their mini sales off me a long time ago when i played in DDM tourneys and i haven't really bought some from the last few DDM sets, other then just to check out what the newer ones produced were like. new players who go on the forums asking for help are told that while markers and a grid of some sort are a boon, you don't need the wotc brand minis or the large expensive mats. those are for people who want those things.

thanks for the encouragement:smallsmile:. I've been speaking and reading english for the better part of the past two decades, but most of my work has been, and probably always will be, in my native french. if not for Firefox's spellchecker it would be much, much worse. right click suggestions, i love thee.

Gaiyamato

2009-06-08, 06:29 AM

Actually, when 3.5 came out, there was a huge split in the community over whether it was simply a giant scheme by WOTC to rip off players by releasing the same system with a few tweaks. The switch from 2.0 to 3.0 appeared more amicable, but then there were fewer communities in which discussions about D&D could take place like this. As mentioned, plenty of people did not like it.

There have been, and will always be debates about which system is better. This matters very little. And honestly, I really don't see much difference in the 'tone' between 4.0 and 3.5. 4.0 is less conducive to home brew, for a number of reasons, but as far as telling people how and why to play, I don't really see that.

In the groups down here the change from 2.x to 3.0 was taken very badly. I think out of 30 players in the club only 4 took it up. Maybe 5ish.
When 3.5 came out however the 2.x players decided that it was finally polished enough (rofl) to be worth giving a real go. Only 9 of the club stuck solely with 2.x after that. The 3.0 players however cried and carried on quite a lot but soon realised that there was a whole lot less broken stuff.

When WoW came out about half of the players completely abandoned roleplaying and took it up. After a couple of months most of them came back until only 8 players were exclusive WoW players.
When 4.0 came out two people from the club went and bought the books.
We all read them, we played a couple of games.
One person burnt the book and the other sold it to one of the WoW players. Thats the kind of impression the game made. The guy who burnt his book was so livid at the crap system he actually had the gall to try and demand his money back (after burning the book). Idiot. :P

All but one of the 8 WoW players now plays D&D 4.0 (the remaining player still plays WoW exclusively), all the rest of us either play D&D 3.5 or 2.x, mostly 3.5 now. To give you a hint, 5 of the 7 4.0 players have learning disabilities (not that I am having a go at people with learning disabilities, just the 4.0 game. We have had a great time with the learning disabled guys. They are not the sharpest tools in the shed but are good dudes.) and 1 of them is 12 years old. That really did it for me. :P

After playing two sessions of 4.0 and reading the books to a fair degree I am pretty much a 3.5 player. Maybe 4.5 will be better, but I doubt it.
Even still nearly half my games are still in 2.x AD&D rules. lol.

And only recently we played a 1.0 AD&D game.

:D

That set had everything, right down to rules for the cost of door handles!

Kurald Galain

2009-06-08, 07:02 AM

Honestly, 4e works very well as an entry level game. Character Creation is smooth and intuitive, compared to the very complex system in 3.5 (not that such is a problem, but it is turn off when first playing the game) trained skills make allocating such much easier, and the powers give identity to your character from the first moment you make him.
That's just marketing.

The best entry level games are rules-light games, for patently obvious reasons.

Also, it depends strongly on playstyle whether you want to tell first-time players that they can play whatever they want to as long as it fits the setting, or that there are exactly eight narrow classes to pick from.

Artanis

2009-06-08, 10:41 AM

I can see people coming off feeling sour because of passages like this, particularly when they are already feeling hostile to the idea of a new edition
Frankly, those people won't be convinced, and passages like that will only reinforce what they've already decided. The game could be the best thing since sliced bread, and they'd still dismiss everything else while pointing to that passage and saying, "SEE! I WAS RIGHT!"

That's not an insult, that's just human nature. It goes the other way, too: many people decided they liked the game before they played it, and dismiss the things they don't like while pointing to things they do.

Another thing is that it feels like WOTC wants people to be blindly and loyally purchase every bit of product they put out. To me at least this seems to go beyond simply making money, as if they feel they are entitled to the community’s loyalty.
Any company with a big IP does that. You name any big IP, and you can bet its owner is whoring that name's loyalty for all it's worth.

Philistine

2009-06-08, 11:18 AM

When 3.X came out there were parades in the street; seemingly everyone that was in the hobby back then was thrilled that there was a new edition being released. But with 4E there is barely a ripple in the pond. Sure there will always be first adopters, but it didn’t cause a tremendous amount of excitement, it didn’t even make the news like 3.0 did. I guess it shows that the majority of the community wasn’t really ready for 4E. They were still busy having fun with 3.X.

That's not the way I remember it. I remember great howls of indignation from the players; yea, and verily even unto wailing, and weeping, and gnashing of teeth. People complained about how much they hated the new multiclassing rules, they complained about WotC "dumbing down" the system (by simplifying saving throws, getting rid of THAC0, and so forth), they complained that the addition of social skills would trample on actual RPing by reducing everything to a simple d20 roll*, they complained that they were perfectly happy with 2E and WotC was only putting out the new edition in order to cash in on the D&D brand... Say, do any of those complaints sound familiar? Funny how the wheel just keeps on turning.

* I think it's kind of funny that 4E gets bagged on for both "killing RP by not including rules for social interactions," which isn't actually true, and "killing RP by reducing every social interaction into a single d20 roll," which is no more true than it was in 3E. I would argue that neither of these claims is correct; but in any case, they cannot both be correct.

Panda-s1

2009-06-08, 11:59 AM

In the groups down here the change from 2.x to 3.0 was taken very badly. I think out of 30 players in the club only 4 took it up. Maybe 5ish.
When 3.5 came out however the 2.x players decided that it was finally polished enough (rofl) to be worth giving a real go. Only 9 of the club stuck solely with 2.x after that. The 3.0 players however cried and carried on quite a lot but soon realised that there was a whole lot less broken stuff.

When WoW came out about half of the players completely abandoned roleplaying and took it up. After a couple of months most of them came back until only 8 players were exclusive WoW players.
When 4.0 came out two people from the club went and bought the books.
We all read them, we played a couple of games.
One person burnt the book and the other sold it to one of the WoW players. Thats the kind of impression the game made. The guy who burnt his book was so livid at the crap system he actually had the gall to try and demand his money back (after burning the book). Idiot. :P

All but one of the 8 WoW players now plays D&D 4.0 (the remaining player still plays WoW exclusively), all the rest of us either play D&D 3.5 or 2.x, mostly 3.5 now. To give you a hint, 5 of the 7 4.0 players have learning disabilities (not that I am having a go at people with learning disabilities, just the 4.0 game. We have had a great time with the learning disabled guys. They are not the sharpest tools in the shed but are good dudes.) and 1 of them is 12 years old. That really did it for me. :P

After playing two sessions of 4.0 and reading the books to a fair degree I am pretty much a 3.5 player. Maybe 4.5 will be better, but I doubt it.
Even still nearly half my games are still in 2.x AD&D rules. lol.

And only recently we played a 1.0 AD&D game.

:D

That set had everything, right down to rules for the cost of door handles!

So.... You're trying to say, though anecdotal evidence, that 4e is better suited for the mentally challenged, and 2nd/3rd ed. is better for "smart" people who don't play MMOs due to this preconceived notion? :smallconfused:

MickJay

2009-06-08, 12:07 PM

The truth is, people don't like changes, especially when the changes put them in a situation where they have to start learning things again and/or have to spend money. Human brain is constructed so that it comes with instinctive reaction first (e.g. I like it/I don't like it), then rationalizes it (finds arguments to support the liking/dislike for something), and once it happens, the person in question will defend their views while ignoring even genuinely rational arguments of others that are contrary to their views. This is pure physiology, and while this mechanism is in no way absolute, or in many cases even dominant, it does help explaining the negative, gut response to changes. Majority of people are conservative in their preferences, well-known things are seen as better than new ones (if it works, why change it).

When 3.0 came out, I thought it was quite dumb, to change a perfectly fine, working system, and I'd happily argued why it was so bad, using about 95% of the arguments I now see used against 4.0 by supporters of 3.x. Nothing new under the sun, really :smalltongue:

kjones

2009-06-08, 12:13 PM

Let's go back to talking about the fluff behind powers - I think it's a worthy line of discussion.

One thing that came up in a 4e game that I ran recently was the 1st level Fighter encounter power, Steel Serpent Strike. Here's the fluff:

You stab viciously at your foe’s knee or foot to slow him down. No matter how tough he is, he’s going to favor that leg for a time.

And here's the crunch:

Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target is slowed and cannot shift until end of your next turn.

Now, I understand that the italics at the top of a power block are not the be-all and end-all explanation of how a power actually functions. But the fighter used this power on the white dragon at the end of the Kobold Hall mini-adventure. By RAW, this slows both his normal move speed, and his fly speed.

How, exactly, does this work? Does he stab it through the foot, and through the wing? OK, fine. Now what happens when he uses this trick on an ooze? Does he somehow pin the ooze to the floor? There's no reason that he can't use this power, by the rules - but it doesn't make any goddamn sense.

Now, let's look at Blinding Barrage again. (Bits and pieces of this are stolen from something I read somewhere - I don't remember where exactly, or I would cite it.) Note that it's a Close Blast 3 power - that means that you could hypothetically attack 9 different targets. Say you're using a dagger, which counts as a light thrown weapon. You'll be throwing 9 daggers in a single round. Sure, you could do this in 3rd edition, but not at 1st level, at least without some serious cheese.

Now, you're throwing nine daggers, and potentially hitting nine targets right above the eyes, causing blood to drip down into them and blind them. Of course, this works on targets who don't have blood - go ahead and blind that Stone Golem. And if you're throwing daggers accurately enough that you can hit them right above the eyes, why not just... hit them in the eyes? Is that really that much harder? Maybe that will result in blindness a little more effective than (save ends).

I'm sure you could come up with some reason as to why you can blind nine stone golems in a single round by throwing daggers at them, but I can't think of any that aren't contrived and silly. This is because this power is meant to be used as a game mechanic, not as something that would actually happen in any kind of world.

Let's look at another example - Rogue Level 15 Daily, Bloody Path. Here's the fluff:

You dash across the battlefield, leaving bewildered and bleeding enemies in your wake.

And here's the crunch:

You can move your speed. Every enemy that can make an opportunity attack against you as a result of this movement attacks itself with its opportunity attack, rather than you. Any enemy that can make an opportunity attack against you during this movement must do so. It cannot refrain from making the attack to avoid harming itself.

The intent of the designers for this power is clear - the rogue dashes through the enemy ranks, cleverly rebounding their attacks against themselves. It's kind of cool.

Except, once again, it makes no goddamn sense. You can use this power against, say, a pack of wolves - and they all bite themselves. I don't think wolves are dumb enough to bite themselves as hard as they would bite you. Even if you can come up for some explanation as to why this power works on a pack of wolves, how would it work on a beholder? Is a beholder even physically capable of biting itself? (I guess it could bite its tongue...)

There are probably more examples, too - I'm not that familiar with most of the 4th edition powers. Note that these are just from martial classes (in 4th edition, classes with a martial power source). To those of you who would argue that this is "magic" - I don't know if 4th edition has an equivalent of an AMF, but would these powers work in an AMF? If so, why?

If there's no anti-magic in 4e... I'm not sure how much I like the idea of every single character in 4th edition deriving his powers from "magic".

Note that I don't think these are crippling shortcomings in 4th edition. I do think there is value in coming up with explanations as to how, exactly, your power functions in any given circumstance. And I do enjoy playing 4th edition. But every time I have to think about how to justify how some power functions, it reminds me that I'm playing a game, instead of inhabiting a role. It reminds me that my character is nothing more than a sheet of paper and a d12 on a battlemat. It breaks verisimilitude for me, and I don't like it.

Yora

2009-06-08, 12:39 PM

When 3.0 came out, I thought it was quite dumb, to change a perfectly fine, working system, and I'd happily argued why it was so bad, using about 95% of the arguments I now see used against 4.0 by supporters of 3.x. Nothing new under the sun, really :smalltongue:
But 4th Edition is not changing the old system.
It's a completely different system.
Which makes the arguments probably even ore dumb. ^^

oxybe

2009-06-08, 12:50 PM

A power's flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. you can alter this description as you like. your wizard's magic missle spell, for example might create phanstasmal skulls that howl through the air to strike your opponent, rather then bolts of magical energy

how does Steel Serpent Strike work on all the dragon's movements types? while his wings might be fine, he's still focusing on the pain in his leg, thus slowing him down.

the ooze? you hack away part of it, throwing bits and pieces all over the place. this slows down the ooze as it tries to re-assimilate itself.

blinding the golems? in addition to the daggers, you could use use something like the ninja weapon "Metsubushi" in unison as the setup for it... while stuff like peppers might not bother a golem, having mud or some paste all over their faces (and thus eyes) could blind it for a bit.

dashing through the wolves? they bite their own tongues, twist their legs trying to bite you, ect... as for the beholder, he misses his bite and crashes towards the ground... heck this could apply to the wolves too.

kjones

2009-06-08, 01:20 PM

how does Steel Serpent Strike work on all the dragon's movements types? while his wings might be fine, he's still focusing on the pain in his leg, thus slowing him down.

the ooze? you hack away part of it, throwing bits and pieces all over the place. this slows down the ooze as it tries to re-assimilate itself.

blinding the golems? in addition to the daggers, you could use use something like the ninja weapon "Metsubushi" in unison as the setup for it... while stuff like peppers might not bother a golem, having mud or some paste all over their faces (and thus eyes) could blind it for a bit.

dashing through the wolves? they bite their own tongues, twist their legs trying to bite you, ect... as for the beholder, he misses his bite and crashes towards the ground... heck this could apply to the wolves too.

Fine, fine. But all of these bring along additional implications.

If the dragon is focusing on the pain in his leg at the expense of his movement, why doesn't this affect his attacks, defenses, or anything else?

For the ooze, what if it's in an enclosed space? Say it's at the bottom of a pit - you want to hit it so it can't chase you, then try to escape.

For the golems - so suddenly, all rogues must carry around blinding ninja powders? Back in my day, as far as equipment was concerned, if you didn't have it written on your character sheet, you didn't have it. And how do you justify the fact that it still does [W] damage? Are you throwing ninja powder and then stabbing them?

For Bloody Path - OK, they bite their tongues, etc. And this is supposed to do as much damage as a full-on, savage bite against you?

And really, don't you think that's a little silly, the beholder crashing to the ground? I'm having trouble taking that seriously.

What if it's, say, a Guardian Naga? How does it tail-slap itself? It's a snake, for crying out loud.

This is exactly my point. You can justify these attacks - somehow, in convoluted ways. But trying to interpret these attacks in a real-world context leads to additional implications - and then you have to justify those implications, and so on.

Kurald Galain at one point brought up the example of Sly Flourish, the Rogue 1st level power that lets you add your Charisma modifier to damage. I'll accept the possibility of this being an Elan-like élan, but then why does it still work if your opponent isn't aware of you? (Something that happens frequently with rogues.) How could the force of your personality affect someone who doesn't know you're there? Do you just "believe in yourself"?

It doesn't make sense if you're trying to think of these things as things that are happening in a world that has any similarity to the one we know. It does make sense if you're thinking of it as a game - not a role-playing game, but a game of numbers and statistics.

jseah

2009-06-08, 01:31 PM

Oh, and that 1/2 level and dexterity modifiers apply to defenses even when paralyzed, unconscious and tied up/encased in stone.

Or that Icy Terrain works on fliers. (it's a burst 1 and so by RAW can hit air)
- Exactly what does prone in mid-air do?

Or Blinding Barrage works on Undead. And Sleep works on golems (some of them).

XD It's not like 3.5e didn't have it's problems, but they weren't so obvious. And yeah, I think both editions needs some tightening up.

Thespianus

2009-06-08, 01:34 PM

oxybe

2009-06-08, 01:44 PM

Artanis

2009-06-08, 01:56 PM

*stuff about 4e's lack of "realism"*

Complaining about realism pretty much shoots down your entire arguement by default. If you meant simulationism, I think everybody on both sides already agree that 3e tried to be more simulationist than 4e does.

hamishspence

2009-06-08, 01:58 PM

and similar problems could crop up. Trip attacks on a gelatinous cube- for example- the suggestion on WOTC site was it is set to vibrating at the right frequency to give it problems.

kjones

2009-06-08, 02:00 PM

like i said earlier:

you're playing a game where the elven princess Starshimmer (or Starsinger, if you're so inclined) is throwing rainbows of doom at the poop-covered tentacle monster while riding a unicorn is a very possible scenario. wondering why the rogue can only throw a flurry of daggers once per day is a minor thing IMO.

D&D is the game of make believe with strong ties in the realms of OMGWTFBBQ?! and random bull-doodie.

if you're going to complain about the fighter's sword slowing down the dragon's movements, why not complain about the frigging dragon itself? surely that thing's not realistic! or even the gelatinous cube...

oh it's magic?

bull-doodie. double bull-doodie. triple... no quadruple bull-doodie.

you're focusing on what the martial characters can do "is not realistic" while completely ignoring the fact that what they're fighting is hardly realistic in itself...

explain how a dragon, gelatinous cube or beholder works... in a real world context. you can justify these creatures via convoluted ways or cop-outs, but all you're doing is saying "this doesn't make sense, how can the fighter/rogue do this?!" when you're fighting a giant floating eyeball that's shooting magical laser beams and trying to eat you.

I don't think you understand the nature of my complaint. It's not realism that I'm concerned about - of course a game with magic isn't realistic. It's verisimilitude - Magic A Is Magic A (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA) - that I'm after. It's why, when I'm watching a movie, I don't care that the spaceship is traveling faster than light - but if the captain fires seven bullets from his six-shooter, it bothers me.

So, if an attack that works by stabbing someone in the leg works on something without legs, or something that doesn't need them to move, it breaks verisimilitude for me. It's not internally consistent with the world as I understand it. It reminds me that I'm playing a game, not living in a world - a world with dragons, for sure, but one with an established way of how dragons work.

EDIT:

Complaining about realism pretty much shoots down your entire arguement by default. If you meant simulationism, I think everybody on both sides already agree that 3e tried to be more simulationist than 4e does.

I never once used the word "realism". I think this post addresses why.

Artanis

2009-06-08, 02:30 PM

I never once used the word "realism". I think this post addresses why.

Oh. Guess I misread it..."realism" is thrown around an awful lot, so I guess my brain just kinda assumed it was there. You know what happens when you assume :smallredface:

To your complaint about verisimilitude:

Yours is actually a pretty common complaint, and is certainly a valid concern. It doesn't help that the game doesn't exactly go out of its way to hammer home the answers to many of the kinds of questions posted in this thread.

However, the answer does exist:

A power’s flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like. Your wizard’s magic missile spell, for example, might create phantasmal skulls that howl through the air to strike your opponent, rather than simple bolts of magical energy.

So if it doesn't make sense, just change it :smallbiggrin:

oxybe

2009-06-08, 02:30 PM

As more criticism on the novel surfaced, the inclusion of a preface or a scattering of some historical references was not enough to engage the reader. French theorist Pierre Nicolas Desmolets' notion that the author should obscure the fiction or art of the novel in order to avoid destruction of illusion: the made up attributes of the text. The novel before was perceived as a work of distinct parts. Now the novel was not thought of in terms of separate parts, but rather as a work as a whole. The novel was a total illusion of life within itself. It was a closed fictional world that could establish its own rules and laws. Verisimilitude then became deeply rooted in structure. The focus of credibility did not rest solely on the external world of the reader. The novel's credibility then could be seen in terms of the novel's own internal logic.
...
During the rise of the postmodern novel, some critics suggested that truth or significance lies beyond verisimilitude and that only by complete non-discursive freedom to encounter a novel could meaning truly be discovered. Verisimilitude, they argued, was not the first aspect of the text a reader experiences. The reader instead first tries to observe if the novel works as an intelligible narrative. The lens of verisimilitude is applied only after the reader establishes if the novel makes sense or not. The reader can understand the novel as art, but not necessarily as a cultural construction. The novel should challenge the construction of reality. In this sense, it was possible for art to precede reality. Reality had to catch up to the text rather than text staying present to reality. A boundary existed establishing that text does not belong to a current time or situation. In the postmodern context, verisimilitude was less of a concern for the novelist according to some critics.

if anything the fact a power work the same be it a dragon or ooze or angry farmer, means that it is consistent in it's own internal logic, moreso since the book (PHB, P.55, as i previously quoted) tells you to change the fluff so it works better for you.

verisimilitude, and to that extent suspension of disbelief, is like all things, up to the reader (or gamer in this case) to decide if it falls within his scope of acceptance.

i have no issue at all. it works because it works, same like how that dragon can somehow keep afloat with it's wings.

TheThan

2009-06-08, 02:35 PM

Third edition came out before I got into RPGs. I also didn’t have reliable internet back the either, so I have no knowledge of what was going on with other places and groups around the world. But here it made the news, and people really did dress up as Vikings and put on a little parade, clearly a lot of the players in this area were really excited about the news of a new edition.

This excitement caught my interest and I began looking into RPGs. I started with the original starwars D20 game, then I moved onto dnd from there (pickup both StarWars revised and saga edition, as well as D20 modern and a couple other games). So I haven’t been in the community as many of the other people in this thread have, I am just stated my observations from the time. Then I stumbled upon the giant’s wonderful web comic and this forum.

If this forum provides a good cross section of the world wide dnd community, then 3.X has become the predominate incarnation of DnD. Sure there will always be people who choose not to make the jump to the newest system. Hehe, I remember reading a post here some time ago, where someone was amazed to find an Adnd player on the forums (think it was directed at Matthew come to think of it.)

A lot of this does indeed come down to human nature. A lot of people went “finally a new game” while others when “oh crap a new game”. To be perfectly honest at first I went “a new game? WTF, I’m not done with the game I’m still playing”. I was adverse to there being a new version of dnd. When I learned that it was as a new system, I decided to hold off judgment and see for myself if it was worth my hard earned money. I’m not entirely sure it is yet.

Kurald Galain

2009-06-08, 03:08 PM

So if it doesn't make sense, just change it :smallbiggrin:

That's precisely the point:

In 3E, there is a spell that creates a burst of fire. The starting point is just that: it produces elemental pyrokinetics. As with all fire, it may set bushes afire, scare people, create a cloud of steam, and so forth. How much damage it does exactly is secondary, and in many situations isn't important, because you are shooting fire, and how is that not cool?

In 4E, there is a spell that deals 3d6 points of damage. The starting point is just that: it reduces the enemy's hit points by a random number. As with all damage effects, it may cause an enemy to drop below half of his maximum, or below zero, or be negated by damage resistance. What else it does is secondary, and in many situations isn't important, because you are doing an average of eleven points of damage, and, wait, how is that cool again?

MickJay

2009-06-08, 03:13 PM

The similarities between this discussion and my childhood discussions over what plastic building block system was the best, made me realize the following universal and unshakable truth:

3.X is Lego
4.0 is Duplo.

:smallsmile:

...and everyone knows that good, old wooden blocks that existed before all that 'fancy' plastic stuff are best anyway. :smallwink:

Artanis

2009-06-08, 03:24 PM

That's precisely the point:

In 3E, there is a spell that creates a burst of fire. The starting point is just that: it produces elemental pyrokinetics. As with all fire, it may set bushes afire, scare people, create a cloud of steam, and so forth. How much damage it does exactly is secondary, and in many situations isn't important, because you are shooting fire, and how is that not cool?

In 4E, there is a spell that deals 3d6 points of damage. The starting point is just that: it reduces the enemy's hit points by a random number. As with all damage effects, it may cause an enemy to drop below half of his maximum, or below zero, or be negated by damage resistance. What else it does is secondary, and in many situations isn't important, because you are doing an average of eleven points of damage, and, wait, how is that cool again?

This is entirely beside the point I was trying to make. The exchange had nothing to do with whether crunch flows into fluff or vice versa. He was complaining that the default fluff did not make sense, so I pointed out that the book said that he could change the fluff if he liked.

shadzar

2009-06-08, 04:02 PM

That's just marketing.

The best entry level games are rules-light games, for patently obvious reasons.

Exactly. With AD&D you got told Hey want a game that is similar, but much more complex and is a seperate game? Here is AD&D!

With 4th you got..."Ze game has changed but it remains ze same! Ze game will remain ze same!"

:smallconfused: It is a whole new game with much more crap to learn because nobody outside of Star Wars players have ever played with rules like that before. Every class has so much accounting they have to do. Can I heal with surges? Do I have a condition effect I must save against this turn? Do I have any dailies left? Do I have any encounters left?

:smallconfused: Where is something for people to just hit something with a sword sweet and simple and learn the roleplaying and the idea of the game without having to jump into all that other crap yet? I guess in 4th you could start new players of with just ignoring the powers...no then their dead, because you need those powers because monsters are designed around players having them...:smallconfused:

4th is entry level my left cheek.

Bassetking

2009-06-08, 04:20 PM

I don't think you understand the nature of my complaint. It's not realism that I'm concerned about - of course a game with magic isn't realistic. It's verisimilitude - Magic A Is Magic A (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA) - that I'm after. It's why, when I'm watching a movie, I don't care that the spaceship is traveling faster than light - but if the captain fires seven bullets from his six-shooter, it bothers me.

So, if an attack that works by stabbing someone in the leg works on something without legs, or something that doesn't need them to move, it breaks verisimilitude for me. It's not internally consistent with the world as I understand it. It reminds me that I'm playing a game, not living in a world - a world with dragons, for sure, but one with an established way of how dragons work.

EDIT:

I never once used the word "realism". I think this post addresses why.

I don't care if it came from TVTropes, you seriously did not just paraphrase Ayn Rand in a discussion about tabletop roleplay.

hamishspence

2009-06-08, 04:22 PM

Rand has her place in D&D- the Fated faction in Planescape draw heavily from Objectivism.

shadzar

2009-06-08, 04:24 PM

However, the answer does exist:

So if it doesn't make sense, just change it :smallbiggrin:

An exactly how do you remove the power system completely and still use 4th edition?

Faulty

2009-06-08, 04:26 PM

How appropiate; WotC edits like a cow.

That was hilarious, man.

hamishspence

2009-06-08, 04:27 PM

By making it very like Saga.

Artanis

2009-06-08, 04:29 PM

An exactly how do you remove the power system completely and still use 4th edition?

What I said had absolutely nothing to do with mechanics. NOTHING. If you are going to continue to try to shoehorn statements into an arguement that is entirely unrelated in every way, then I have nothing more to say to you.

/ignore

jseah

2009-06-08, 06:46 PM

This is entirely beside the point I was trying to make. The exchange had nothing to do with whether crunch flows into fluff or vice versa. He was complaining that the default fluff did not make sense, so I pointed out that the book said that he could change the fluff if he liked.

I think I pointed out how internal mechanics doesn't make sense. Fluff can be changed. Mechanics?

The problem is applying a status to a target which logically shouldn't be subject to it. Prone Oozes/Fliers is one. Blind Zombies (who function just fine without their heads) is another. Sleeping Constructs...

Change the fluff all you like, it doesn't change that the monster shouldn't have been affected.

And then there's application of intelligence to reflex defense. Um... it's about your reflexes... Intelligence?!
- In a fireball, you don't have the kind of time to think about where to go. You just jump...

Artanis

2009-06-08, 07:07 PM

I think I pointed out how internal mechanics doesn't make sense. Fluff can be changed. Mechanics?

The problem is applying a status to a target which logically shouldn't be subject to it. Prone Oozes/Fliers is one. Blind Zombies (who function just fine without their heads) is another. Sleeping Constructs...

Change the fluff all you like, it doesn't change that the monster shouldn't have been affected.

And then there's application of intelligence to reflex defense. Um... it's about your reflexes... Intelligence?!
- In a fireball, you don't have the kind of time to think about where to go. You just jump...

Unless I misread it, you were saying how it didn't make sense for something described as a stab in the leg to slow down things like fliers and oozes. So I replied that you can describe it as something else.

As for your specific examples:

The prone condition has explicit instructions for handling "prone" fliers, namely they sink down and (if they're still above the ground) fall.

There is no "sleeping" condition, so constructs can't be affected by it.

I don't see anywhere in the Zombie MM entry that says that they function just fine without heads.

As for prone oozes? Prone means they get closer to the ground and move slower. So a prone ooze could easily be described as having been squished down or something.

Frankly, I don't see anywhere that there isn't at least some way to describe an effect working against a target.

shadzar

2009-06-08, 07:26 PM

What I said had absolutely nothing to do with mechanics. NOTHING. If you are going to continue to try to shoehorn statements into an arguement that is entirely unrelated in every way, then I have nothing more to say to you.

/ignore

The problem is it should apply to both fluff and mechanics, and you cannot remove or change a part of the game that it is heavily built upon.

Everything works in 4th because of how interconnected it is. You have little to no leadway to change something without having to do all the work to change everything else to accommodate the previous change you made.

So if you prefer fluff to exists the way it does and don't like the mechanics you are screwed, and changing the fluff to suit the mechanics you like, may still not give you what you are looking for.

So the answer to change what you don't like no longer works as a universal concept.

With certain past editions you could change one type of rules and it didn't really affect the rest of the game because they were not so closely tied together and neither players nor DM had to do all the work of converting the whole game to accommodate this one thing changed.

That just means 4th is so hard-coded in things it is hard to break out of that hard-coding. Like a Jenga game, or a building. Mes with the foundation and everything else with crumble down.

So it isn't how YOU used what was said in the book, but that what was said in the book doesn't work for all cases, and it should be able to if it is to be a universal concept.

Only changing the power description doesn't help when the power itself or a series of them based on ones before them are a problem.

You can paint the power any color, but if the new function and color still don't work together, then you are still left with a problem.

Likewise the names of the powers should all be fluff as well, and try changing them from game to game.

:smallconfused:

jseah

2009-06-08, 07:36 PM

And so Icy Terrain squishes oozes down to the ground, or halts fliers and makes normal people skid around and fall. All while doing only Ice damage. Hai?

My bad, I keep using 3.5E things. Zombies are now bothered by the loss of heads? Ok.

By sleeping I meant unconscious via the Sleep power. (Things immune to mental effects are immune to this also, so it's definitely a mental effect)

Does Fireball cause things to burn?

Sand in the Eyes works against things without eyes...

Unconscious, bound and drugged level 25 characters are significantly more difficult to hit than perfectly healthy level 1s. ???
- You don't ever lose Dex to AC anymore. =S

I could go on and pry at all the little areas where things look wrong to me. I'm sure the list is quite quite long. =P
It wasn't nearly as long in 3.5 and I didn't have to bend over backwards to explain it. Except for a few, of course.

My main gripes about the system is the arbitrary (to me) 1/2 level that pops up all over. With nary mention of what circumstances the 1/2 level applies in.
Is it skill? Then if you're dying on the floor, I don't see how skill helps.
Not skill? Then what's experience in the form of levels? If that's not skill then what is it? Life-force? How does that help dodge, pick locks and resist mental attacks? XD

And also that the system focuses more on cinematic battles. Seems to me it tries too hard to make the battles look nice.

Sir_Mopalot

2009-06-08, 09:38 PM

Unconscious, bound and drugged level 25 characters are significantly more difficult to hit than perfectly healthy level 1s. ???
- You don't ever lose Dex to AC anymore. =S

Seems to me that in such a situation, the DM would be remiss in not making the level 25 character helpless, and thus vulnerable to anyone.

Starbuck_II

2009-06-08, 09:58 PM

Panda-s1

2009-06-09, 01:55 AM

And so Icy Terrain squishes oozes down to the ground, or halts fliers and makes normal people skid around and fall. All while doing only Ice damage. Hai?
No, Icy Terrain would make it difficult for an ooze to gain traction, and the burst (if the DM deems that it bursts into the air) has a strong gust of wind that 'causes fliers to crash towards the ground. Oh, and things that can walk slip and fall.

My bad, I keep using 3.5E things. Zombies are now bothered by the loss of heads? Ok.
I thought that was always the case... I'm pretty sure neither edition really touches on that 'cause it assumes that anyone would know something without a head usually dies.

Does Fireball cause things to burn?
Well, a fireball is a great burning blast of fire, with lots of heat. Usually when things that can burn are exposed to such heat they catch fire, so I don't know, you tell me.

Sand in the Eyes works against things without eyes...
Even though Sand in the Eyes's description is pretty much what it says on the tin, it's not tied to that explanation. You're fighting an ooze? Wait, that doesn't work, oozes have tremorsense.... so you're fighting a golem, you're probably putting some kind of gash in it's eyes, or hitting it so hard in the face that it gets disoriented.

People like to point out the attack makes no sense as a criticism of 4e, and how you have to take a power to throw sand in someone's eyes, but the entire point of taking that power is to blind someone and do weapon damage to them. You can do separately whenever you want, but doing it as a single action requires more training (and if your DM won't let you throw sand in an opponent's eyes, then I feel sorry for you).

And also that the system focuses more on cinematic battles. Seems to me it tries too hard to make the battles look nice.
Wow. You may as well try and argue Shadowrun sucks 'cause it can't make awesome, cinematic battles.

Seriously, it's getting annoying. You're trying to criticize 4e for not being something it's wasn't intended to be, and then use it's previous incarnation as a better example, even if that wasn't intended to be super realistic.

Prophaniti

2009-06-09, 02:21 AM

Playing 4e made me more fully appreciate the things I didn't like about D&D to begin with, because it seems they all became emphasized and focused. I won't go into what those things are, since that's rather irrelevant and only applicable to me, personally. Suffice to say, 3.5 bugged me with a lot of things. 4e made me more aware of what those things are. I went and found some systems that don't do those things, and am a much happier gamer now.

Most of my group still likes to play 3.5 and 4e both, so I do too and enjoy them both. The fact that I prefer other systems for various reasons only comes up when I'm DMing or when I can't help but heckle.

amanamana

2009-06-09, 02:31 AM

(...)complaints about 4ed 'insulting their intelligence'.

Oh, yeah?!?!
And 3.X insults charisma!

...wait :smallconfused:... aren't we talking about dump stats?

Talic

2009-06-09, 02:49 AM

I thought that was always the case... I'm pretty sure neither edition really touches on that 'cause it assumes that anyone would know something without a head usually dies.

Undead, Constructs, non-living creatures, and the like aren't immediately klled by loss of a head. Nor are Multi-headed creatures (hydra, ettin, etc).

Zombies are included in this. While it may limit any bite attacks, or make it harder for them to see, in 3.x, beheading is not auto-kill on everything.

jseah

2009-06-09, 03:10 AM

People like to point out the attack makes no sense as a criticism of 4e, and how you have to take a power to throw sand in someone's eyes, but the entire point of taking that power is to blind someone and do weapon damage to them. You can do separately whenever you want, but doing it as a single action requires more training (and if your DM won't let you throw sand in an opponent's eyes, then I feel sorry for you).

It's not that the action takes a power to execute. Is that the power... doesn't make much sense sometimes.

I don't mind ignoring one or two. But half the list is a bit much. (I exaggerate here, but not by a lot)

About the helpless condition, I fully agree the unconscious level 25 dude should be helpless. Guess what? That only gives a -5 penalty to defenses and combat advantage. That means the level 1 guy is still easier to hit. (assuming no armour or magic here,level 25 has 12+stat-7 to AC while the level 1 guy has stat mod to AC)
Should be: lose dex mod and 1/2 level to AC and Reflex. Meaning, if you don't have armour or magical protection and you're unconscious, your AC is 10.

My point is that the rules were... not made with sense in mind. That's what I don't like. Perhaps they just didn't make the system I wanted... =P

I can houserule them in if I like. But that means rewriting at least 25% of the powers and half the core combat mechanic...

Wow. You may as well try and argue Shadowrun sucks 'cause it can't make awesome, cinematic battles.

Seriously, it's getting annoying. You're trying to criticize 4e for not being something it's wasn't intended to be, and then use it's previous incarnation as a better example, even if that wasn't intended to be super realistic.

Mmhm... Well, I suppose it's sort of personal. I never really liked battles being all flashy with the combatants pulling off cool moves all the time. =/

It's a fight, to the death. I don't think you'll worry too much about being cool as with killing the other guy as efficiently as possible.
I know these systems reward for being cool. So these fancy moves ARE the most effective way to win. I... just don't like it being like that.

Yes, I think that lasers should be invisible. And I give bonus considerations to systems which achieve a sense of realism.

Not really important then.

huttj509

2009-06-09, 04:48 AM

Here's what I see.

3E was designed starting from the idea of what chracters would want to do, and how to make rules for that. This led to less focus on how rules interacted, particularly when players went outside the boundaries of what they were expected to want to do (non blaster wizards, clerics who use melee might as their focus, not a side benefit to the healing, etc.). A vocal portion of the playerbase had issues with the class imbalance that resulted. 3.5 was an attempt to fix a lot of the broken stuff, and it did, but there is still a lot that needs interpretation of how it works mechnically (a lot of which is due to the splatbooks, and rule interaction).

With this in mind, and knowing that there was a vocal portion of the playerbase clamoring for balance, 4E was created focusing more on the mechanics. Part of the goal was to avoid the flurry of loopholes, for example, make multi-classing give you something specific, rather than 3E multiclassing which turned into a game of "which way to do this character concept uses these powerful classes, and avoids worse ones." As such, so far at least it mechanically holds together well. Powers are well defined in what they do, but there is a lot of interpretation needed in how stuff works descriptively.

Now, as 4E is a bit tighter mechanically right now, it's more approachable for people new to the game. "What do you do" is a question more easily answered when you have a set of cards telling you things you CAN do. This then allows the player to be introduced into the more freeform options "Can I swing off the ladder to land here instead of at the bottom?" "Sure, make an acrobatics roll," sort of thing. Veteran roleplayers will already be more used to thinking outside the powers in terms of what they do, but even if you stick to the powers there seems to be plenty of flexibility.

I enjoy 3E. I enjoy what I've seen of 4E. To my eye they are the same game at heart, but differ in terms of how they go about adjucating actions. I do not think 4E went too far away from 3E. I do not think it was dumbed down, but I do think things were made less complex.

Edit:

About the game world assumptions they state. Any game system breaks down if you try to take it outside its intended scope. 3E really does not work well as written (sans supplements) for a gritty, futuristic, urban setting. The point of all the statements about the "Points of Light" world, etc. is to make clear what the mechanics were designed around. It won't work so well if you want to give the fighters firearms, for example, though you are free to modify things if you want to, just realize that some things might not make as much sense. In addition, it gives newer folks somewhere to start. Veteran roleplayers probably realize that they can use the mechanics, and set it in any world they want, and as long as that world is medieval sword and sorcery based fantasy type, things should still work well. If you want there to be a strong physical/magic imbalance, however, you'll need to modify things, as overall effectiveness balance was a focus in design.

Chrono22

2009-06-09, 05:41 AM

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-09, 05:44 AM

4e the game doesn't insult my intelligence at all.
It seems like the 4e fans do though. Maybe I'm just too old and well mannered, but it seems like half of the new players 4e roped act like they are just coming out of their tweens.

This is not my experience in these boards.

On wotc boards, well... ever heard of 4th edition avengers? :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain

2009-06-09, 06:07 AM

Regarding the powers that let you blind creatures without eyes, or mind blast creatures that don't have a brain, et cetera, I agree that playing 4E requires a substantial amount of handwaving and the MST3K mantra. At least once each session, probably more often, something crops up that works according to the rules but really doesn't make sense, and that you really shouldn't start paying close attention to.

The closest approximation to this, indeed the only analog I could think of, is TOON rpg. In Toon, physics are expected to do silly things: for instance, if you make a succesful stealth check, you are now hidden regardless of circumstances. Even if you are an elephant in the middle of the desert. Indeed, this being Toon, the associated silliness is the whole point. 4E uses the same thing: if you succesfully use an attack that prones an enemy, the enemy is now prone regardless of circumstances, please don't examine this too closely.

Oslecamo

2009-06-09, 08:46 AM

On wotc boards, well... ever heard of 4th edition avengers? :smallbiggrin:

I swear I stoped going to the Wotc forums because of those guys. They were even worst than the fallaccy avengers (I can't make a proper argument so I'll just create a fallaccy with my name on it and throw it willy nilly).

Kurald Galain:So you agree that 4e insults intelegence more than 3.X?

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-09, 09:02 AM

I swear I stoped going to the Wotc forums because of those guys.

Well, they are dangerous for the game itself, I think. One could think

"so, after all, this is a game for this kind of people.."

NOTE: this is plain wrong, my esteem to a lot of "4th editioners" I met on these boards. I had a lot of interesting argumentations with them during flamewars, no sarcasm.

Artanis

2009-06-09, 11:13 AM

And so Icy Terrain squishes oozes down to the ground, or halts fliers and makes normal people skid around and fall. All while doing only Ice damage. Hai?
Sure, why not? If the italics description in the power block doesn't make sense, change the description. I mean, we're talking about a Wizard who's smart enough to set fire to 225 square feet in three seconds with a thought. I'm sure he can think up some way to make a bit of cold magic make an ooze:
*Easier to hit in melee
*Harder to hit at range
*Move slower
*Is less accurate
*Need to use a move action to end these four effects.

Maybe he uses a blast of cold to make icicles sprout from the floor, hindering its movement but providing a bit of "cover" from being shot at. Maybe he uses a blast of cold to dump a foot of snow on the area. Maybe he uses a blast of cold to cover everything in an area in a layer of ice, making things with legs slip and fall, fliers fall out of the sky as their wings ice over, and hindering oozes' movement until it wobbles free.

The only limit to it making sense is your imagination.

My bad, I keep using 3.5E things. Zombies are now bothered by the loss of heads? Ok.
Yes, they are now bothered by the loss of heads. 3e described them as not being bothered, 4e doesn't.

And really, we're talking about something being animated via magic. Who's to say that cutting off a head won't disrupt that magic?

By sleeping I meant unconscious via the Sleep power. (Things immune to mental effects are immune to this also, so it's definitely a mental effect)
Again, back to being able to change the description. We're talking about a ridiculously intelligent person throwing a surge of raw magical energy designed to shut things down. It's pretty easy for me to believe that that could have some effect on the magic animating things like constructs and undead.

Does Fireball cause things to burn?
If the player and/or DM want it to it does. Unlike 3e, however, 4e allows the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the Wizard has enough control over the magic to keep from torching everything in sight.

Sand in the Eyes works against things without eyes...
OK, you got me on this one. On this one.

Unconscious, bound and drugged level 25 characters are significantly more difficult to hit than perfectly healthy level 1s. ???
Sounds like a helpless character. Helpless means you can coup de grace it, which means you autocrit, regardless of defenses. Deal enough damage with the autocrit, and you instakill it.

- You don't ever lose Dex to AC anymore. =S

That's abstracted into the relevant status effects tending to do things like, say, make people invisible to you (the blinded effect) which imposes a huge penalty to defenses. Even when status effects don't do that, they tend to at least abstract it out to giving attackers CA. If this is insufficient for you, then it might fall under my response to the last quote block I have in this post.

I could go on and pry at all the little areas where things look wrong to me. I'm sure the list is quite quite long. =P
It wasn't nearly as long in 3.5 and I didn't have to bend over backwards to explain it. Except for a few, of course.
That list gets a hell of a lot shorter once you take into account the full implications of what it means to be able to change the descriptions of powers. Look at my answers regarding Icy Terrain and Sleep. Now apply them to almost every single power on the list of objections. How much shorter does that list get?

That list of objectionable powers is only about as your imagination allows it to be.

And I'm sure that we can find quite a list in 3e if we really look :smallwink:

My main gripes about the system is the arbitrary (to me) 1/2 level that pops up all over. With nary mention of what circumstances the 1/2 level applies in.
Is it skill? Then if you're dying on the floor, I don't see how skill helps.
Not skill? Then what's experience in the form of levels? If that's not skill then what is it? Life-force? How does that help dodge, pick locks and resist mental attacks? XD

And also that the system focuses more on cinematic battles. Seems to me it tries too hard to make the battles look nice.
Both of these are legit complaints that nobody disputes.

The New Bruceski

2009-06-09, 11:32 AM

Kurald Galain:So you agree that 4e insults intelegence more than 3.X?
Mu. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)) That's an awfully loaded question.

jseah

2009-06-09, 12:55 PM

The only limit to it making sense is your imagination.

<shuffle>
That list gets a hell of a lot shorter once you take into account the full implications of what it means to be able to change the descriptions of powers. Look at my answers regarding Icy Terrain and Sleep. Now apply them to almost every single power on the list of objections. How much shorter does that list get?

That list of objectionable powers is only about as your imagination allows it to be.

And I'm sure that we can find quite a list in 3e if we really look :smallwink:
I understand that if you change things around, you can explain practically anything. I can explain Sand in the Eyes by changing names and descriptions. The problem is that any such explanation results in weird observations popping up elsewhere.

Let's take Icy Terrain. Able to cause ice to appear on the ground means casting on still water should freeze the top layer. At least.
Or freeze that potion the enemy is about to chug down. That's gotta be interesting. (the potion need not be magic)

You see the problem I hope. Fluff has a mechanical effect if you use it right. And I'ld like the fluff to not change mid-combat just because the GM says "no, you can't do that" and re-fluffs the power.

Since I have a tendency to take side-effects and use them (see the Icy Terrain and potion example), I need a solid description that we can rely on.
Waving our hands and saying "it's fluff" and then not allowing the resulting effects from these explanations is contradictory.

Plus I would rather not rewrite fluff for everything. Ok, not everything. Most things.
- Although if fireball makes things burn, then it should do regardless of conditions. The wizard can not burn things indiscriminately but can somehow not avoid hitting allies, hm?
- Even when those things he's avoiding are suits of armour on stands, larger than halflings...

The list is there in 3.5e. It's shorter. And fluff doesn't have as many side-effects as the mechanics of the spell/power/move is designed around how the power was envisioned to work. Not an arbitrary, OOC standard called "balance".

Sounds like a helpless character. Helpless means you can coup de grace it, which means you autocrit, regardless of defenses. Deal enough damage with the autocrit, and you instakill it.
Helpless means a valid target for a coup de grace. Which (if it hits) auto-crits. You still have to hit. All it does to lower defenses is a -5 penalty. (not including CA)

That's abstracted into the relevant status effects tending to do things like, say, make people invisible to you (the blinded effect) which imposes a huge penalty to defenses. Even when status effects don't do that, they tend to at least abstract it out to giving attackers CA. If this is insufficient for you, then it might fall under my response to the last quote block I have in this post.
Invisible means everyone grants you CA. +2 is not huge. It is nice, but nowhere near losing Dex/Int to AC (which it should do logically).

You know, I can explain all the discrepancies if I work hard enough at it. If I really really wanted to, I could. There's probably some kind of explanation involving life-force, magic and re-fluffing all powers to be magic. There, all problems gone.

I don't like that explanation. It's too much like saying, it works that way just because.

If there's an explanation and fluff that the powers have, then I would certainly have liked the designers to have done that work for me... Not leave obvious holes in mechanics that don't make immediate sense!
After all, isn't the ruleset supposed to be a reflection/simplification of a fictional reality?

Kurald Galain

2009-06-09, 01:19 PM

After all, isn't the ruleset supposed to be a reflection/simplification of a fictional reality?
It is, in every pen-and-paper roleplaying game I can think of, except for 4E, where the ruleset is instead supposed to be balanced and quick to play. Whether that it is a perk or a flaw, and whether it succeeds at being balanced and quick, is a matter of opinion.

shadzar

2009-06-09, 02:48 PM

It is, in every pen-and-paper roleplaying game I can think of, except for 4E, where the ruleset is instead supposed to be balanced and quick to play. Whether that it is a perk or a flaw, and whether it succeeds at being balanced and quick, is a matter of opinion.

Those two goals happen to be the foundation for a miniatures game, board game, or card game. Game that are competitive rather than cooperative.

I can't tell you how many 1st person shooters I have played where people were mad I got the BFG and saved the rest of the team and we won, and everyone else complained because even though we won, I got 10 kills at once. Actually I can... ZERO, because we won and after that game the number of kills didn't matter. So that balance didn't matter, because a coop game means you use teamwork, not complain that another person on the team is helping you more than you are helping them. :smallconfused:

Artanis

2009-06-09, 03:10 PM

I understand that if you change things around, you can explain practically anything. I can explain Sand in the Eyes by changing names and descriptions. The problem is that any such explanation results in weird observations popping up elsewhere.

Let's take Icy Terrain. Able to cause ice to appear on the ground means casting on still water should freeze the top layer. At least.
Or freeze that potion the enemy is about to chug down. That's gotta be interesting. (the potion need not be magic)
*shrug* I don't see why it can't freeze the top layer of still water. Having a couple millimeters of ice doesn't mean that you can walk on it though.

As for the potion, that's up to you and the DM. It doesn't take a whole lot of ice to make somebody slip and fall, after all.

*stuff about fluff changing effects*
By definition fluff has no mechanical effect. Period. There may be mechanical effects that they added in order to make it match the fluff, but that is NOT fluff having mechanical effects.

Fluff has the same amount of direct mechanical side-effects in both editions: zero. The only thing that has ANY effect under RAW is what it says in the crunch part. Whether or not the two match up - or, in your words, "make sense" - has absolutely and utterly zero effect on what the effect block says.

If I make a 3e spell called "lightning ball" and describe it as shooting a ball of lightning, and then have the effect be that it summons a normal gerbil, then guess what? It summons a gerbil. Does it make sense? No. Does it not making sense change the fact that it summons a mundane, non-electrified gerbil? Also no.

Helpless means a valid target for a coup de grace. Which (if it hits) auto-crits. You still have to hit. All it does to lower defenses is a -5 penalty. (not including CA)

Invisible means everyone grants you CA. +2 is not huge. It is nice, but nowhere near losing Dex/Int to AC (which it should do logically).
I concede the point.

You know, I can explain all the discrepancies if I work hard enough at it. If I really really wanted to, I could. There's probably some kind of explanation involving life-force, magic and re-fluffing all powers to be magic. There, all problems gone.
Exactly! :smallbiggrin:

I don't like that explanation. It's too much like saying, it works that way just because.

If there's an explanation and fluff that the powers have, then I would certainly have liked the designers to have done that work for me... Not leave obvious holes in mechanics that don't make immediate sense!
After all, isn't the ruleset supposed to be a reflection/simplification of a fictional reality?
Then this would fall under the last part of my previous post: a legitimate objection to 4e that nobody disputes.

Asheram

2009-06-09, 03:32 PM

*scrubbed*

My mistake.

MartinHarper

2009-06-09, 04:29 PM

The best entry level games are rules-light games, for patently obvious reasons.

Entry level games should be light both on written rules and social rules. "Rules-light" games often have lots of social rules, which may or may not be written down. RPGs that are more akin to board games, like 4e, may be more accessible.

Kurald Galain

2009-06-09, 04:41 PM

"Rules-light" games often have lots of social rules, which may or may not be written down.
Whatever gives you the idea that rules-light games have more social rules than rules-heavy games? If anything, they have less.

Tackyhillbillu

2009-06-09, 04:44 PM

Those two goals happen to be the foundation for a miniatures game, board game, or card game. Game that are competitive rather than cooperative.

I can't tell you how many 1st person shooters I have played where people were mad I got the BFG and saved the rest of the team and we won, and everyone else complained because even though we won, I got 10 kills at once. Actually I can... ZERO, because we won and after that game the number of kills didn't matter. So that balance didn't matter, because a coop game means you use teamwork, not complain that another person on the team is helping you more than you are helping them. :smallconfused:

And I can tell you how many games of 3.5 I've played where someone who didn't want to play a Caster essentially closed his book, and took a nap during combat. Hell, during the skill oriented sessions as well. Who needs a Rogue when you have Knock (I know that is an oversimplification, but you get the point)?

And what happened? The guy stopped playing. Cooperative Play doesn't mean watch me while I do cool things, cooperative play means, we both require each other to work well, and victory or defeat hingers upon our success.

3.5 at low levels fails at cooperative play. Wizards, Sorcerers (most Arcane Casters) are essentially useless. They just have to focus on not dying. They are obstacles, not allies.

3.5 at high levels... fails at cooperative play. Wizards, Sorcerers (Casters in General) blow every Melee and Skill oriented class out of the Water.

What makes FPS' work as cooperative games is that everybody has got that chance to get the BFG and kick some ass. 3.5 is more like you pick a guy to get the BFG right off the bat, and tell the rest of the team to watch him kick some ass.

Kurald Galain

2009-06-09, 04:52 PM

3.5 at low levels fails at cooperative play. Wizards, Sorcerers (most Arcane Casters) are essentially useless. They just have to focus on not dying. They are obstacles, not allies.
Have you ever seen a first-level Beguiler at work? Oh, and look, all his spells also appear on the sorcerer and wizard list...

MartinHarper

2009-06-09, 05:05 PM

Invisible means everyone grants you CA. +2 is not huge. It is nice, but nowhere near losing Dex/Int to AC (which it should do logically).

A high Dex/Int target is still darting around the place and keeping up their guard, even if they can't see you, and invisibility doesn't make you inaudible and undetectable. +2 is in line with attacking from stealth and flanking. Just denying Dex/Int to AC means that you get no benefit at all when attacking a commoner or zombie when invisible.

jseah

2009-06-09, 05:19 PM

*shrug* I don't see why it can't freeze the top layer of still water. Having a couple millimeters of ice doesn't mean that you can walk on it though.

As for the potion, that's up to you and the DM. It doesn't take a whole lot of ice to make somebody slip and fall, after all.
Not walk on it, but might need chipping to get at and could hinder underwater enemies from surfacing.

You do make a good point in the next part though, so I will drop the request for mechanical effects from fluff.

That said, I must admit that 3.5E spells that relied on fluff for mechanics were the ones I'm best at breaking. Examples include Reverse Gravity (my favourite), Gust of Wind, Ring Gates...

The spells specifically state they have effects that whatever they generate can believably cause. A RAW mandate for fluff affecting effects.

Which results in things like Gust of Wind powered airships and highly weird shenanigans using force reflection in Ring Gates.

By definition fluff has no mechanical effect. Period. There may be mechanical effects that they added in order to make it match the fluff, but that is NOT fluff having mechanical effects.

Fluff has the same amount of direct mechanical side-effects in both editions: zero. The only thing that has ANY effect under RAW is what it says in the crunch part. Whether or not the two match up - or, in your words, "make sense" - has absolutely and utterly zero effect on what the effect block says.

If I make a 3e spell called "lightning ball" and describe it as shooting a ball of lightning, and then have the effect be that it summons a normal gerbil, then guess what? It summons a gerbil. Does it make sense? No. Does it not making sense change the fact that it summons a mundane, non-electrified gerbil? Also no.
You are quite right, of course. 3.5E fluff doesn't have mechanical effects either. But 3.5E's mechanical effects are directly based on the fluff. 4E's isn't. (Homebrew not counting. Obviously. And there are exceptions, both ways)
The disconnect never happens as often or to quite the same extent in 3.5E compared to 4E. The closest spell I can find to Icy Terrain in 3.5E is Freezing Sphere, which explicitly says you freeze water with it. And states the depth of water frozen.
Web is flammable in 3.5E, and states the damage dealt from a burning web. 4E webs aren't flammable but that's not the point. Is there ever that kind of attention to detail and side-effects?

IMO, that's where 4E went wrong. The entire tone is wrong if you want to generate a believable game.

The rules work if you close one eye and stay in the dungeon. Start looking even a little closely and the whole thing falls apart. Can we honestly call that a well-designed system?!
- My examples came off the top of my head, I didn't even have to refer to get them, despite having only played 1 game of 4E... Something is wrong when the holes are so obvious.

Or what does it say about the game? Are we as player characters meant to stay in the dungeon and kill everything that comes in our way? Or can we not breathe a little more life in game and drive our own plots, hatch our own plans and do our best at roleplaying an actual citizen of the setting? (a strangely powerful citizen but nevertheless)

Please don't say it is supposed to be a dungeon crawl and we're taking it out of it's area. Is 4E really so limited that we are stuck with generic high fantasy and lots of combat?

Exactly! :smallbiggrin:
And so? I think having to come up with some crazy convoluted explanation that involves a crappy vitalist explanation is going to be a major drawback for any system.

A system with an explanation of it's rules that's more complicated than itself is not a good system. Most especially when that explanation is not stated...

I can see the citizens of the world taking it in stride. Since it's always been like that for them. It chafes at me to look at something so weird though.

shadzar

2009-06-09, 05:24 PM

And I can tell you how many games of 3.5 I've played where someone who didn't want to play a Caster essentially closed his book, and took a nap during combat. Hell, during the skill oriented sessions as well. Who needs a Rogue when you have Knock (I know that is an oversimplification, but you get the point)?

So 3.5 combat is the sole of all edition of D&D with its poor system? But I will explain how the system isn't poor in a minute....

And what happened? The guy stopped playing. Cooperative Play doesn't mean watch me while I do cool things, cooperative play means, we both require each other to work well, and victory or defeat hingers upon our success.
What? You contradict yourself here. You claim cooperative play is all working together, but want to compete with each other as to who works better with others?

ANY competing for anything outside or arguing who gets the magic item, isn't cooperative play.

So prior to healing surges where everyone could heal themselves there was no cooperative play if nobody was playing a cleric?

3.5 at low levels fails at cooperative play. Wizards, Sorcerers (most Arcane Casters) are essentially useless. They just have to focus on not dying. They are obstacles, not allies.

3.5 at high levels... fails at cooperative play. Wizards, Sorcerers (Casters in General) blow every Melee and Skill oriented class out of the Water.

What makes FPS' work as cooperative games is that everybody has got that chance to get the BFG and kick some ass. 3.5 is more like you pick a guy to get the BFG right off the bat, and tell the rest of the team to watch him kick some ass.

You took the analogy too far, and fail to see how it works as well you fial to see how cooperative play works. The BFG could be given to someone else with a simple drop and retake action. If I wanted to be a sniper, then I would keep the BFG, but drop it. Does that mean I failed to cooperate with others? Someone else gets it and I might ohave wanted it this time so they failed at cooperating?

This is that balance crpa again that is due to competitive play.

The goal is not who can do the most damage, but how can we work together to survive. That is cooperative play.

If you are obsessing over who is doing more damage, then you should play a competitive game instead of trying to play D&D, because you aren't playing it right, because it IS a cooperative game.

So a fighter in 3.5 got sucky time spent because the crappy rules. That is a group problem, not a system one. A failed group won't be able to make any game work. A working group will be able to adapt. I bet it works out as always some people were trying for combat optimization and others weren't so it is the fault of the system that everyone couldn't optimize as good as everyone else, or those players who weren't optimized are at fault for not doing what the optimizers thought they should.

A smart DM tailors his game to the group, and makes sure the group works. There is nothing that a wizard can do that a rogue can't for rogue skills, and a wizard trying to replicate a rogue to show off is only hindering the rest and being competitive than being cooperative.

Write up previos editions with a wizard with only rogue-like functions, and then write up a rogue.

Then play them against each other in combat. That wizard is FUBAR. Why? Because a wizard's job is not to replicate a rogue when you have a rogue, or to show off. The wizard playing doing so would be considered a disruptive element in games I ran and would be thrown out or had to make a new character to become a part of the group.

Fighter PC players always have something to do without long waits when the group works, and a competent DM is had.

So lets play the bored player to the full logical conclusion then so that that fighter doesn't suffer, and neither does any other player at the table.

Dying sucks and you have to wait to be raised, as well any form of being stunned, unconscious, etc. so lets remove all those. Since dying is remove, then there realy is no threat to combats, and the players will always win or always end in a TPK.

Not playing isn't fun so we remove the TPK, and thus the PCs always win.

Since there is now no point to combat and the story can go on, then we can remove combat entirely.

This is for the sake of balance so no player ever feels left out right?

So what do we have left now that we removed combat?

Not every player is comfortable with social interactions being roleplayed out, so lets just remove them.

Now to play D&D fairly for every type of player, we have no combat, and no non-combat,; so we now play D&D by sitting around and looking at each other and some minis on a map right?

That sounds like fun and a great fair game right? :smallconfused:

Our fighter never feels left out, and gets to do the same thing as everyone else without downtime.

Game fixed and perfectly balanced! All the players get to have the same amount of fun at and ror the same amount of time.

:smallconfused: Where was the game we were playing again? Is there any game left in the RPG when you remove those things?

Let go play the XBOX instead of this new and all-fair and balanced D&D.

The group must work together for EVERYTHING, and shouldn't be interested in who does which part since some players will always shine over others in certain situations, the game, with a proper DM, will have places for each PLAYER to shine regardless of the character they are playing.

As long as all the (wanted) characters are still alive after each event in the game, then that is all that matters. If you go into the game looking to try to do more than the other players, you have already turned it from co-op to competitive, and the group has already broken down and failed. At any point where any players looks at these things in a competitive manner, then the group has failed.

This has nothing to do with the rules of any game, but the group of players itself. If you don't work together, then you won't work together.

jseah

2009-06-09, 05:25 PM

A high Dex/Int target is still darting around the place and keeping up their guard, even if they can't see you, and invisibility doesn't make you inaudible and undetectable. +2 is in line with attacking from stealth and flanking. Just denying Dex/Int to AC means that you get no benefit at all when attacking a commoner or zombie when invisible.

And if your target can't dodge for nuts, attacking him unawares isn't very much different from attacking him normally, since it's the same.

Which simply shows that standard dodging patterns and fighting stances are rolled up in the 10 base AC everyone gets, since obviously a commoner without Dex or Int mod will still get that and it doesn't make sense that commoner's can't dodge...

Plus you can't keep up your guard all day. Attacking from invis while not in a battle situation (when he's not aware) is the same as in a battle situation by RAW. Which doesn't make sense under the explanation of actively dodging invisible attacks.

mrmaxmrmax

2009-06-10, 12:58 AM

What? You contradict yourself here. You claim cooperative play is all working together, but want to compete with each other as to who works better with others?

I've decided to delve into Tackyhillbillu's post to look for this contradiction you claim.

And I can tell you how many games of 3.5 I've played where someone who didn't want to play a Caster essentially closed his book, and took a nap during combat. Hell, during the skill oriented sessions as well. Who needs a Rogue when you have Knock (I know that is an oversimplification, but you get the point)?

And what happened? The guy stopped playing. Cooperative Play doesn't mean watch me while I do cool things, cooperative play means, we both require each other to work well, and victory or defeat hingers upon our success.

I am not trying to insult your intellegence here, but what it seems like he is saying is that cooperative play is not about one person being useless or feeling useless. I have to assume that in your haste of reading his post and replying, you misread something to think he meant competing to see who works best with others.

What makes FPS' work as cooperative games is that everybody has got that chance to get the BFG and kick some ass. 3.5 is more like you pick a guy to get the BFG right off the bat, and tell the rest of the team to watch him kick some ass.

You took the analogy too far, and fail to see how it works as well you fial to see how cooperative play works. The BFG could be given to someone else with a simple drop and retake action. If I wanted to be a sniper, then I would keep the BFG, but drop it. Does that mean I failed to cooperate with others? Someone else gets it and I might ohave wanted it this time so they failed at cooperating?

Cooperation means something different when you have to wait your turn to do something. In a real-time, first person shooter, you don't have to stand still while someone shoots the BFG over and over again to rack up the kills. You can run around and find your own weapons and enemies to take out. In D&D, you have no choice but to wait your turn to take action.

The not feeling left out we are talking about comes from waiting your turn, watching your caster allies deal 10d6 points of fire damage to all creatues in a 20 ft radius, and then hitting an single enemy for 1d10 + 5 (or maybe two hits for 2d10 + 10).

Shadzar, what type of characters do you like to play? I am working on a theory relating to people who dislike 4e enough to post often about it being correlated to the character types they like.

Maxwell.

shadzar

2009-06-10, 01:08 AM

The not feeling left out we are talking about comes from waiting your turn, watching your caster allies deal 10d6 points of fire damage to all creatues in a 20 ft radius, and then hitting an single enemy for 1d10 + 5 (or maybe two hits for 2d10 + 10).

Shadzar, what type of characters do you like to play? I am working on a theory relating to people who dislike 4e enough to post often about it being correlated to the character types they like.

Maxwell.

That is a part of turn-based games. Some people just like RTS over turn-based.

Characters I play? :smallconfused:

Anything.

Fighters, with no common sense
Fighters, with high INT
Wizards, non-specialists; but use odd spells (no fireballs or lightning bolts)
Clerics, any mythos
Thieves, anything that can pick a pocket
etc...

NO DRUIDS OR PSIONICISTS! :smallyuk:

Don't like psionics in my games, and druids just never really are something I have wanted to play.

Panda-s1

2009-06-10, 02:05 AM

Have you ever seen a first-level Beguiler at work? Oh, and look, all his spells also appear on the sorcerer and wizard list...
Y'know, that only kinda proves his point even more, that there are certain classes that are more powerful than others at both ends of the level spectrum...

Let's take Icy Terrain. Able to cause ice to appear on the ground means casting on still water should freeze the top layer. At least.
Or freeze that potion the enemy is about to chug down. That's gotta be interesting. (the potion need not be magic)

You see the problem I hope. Fluff has a mechanical effect if you use it right. And I'ld like the fluff to not change mid-combat just because the GM says "no, you can't do that" and re-fluffs the power.
Okay, really, y'know that not all liquids don't freeze at the same temperature, right? Maybe the ice was cold enough to freeze water, but potions freeze at a lower temperature. Kinda like alcohol. And if a PC gets caught in the blast, he won't have to worry about his flask of whiskey getting frozen.

And for the record, 3.5 doesn't really touch upon this, either.

Neither does 2nd ed.

IMO, that's where 4E went wrong. The entire tone is wrong if you want to generate a believable game.

The rules work if you close one eye and stay in the dungeon. Start looking even a little closely and the whole thing falls apart. Can we honestly call that a well-designed system?!
- My examples came off the top of my head, I didn't even have to refer to get them, despite having only played 1 game of 4E... Something is wrong when the holes are so obvious.

Or what does it say about the game? Are we as player characters meant to stay in the dungeon and kill everything that comes in our way? Or can we not breathe a little more life in game and drive our own plots, hatch our own plans and do our best at roleplaying an actual citizen of the setting? (a strangely powerful citizen but nevertheless)

Please don't say it is supposed to be a dungeon crawl and we're taking it out of it's area. Is 4E really so limited that we are stuck with generic high fantasy and lots of combat?
No. In a game I'm playing, we spent one session going back into a city and telling all relevant parties about the problem we found in the dungeon (read: ancient temple/tomb to a hero of Erathis) we just got back from: a bound, ancient blue dragon that's slowly escaping it's magical binding. At the end of all that, we get hired by the assassin's guild to go get the attention of a demolitions expert in another city to destroy the temple, thereby killing the dragon (mind you, we're only 11th level, there's no way we could kill the damn thing).

So the next session we spend exploring a breathtaking city of clockwork and magitech, run by crazy, genius artificers. After watching a warforged arena fight, we find the owner of the winning warforged, the demolitions expert! And then he gives us explosives, and performs a ritual that temporarily imbues me with his knowledge of demolitions (and kinda makes me go crazy).

Oh, and my character, who is an invoker of Ioun and writes down everything she learns, got an offer to be a professor at the city's grand university, which she kindly declined as there's so much more for her to learn in the world.

The only mechanics that ever really came up were some skill checks, and a few rituals. No combat. Nothing fell apart at the seams.

Panda-s1

2009-06-10, 02:21 AM

Regarding the powers that let you blind creatures without eyes, or mind blast creatures that don't have a brain, et cetera, I agree that playing 4E requires a substantial amount of handwaving and the MST3K mantra.

OKAY! So there's a lot going on around this thread about eyes, and blinding things without eyes, and eyes that aren't real, and... well you get the idea.

But blinding things without eyes made me worry. Could the 4e designers be this shortsighted? I mean I can understand things like making oozes prone, but blinding them?

So I went to my MM, and what's the first thing I think of when I think of eyeless monsters? Gelatinous cubes! Of course! And they have tremorsense! What does that mean? Well, they perceive things by feeling the surface they're on, and automatically have line of sight to anything on the same surface. But that doesn't mean they can't be blinded. Huh...

Then I notice something: Large natural beast (blind, ooze). Blind, huh, I wonder what that means in the MM? So I look in the glossary, and I find this:

Blind [Keyword]: A blind creature cannot detect creatures and objects by sight. It relies on special senses, such as blindsight or tremorsense, to detect things within a certain range. A blind creature cannot make Perception checks to notice things beyond the range of its special senses. A blind creature cannot be blinded.
Blind creatures are immune to gaze attacks and other effects that rely on sight.

Then I look through the book, and find that almost every creature that is depicted with no eyes has this descriptor! So while there isn't a rule in of itself that says you can't, you really can't blind something with no eyes!

As for mind blasting things with no brains... I dunno, I mean on the one hand yeah, they don't have brains, but at the same time just 'cause something doesn't have a brain in the D&D world doesn't mean it doesn't have thoughts and feelings. It just hurts whatever 'causes said thoughts and feelings to occur. I mean hell, even skeletons have a Cha of 3, they have to be self aware somehow.

Thurbane

2009-06-10, 02:42 AM

Neither does 2nd ed.
Item saving throws? Liquid (or glass) vs. magical cold.

Talic

2009-06-10, 02:56 AM

I am going to posit that if you have to change what a spell does, to allow it to do what it does, you are no longer looking at that spell.

For 4th E., none of this "oozes get cover, but get bolted to the ground" nonsense. The ability doesn't say it does that. By 4th E., it doesn't do that.

Why is this important? Why, if you have an ability to negate cover, then wouldn't you be able to benefit against the "not prone, yet prone" ooze? Now we have a mechanical difference, because you changed how something happened mechanically.

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-10, 03:18 AM

3.5 at low levels fails at cooperative play. Wizards, Sorcerers (most Arcane Casters) are essentially useless. They just have to focus on not dying. They are obstacles, not allies.

3.5 at high levels... fails at cooperative play. Wizards, Sorcerers (Casters in General) blow every Melee and Skill oriented class out of the Water.

Hey... THIS insults intelligence! Yeah. Definitively this.

Panda-s1

2009-06-10, 03:27 AM

Item saving throws? Liquid (or glass) vs. magical cold.

O RLY? Where's that, PHB or DMG?

Tackyhillbillu

2009-06-10, 03:39 AM

Hey... THIS insults intelligence! Yeah. Definitively this.

Really? How? The Level 1 Analogy is far shakier, I'll admit. Wizards at Level 1 can do things, in the hands of people who have the class down pat, and know how to bring out the power of the class. But they won't match a Rogue, or a Fighter.

At Level 20, hell any high level, it's rock solid. Casters blow Melee out of the Water. They blow away people who use ranged weapons. It isn't even close.

Tackyhillbillu

2009-06-10, 04:06 AM

What? You contradict yourself here. You claim cooperative play is all working together, but want to compete with each other as to who works better with others?

ANY competing for anything outside or arguing who gets the magic item, isn't cooperative play.

My point wasn't about competition. It was about the fact that the Wizard doesn't need the Fighter there, the Rogue there, anybody there! He just can do everything. Once a class can play every roll in the game, as well or better then the classes designed for that, those classes are functionally useless.

So a fighter in 3.5 got sucky time spent because the crappy rules. That is a group problem, not a system one. A failed group won't be able to make any game work. A working group will be able to adapt. I bet it works out as always some people were trying for combat optimization and others weren't so it is the fault of the system that everyone couldn't optimize as good as everyone else, or those players who weren't optimized are at fault for not doing what the optimizers thought they should.

Huh? What the hell are you trying to say? It is the fault of the system. Or are you trying to stay you can optimize a Fighter Build to be useful in combat when you have Casters?

A smart DM tailors his game to the group, and makes sure the group works. There is nothing that a wizard can do that a rogue can't for rogue skills, and a wizard trying to replicate a rogue to show off is only hindering the rest and being competitive than being cooperative.

Write up previos editions with a wizard with only rogue-like functions, and then write up a rogue.

Then play them against each other in combat. That wizard is FUBAR. Why? Because a wizard's job is not to replicate a rogue when you have a rogue, or to show off. The wizard playing doing so would be considered a disruptive element in games I ran and would be thrown out or had to make a new character to become a part of the group.

Who gives a damn about two PC's fighting against each other? And frankly, the Wizard isn't FUBAR. The Wizard can take any number of spells that let him get away from the Rogue. And then, 8 Hours later (less if he uses some cheese) he comes back with spells, and kicks the Rogues ass.

Fighter PC players always have something to do without long waits when the group works, and a competent DM is had.

Yep, swinging their sword uselessly, while the Casters Burn entire armies. But they sure are doing something.

So lets play the bored player to the full logical conclusion then so that that fighter doesn't suffer, and neither does any other player at the table.

Dying sucks and you have to wait to be raised, as well any form of being stunned, unconscious, etc. so lets remove all those. Since dying is remove, then there realy is no threat to combats, and the players will always win or always end in a TPK.

Not playing isn't fun so we remove the TPK, and thus the PCs always win.

Since there is now no point to combat and the story can go on, then we can remove combat entirely.

This is for the sake of balance so no player ever feels left out right?

So what do we have left now that we removed combat?

Not every player is comfortable with social interactions being roleplayed out, so lets just remove them.

Now to play D&D fairly for every type of player, we have no combat, and no non-combat,; so we now play D&D by sitting around and looking at each other and some minis on a map right?

That sounds like fun and a great fair game right? :smallconfused:

Or how bout this? We find someway to make everybody useful. Make it so each class can have an appreciable effect on the outcome of the battle, or challenge, or whatever you want to be. We I suppose... balence the game? Wait, wait, wait, that's no good. Because Shadzar doesn't like it.

The group must work together for EVERYTHING, and shouldn't be interested in who does which part since some players will always shine over others in certain situations, the game, with a proper DM, will have places for each PLAYER to shine regardless of the character they are playing.

But it doesn't have to! THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING! When Casters replicate every last feature, it doesn't have to work together, at all.

As long as all the (wanted) characters are still alive after each event in the game, then that is all that matters. If you go into the game looking to try to do more than the other players, you have already turned it from co-op to competitive, and the group has already broken down and failed. At any point where any players looks at these things in a competitive manner, then the group has failed.

...so the best way to play the game... is to just leave your character at the Tavern. That's a great game of D&D. The Fighter and the Rogue, and the Monk, and the Paladin stay in the Tavern and get drunk, maybe opening letters from the Casters to find out what their body total is, and what share of the gold they get?

This has nothing to do with the rules of any game, but the group of players itself. If you don't work together, then you won't work together.

It has everything to do with the rules of the game. That's the point.

Another disclaimer, I love both 3.5 e, and 4 e. 3.5 is great. This isn't an attack on 3.5. It's an attack on the idea the 4 e's attempts to fix what are quite obviously some major flaws in 3.5 are inherently evil.

And Shadzar, give up on the Minis man. You can play 3.5 with Mini's (and I have, many times) or you can play 4e without them. They are a tool, a method of record keeping. More often then not, we use some Butch Paper with a Grid drawn on it, and people use whatever they want as Markers. I stole the Top hat from a box of Monopoly, and that has gotten me through several campaigns of 4e and 3.5 e both.

shadzar

2009-06-10, 04:06 AM

O RLY? Where's that, PHB or DMG?

Table 29:
Item Saving Throws

Oils* 16** -- 19 -- 19 17 5 19 16

Potions* 15** -- 19 -- 17 4 13 18 15

* This save does not include the container, only the liquid contents.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

DMG table 29

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-10, 04:26 AM

At Level 20, hell any high level, it's rock solid. Casters blow Melee out of the Water. They blow away people who use ranged weapons. It isn't even close.

I (obviously: I should be otherwise blind) admit that high level game in 3.5 it's quite broken, but at least in my experience, I've never seen such power discrepancy.

IMHO, if the Wizard can do without other party members, the DM is doing something wrong.

Now, I'm sure that spellcasting in general shoud have some drawback (and in my campaing does, and I use rules of the system not homebrew) but we can say that I prefer a real magic system than a dummy one. Maybe I have to fix the former a little, but at least it smells magic. IMHO, you are wrong here:

Another disclaimer, I love both 3.5 e, and 4 e. 3.5 is great. This isn't an attack on 3.5. It's an attack on the idea the 4 e's attempts to fix what are quite obviously some major flaws in 3.5 are inherently evil.

4th edition didn't fix anything. Simply, things that didn't work has been trown away.

Tackyhillbillu

2009-06-10, 05:40 AM

Really? What rule is that? I'm curious.

And frankly, Class Balence, and bringing the power of Melee and Ranged Non-Casters in line with Casters is a huge thing.

And what do you mean, smells like Magic? Magic doesn't have any definition. It, by it's very nature, means whatever the hell the people defining they system want it to mean. Lesee, launching Silvery Bolts of Force, striking enemies with rays of cold, causing pillars of flame to burst upwards, consuming your enemies, and creating a pure wave of sound to throw your enemies (all first level, at will, Wizard Powers). Which of those doesn't seem Magical?

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-10, 06:16 AM

Really? What rule is that? I'm curious.

Taint, Sanity, Dead Magic Zone, Wild Magic Zone, Defiling.

Recently, I working to a "4th edition based" Idea, using and refluffing incantations for non casters - but with a sense, this time. No "I cast the ritual because it's a dirty job but someone must".

And frankly, Class Balence, and bringing the power of Melee and Ranged Non-Casters in line with Casters is a huge thing.

This is maybe the whole point of 4th edition like/dislike thing: if you consider balance primary, 4th edition it's perfect, otherwise, IMHO, you are screwed.

This could be extended to other aspects of the game- as an example, I remember in "Races and Classes" a designer say "after all, when you use craft skill in your games" or something similar. I laughed so much.

When I was reading that, I've just started a campaing based on crafting and trading. Maybe this is the worst thing about things 4th edition desinger say. It seems that if something does not fit inside 4th edition little box, is badwrongfun.

And what do you mean, smells like Magic? Magic doesn't have any definition. It, by it's very nature, means whatever the hell the people defining they system want it to mean. Lesee, launching Silvery Bolts of Force, striking enemies with rays of cold, causing pillars of flame to burst upwards, consuming your enemies, and creating a pure wave of sound to throw your enemies (all first level, at will, Wizard Powers). Which of those doesn't seem Magical?

Spell Component? Focuses? Concentration? COUNTERSPELL (a very important part of my games, I alway have a blast with my players).

Source of spells defined.

I'm sorry but IMHO that's not magic, It's a mockery of magic. FOR sure 3.5 needed a lot of rework*, but IMHO magis should be something special. Maybe should be harder to cast a spell, or at least to cast the most powerful version of it. But banailze magic is not a fix, I'm sorry.

*And to look back to AD&D for some thing.

Tackyhillbillu

2009-06-10, 06:35 AM

So you build your campaign around preventing your casters from over running every other class? How does that defeat my argument?

I still don't agree that combat is the only thing one can do in 4e. I like more free form social actions, less definition of certain things. Gives freedom to the DM to personalize things. I consider balence important, because at it's heart, I consider D&D a story, with a number of main characters. If every PC isn't a main character, then somethings off.

And finally... all that. All that you just mentioned? Components, Focuses, Counterspell... yeah, that's just a set of specific components for D&D magic, several of those to specific editions of D&D Magic. That doesn't make 4e any less magical. It just means it isn't using the same system.

Finally, I really don't care what the 4e designers say. Never have, never will. I don't read the periodicals, don't get Dragon, don't care. I use their products, and have fun. If they are being jerks, who cares? They still made a system that, IMHO fosters exciting combat requiring the involvement of every member of the team, and storytelling, by relaxing the restrictions on the DM to allow him to craft his world more carefully. If they say combat is the only thing, they are wrong, no argument.

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-10, 06:44 AM

So you build your campaign around preventing your casters from over running every other class? How does that defeat my argument?

Actually I don't use all these things, at least together. We can say that are things that can happen in the campaing. After all, if the rules exists..
My point is that I'm sure that should be a way to keep things balanced without make everyone the same.

I still don't agree that combat is the only thing one can do in 4e. I like more free form social actions, less definition of certain things. Gives freedom to the DM to personalize things. I consider balence important, because at it's heart, I consider D&D a story, with a number of main characters. If every PC isn't a main character, then somethings off.

I don't say that - and BTW, I'm not one of those that think that you should have rules to role-play or otherwise the game is combat oriented.

And finally... all that. All that you just mentioned? Components, Focuses, Counterspell... yeah, that's just a set of specific components for D&D magic, several of those to specific editions of D&D Magic. That doesn't make 4e any less magical. It just means it isn't using the same system.

You could refluff almost any power in 4th in a differen source power. For someone this is very good, for me it sucks. FOR ME, I say.

Finally, I really don't care what the 4e designers say. Never have, never will. I don't read the periodicals, don't get Dragon, don't care. I use their products, and have fun. If they are being jerks, who cares? They still made a system that, IMHO fosters exciting combat requiring the involvement of every member of the team, and storytelling, by relaxing the restrictions on the DM to allow him to craft his world more carefully. If they say combat is the only thing, they are wrong, no argument.

If I see a game I love ravaged, the first thing I do it's to see what desinger are thinking, so i look for a book explaining their intents, and then, and only then, I'm free to facepalm.

Tackyhillbillu

2009-06-10, 06:56 AM

I think Ravaged is far, far to strong a term. Your problems with 4e seem to be mostly about, a) You don't like the change over from the previous magic system (a valid, reasoned, opinion, if one I don't agree with), and b) you are ticked off with the designers for saying some (very) stupid things (which if they are characterized correctly here are true, are indeed very stupid.)

Ignore the designers. If the Magic really is an unbeatable stepping stone, play 3.5. I'd be happy to play with you. If not, play them both. 4e is fun, 3.5 is fun, enjoy both games.

Man, this thread has gotten far afield.

jseah

2009-06-10, 07:29 AM

Another disclaimer, I love both 3.5 e, and 4 e. 3.5 is great. This isn't an attack on 3.5. It's an attack on the idea the 4 e's attempts to fix what are quite obviously some major flaws in 3.5 are inherently evil.
Attempting to fix something that was broken in 3.5E (which I'll freely admit) is not inherently evil. The way they fixed it is.

By placing balance as the first and only criteria in power design, 4E has become a collection of cool powers that can't be easily explained why and how they work from inside the game.
They can be explained and made sense of, it's not easy and has to be done for each problematic power.

I understand that 4E's powers are designed to be balanced with respect to each other. But note! Balance doesn't have a meaning from the characters' point of view. It's the way the world works.
I agree that wizards made 3.5E un-balanced. Then limit magic. Don't throw away the semi-approximation of reality that was the rules...

If the way the world works is so strange as to be unrecognizable to us, then how are we to play it?
I'm sure objectors will point to successful games, including the one I played. Well, how many of those are games that use anything that even probes the rules?

Does fireball hit objects?
1. Yes? So objects count as targets for powers? What about that warlock encounter "teleport after you shoot an enemy" power?
2. No? Does an unconscious ally count as a object? Or does he have to be dead? How is a dead vs dying ally different?

The only mechanics that ever really came up were some skill checks, and a few rituals. No combat. Nothing fell apart at the seams.
Did you ask how spells might interact with the explosives? Could fireball be used as a detonator? Apparently not, since explosives aren't creatures... =.=

I forgot to mention one criteria for seeing the holes. You need an inquisitive player who probes it and tries to use powers out of combat. Especially those encounter ones.

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-10, 08:20 AM

I think Ravaged is far, far to strong a term.

Maybe... dumbed down? In this case, we are in topic!

Your problems with 4e seem to be mostly about, a) You don't like the change over from the previous magic system (a valid, reasoned, opinion, if one I don't agree with), and b) you are ticked off with the designers for saying some (very) stupid things (which if they are characterized correctly here are true, are indeed very stupid.)

My problems are not only about magic. Magic is only a good example. anyway, check in races and classes, maybe I understood badly, i this case, my apologies.

Ignore the designers. If the Magic really is an unbeatable stepping stone, play 3.5. I'd be happy to play with you. If not, play them both. 4e is fun, 3.5 is fun, enjoy both games.

I explained why I checked what designers think.

I'm sure that 4th can be a fun game - I don't like the direction headed. And I explained with examples.

Artanis

2009-06-10, 10:57 AM

Sheesh, I go to bed for the night, and things just grow and grow :smalltongue:

*things about being blind*
Y'know, I never noticed that. Now that it's pointed out, it sure makes things easier on me in this thread :smallsmile:

(Note because text does not convey tone: I mean this honestly)

Now, switching gears to reply to something unrelated to Panda-s1's post:

I am going to posit that if you have to change what a spell does, to allow it to do what it does, you are no longer looking at that spell.
For the record, I never said to change what a spell does. I said that the PHB says to change what it looks like if you so choose.

Icy Terrain, for example, does the following:
*Uses magical cold to cause everything in an area to take damage and suffer certain mechanical penalties, plus make the area harder to move through for a while.

Using a description other than the italicized text in the power entry doesn't change the fact that it uses magical cold to do that stuff to the area.

For 4th E., none of this "oozes get cover, but get bolted to the ground" nonsense. The ability doesn't say it does that. By 4th E., it doesn't do that.

Why is this important? Why, if you have an ability to negate cover, then wouldn't you be able to benefit against the "not prone, yet prone" ooze? Now we have a mechanical difference, because you changed how something happened mechanically.
OK, I should have worded that better (or at least put "cover" in quotation marks). I didn't mean provide cover as in provide cover, I was just thinking up explanations that accounted for the fact that prone enemies get a bonus vs. ranged attacks. It was just one of many off the top of my head.

Shadowtraveler

2009-06-10, 01:19 PM

Does fireball hit objects?Yes.

What about that warlock encounter "teleport after you shoot an enemy" power?Otherwind Stride? The teleport is an Effect, which works regardless if you hit, or even attack.

Did you ask how spells might interact with the explosives? Could fireball be used as a detonator? Apparently not, since explosives aren't creatures... =.=Pg 65 of the DMG is all about damaging objects, determining their hp, and special rules (objects are immune to Will attacks, psychic, poison, and necrotic).

MartinHarper

2009-06-10, 01:27 PM

Plus you can't keep up your guard all day. Attacking from invis while not in a battle situation (when he's not aware) is the same as in a battle situation by RAW. Which doesn't make sense under the explanation of actively dodging invisible attacks.

You get a surprise round in this case, assuming you make your Stealth checks. Thus you are more likely to hit because you may get two attacks in a row.

Does fireball hit objects?

It's explicitly up to the DM's discretion. I allow using a fire spell to ignite explosives (under the "say yes" guideline). I probably wouldn't allow attacking the darkness to trigger a warlock teleport (under the "bag of rats" guideline).

jseah

2009-06-10, 02:41 PM

You get a surprise round in this case, assuming you make your Stealth checks. Thus you are more likely to hit because you may get two attacks in a row.
It's the one attack I'm talking about. Pre-battle, an invisible archer takes a snipe at a guy. Compare with in-battle, an invisible archer taking a snipe at a guy. What's his chance to hit? Does being "in-battle" raise someone's defenses? It should.

But it doesn't by RAW. Isn't that a problem?

It's explicitly up to the DM's discretion. I allow using a fire spell to ignite explosives (under the "say yes" guideline). I probably wouldn't allow attacking the darkness to trigger a warlock teleport (under the "bag of rats" guideline).
And so how is a target for fireball any different from a target for Otherwind Stride? (thanks for the reference, Shadowtraveler)

Especially when, as Shadowtraveler points out, Otherwind Stride doesn't even need you to hit.

Artanis

2009-06-10, 03:04 PM

And so how is a target for fireball any different from a target for Otherwind Stride? (thanks for the reference, Shadowtraveler)

Especially when, as Shadowtraveler points out, Otherwind Stride doesn't even need you to hit.

Objects count as targets for powers if the DM gives the OK (or if the power says it does, like Force Orb). If the DM says Otherwind Stride hits objects, then it hits objects.

I don't understand what your objection is regarding Otherwind Stride's teleport effect not needing a hit. Two things (shooting and teleporting, in this case) can be simultaneous without being dependant on one another.

jseah

2009-06-10, 03:23 PM

I don't understand what your objection is regarding Otherwind Stride's teleport effect not needing a hit. Two things (shooting and teleporting, in this case) can be simultaneous without being dependant on one another.
I'm not objecting to Otherwind Stride's teleport effect working without needing a hit. It's my argument why it should work if you're allowed to target objects with powers (because powers can't be used without valid targets)

And IMO, if one power can hit objects (fireball), why cannot Otherwind Stride?

shadzar

2009-06-10, 03:29 PM

So you build your campaign around preventing your casters from over running every other class? How does that defeat my argument?

:smallconfused: Why would a DM make a campaign based on any singular class, unless the whole party was of that class?

DMs don't look at the classes for campaign design, but at the party as a whole.

When there is a player conflict, it should be resolved by the players. The DM nor the rules are there to babysit players. There are just some things a DM doesn't get involved in, and inter-party conflicts is one of them.

If at any time there is one player that the other players feel if doing something that doesn't fit with the group , then that one player needs to change what they are doing to work with the group. If that player cannot change to become a part of the group, then they may be in the wrong group, and should leave it to seek on more fitting to how they play.

:smallconfused:

The person not wanting to play a cleric because they have to just be a walking pack of bandaids for player is not at fault, the other players are, but you go with majority rule. The person playing that cleric can just leave the game or not play a cleric.

Same thing for any disruptive player to any group. Doesn't matter which player is in the right, it is for the group.

So the only time a DM needs to step in and worry about a class is when a player isn't working with the group and intervene to remove them from it if the other players have had no success in resolving the isues with said player.

Totally Guy

2009-06-10, 03:30 PM

Objects count as targets for powers if the DM gives the OK (or if the power says it does, like Force Orb).

All powers that specifiy a target can legitimately target objects. This was errata'd onto PHB p.57.

Shadowtraveler

2009-06-10, 03:36 PM

And so how is a target for fireball any different from a target for Otherwind Stride? (thanks for the reference, Shadowtraveler)

Especially when, as Shadowtraveler points out, Otherwind Stride doesn't even need you to hit.One does untyped damage and the other fire damage. The DMG explains that some objects, depending on what exactly they are, may have certain resistances and vunerablities. An example it gives is parchment, which is Vunerable 5 Fire. In the case for explosives, it would be really vunerable to fire and may explode when hit.

All objects can be targeted as if they were enemies. However, as said, they are immune to Will-targeting attacks, and poison, psychic, and necrotic damage.

Panda-s1

2009-06-10, 08:56 PM

Attempting to fix something that was broken in 3.5E (which I'll freely admit) is not inherently evil. The way they fixed it is.

By placing balance as the first and only criteria in power design, 4E has become a collection of cool powers that can't be easily explained why and how they work from inside the game.
They can be explained and made sense of, it's not easy and has to be done for each problematic power.
Okay fine, what would have you done differently? And don't say make the game super realistic, 'cause that's not the point of D&D.

I understand that 4E's powers are designed to be balanced with respect to each other. But note! Balance doesn't have a meaning from the characters' point of view. It's the way the world works.
I agree that wizards made 3.5E un-balanced. Then limit magic. Don't throw away the semi-approximation of reality that was the rules...
But if that's the way the world works, why did many of us have problems with 3.5? Does it not make sense for a group of adventurers of roughly the same level of effectiveness to travel together and solve the world's problems?

If the way the world works is so strange as to be unrecognizable to us, then how are we to play it?
Like we're in a world of medieval fantasy? There's magic, magic isn't real in our world, and I'd definitely call that unrecognizable on a certain level, but I still play it without my mind being blown away.

Let's not talk about other games either. Exalted would be a good example, all kinds of crazy sh*t happens just 'cause you're some kind of demigod. And let's not talk about the setting....

Does fireball hit objects?
1. Yes? So objects count as targets for powers? What about that warlock encounter "teleport after you shoot an enemy" power?
2. No? Does an unconscious ally count as a object? Or does he have to be dead? How is a dead vs dying ally different?

Ninja'd.

Did you ask how spells might interact with the explosives? Could fireball be used as a detonator? Apparently not, since explosives aren't creatures... =.=

I forgot to mention one criteria for seeing the holes. You need an inquisitive player who probes it and tries to use powers out of combat. Especially those encounter ones.

No, because had I done that, the DM would've probably smacked me! Why? 'Cause that's such a retarded question. Of course explosives are gonna light on fire, they're explosives.

The detonators could have, but we were told they were magical and have a maximum fuse time of three hours.

You see, there's this thing we like to use when we play games, it's called common sense. No RPG I've ever read has rules for using the bathroom, does that mean my character can't take a leak?

Thurbane

2009-06-10, 09:01 PM

DMG table 29
Thanks for that, I don't have easy access to my old 1E & 2E books...

This is maybe the whole point of 4th edition like/dislike thing: if you consider balance primary, 4th edition it's perfect, otherwise, IMHO, you are screwed.
That pretty much exactly sums up my view. Possibly my main beef with 4E is that it feels to me like all the classes use slightly different means to achieve the exact same ends. The classes just didn't feel as unique and different from each other to me in 4E as they did in earlier editions. As I will readily admit, however, my 4E experience is very limited, and only with the core books.

Panda-s1

2009-06-10, 10:21 PM

That pretty much exactly sums up my view. Possibly my main beef with 4E is that it feels to me like all the classes use slightly different means to achieve the exact same ends. The classes just didn't feel as unique and different from each other to me in 4E as they did in earlier editions. As I will readily admit, however, my 4E experience is very limited, and only with the core books.

Well as someone who has plenty of experience with 4e, I must say that yeah, things can look similar at a cursory glance. But in practice it starts standing out how different classes are. Fighter and paladin both fall under the role of defender, but they end up being pretty fundamentally different, in fact the only glaring similarity they have is that of marking creatures and keeping them from other allies.

At the same time, I notice a lot of similarities with 3.X classes, too. I mean you have a fighter, but aren't they kind of similar to rogues? I mean sure rogues get sneak attack, and fighters get that extra feat or two, but at the end of the day they're both just doing basic attacks to do their job. How about wizard and sorcerer? Sure they prepare spells differently, but then they're using the same spells! Even ranger falls under this problem. I mean sure they get to do super awesome two-handed and bow fighting, but I could, in theory, do the exact same with any class. At the end of the day I expect different characters to do similar things, while still being drastically different.

Thespianus

2009-06-11, 01:56 AM

...and everyone knows that good, old wooden blocks that existed before all that 'fancy' plastic stuff are best anyway. :smallwink:

And then you will get the wooden block discussion about "painted" versus "original".

This discussion does indeed go all the way down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down). :smallsmile:

Dagren

2009-06-11, 02:02 AM

And then you will get the wooden block discussion about "painted" versus "original".

This discussion does indeed go all the way down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down). :smallsmile:"Wood? In my day we just used rocks and were pleased for them!"? :smallbiggrin:

Thespianus

2009-06-11, 02:22 AM

Yes, they are now bothered by the loss of heads. 3e described them as not being bothered, 4e doesn't.

And really, we're talking about something being animated via magic. Who's to say that cutting off a head won't disrupt that magic?
As a total ignoramus of 4E rules, I have to ask: Does this mean that you now can sneak attack zombies?

If not, this is just wonderfully crazy: Zombies have extra sensitive areas, but you can hit them for extra damage. ;)

shadzar

2009-06-11, 02:30 AM

As a total ignoramus of 4E rules, I have to ask: Does this mean that you now can sneak attack zombies?

If not, this is just wonderfully crazy: Zombies have extra sensitive areas, but you can hit them for extra damage. ;)

I think you can use that class feature on anyone now. :smallconfused:

It is something like per encounter and having combat advantage as requirements though. :smallconfused:

Sir Homeslice

2009-06-11, 02:34 AM

It is something like per encounter and having combat advantage as requirements though. :smallconfused:

Only the multiclass Rogue feat (Sneak of Shadows) has a Sneak Attack per encounter stipulation. The normal Rogue class can avail of sneak attack once per round, as long as they have combat advantage for that attack and use a light blade, or crossbow. Slings don't exist.

shadzar

2009-06-11, 02:41 AM

Only the multiclass Rogue feat (Sneak of Shadows) has a Sneak Attack per encounter stipulation. The normal Rogue class can avail of sneak attack once per round, as long as they have combat advantage for that attack and use a light blade, or crossbow. Slings don't exist.

:smallredface: Per round, per encounter....I was close.

Thespianus

2009-06-11, 02:42 AM

I think you can use that class feature on anyone now. :smallconfused:

It is something like per encounter and having combat advantage as requirements though. :smallconfused:

Oh, ok. Well, then it's not crazy, merely different. :smallsmile:

Charity

2009-06-11, 02:47 AM

As a total ignoramus of 4E rules, I have to ask: Does this mean that you now can sneak attack zombies?

If not, this is just wonderfully crazy: Zombies have extra sensitive areas, but you can hit them for extra damage. ;)

As it goes, zombies have the trait that they always die on a crit (head shots).

Dagren

2009-06-11, 03:39 AM

As it goes, zombies have the trait that they always die on a crit (head shots).Wha? Please tell me that isn't really true.

Totally Guy

2009-06-11, 03:49 AM

Wha? Please tell me that isn't really true.

You say that as though it was a bad thing. It's just zombies, there are still plenty more undead out there.

jseah

2009-06-11, 04:00 AM

Okay fine, what would have you done differently? And don't say make the game super realistic, 'cause that's not the point of D&D.
I'm not asking for super realistic. Just a touch of it, so my inquisitiveness doesn't go off every 5 or 6 rounds.

For starters, a couple of the main mechanics needs to be changed. Like the paralyzed giving -5 penalty to losing dex and 1/2 level.

Secondly, I'd probably also remove the 1/2 level adding to all skills and change that to 1/2 level adding to trained skills only.

There's a few others, but you get the idea.

Then under the description of powers, instead of refluffing the lot of them, I'll add a mandate there.
"These powers work as they describe. Besides the listed effect, DMs are recommended to allow any resulting effect the description should normally have as well as preventing the powers from working on something not logically possible. "
Then give examples like the ones we've discussed, eg. Fireball burns things, Icy Terrain not working on oozes and freezing water surfaces, Sand in the Eyes not working against constructs and non-sensitive eye creatures... etc.

Which instantly solves the major part of my complaints against 4E. If they solidified fluff to have a gameplay element "if it makes sense", instead of discarding the description of the power's operation as something changeable with no effect, then we can start legitimately looking at how to use these powers intelligently.
The point is that these things have a mode of operation. They have a way through which they work. This should logically affect the specific circumstances that change that. But to even discuss and use this, we need a solid ground to say: "This is how they work, let's look at it more closely. "

A system that allows you to refluff however you like screws that over royally.

These last few are just personal game design quirks, so it probably doesn't apply to everyone. It's just that 4E's combat is a little too non-lethal for me to believe it.
Hp increase per level recalculated to match power damage increase per level. (ie. at every level, it takes the same number of rounds to kill yourself, wizards take less hits than fighter, but that should remain the same number. )
And should be that 2 to 3 hits from dailies should drop a person.

CA changed to multiple types of CA, each of which results in enemy losing a different type of bonus to defense. eg. prone means losing dex mod to AC and reflex, paralyze loses you dex and 1/2 level to AC and reflex, unconscious loses you stat and 1/2 level to all defenses except fort, so on...

Action point system needs reworking. Possibly removing it altogether.

Healing from below 0 doesn't make their hp jump back up. They stay dying if you can't heal them above 0.

But if that's the way the world works, why did many of us have problems with 3.5? Does it not make sense for a group of adventurers of roughly the same level of effectiveness to travel together and solve the world's problems?

Like we're in a world of medieval fantasy? There's magic, magic isn't real in our world, and I'd definitely call that unrecognizable on a certain level, but I still play it without my mind being blown away.

Let's not talk about other games either. Exalted would be a good example, all kinds of crazy sh*t happens just 'cause you're some kind of demigod. And let's not talk about the setting....
3.5 wasn't perfect. And... yeah, I haven't encountered Exalted yet.

3.5 had balance issues. That could have been fixed without doing what 4E did.

Balance in itself doesn't make the game not make sense. You can have a believable game that is also balanced. It's just that balance should not be justified from an out-of-game point, just to be balanced.

The way the game balances things, say the power system in 4E, needs to be justified in-game. They did a fair job at the balancing problem. They failed to cover the cracks that make looking at it from the inside like looking through a collection of shattered glass.

It makes sense from out-of-game why the GM whacked your warlock from teleporting every 5 minutes. It can trivialize certain traps, and make warlocks a bloody good scout. (that was the reason my GM gave)
In-game? I see no reason why it shouldn't work.

No, because had I done that, the DM would've probably smacked me! Why? 'Cause that's such a retarded question. Of course explosives are gonna light on fire, they're explosives.

The detonators could have, but we were told they were magical and have a maximum fuse time of three hours.

You see, there's this thing we like to use when we play games, it's called common sense. No RPG I've ever read has rules for using the bathroom, does that mean my character can't take a leak?
Hmm...? So if someone refluffed their fireball to be a rain of firey spirits that swarm their enemies, the thing won't light on fire anymore? Or his magic pulse causes any life-force in the area to detonate. Or something.
Actually it probably could be argued that it could still light the fuse, but the point is that by changing the fluff (which is explicitly allowed), the "logical consequence" of the power is changed.

Which means that by refluffing my powers in the right way, I can get all sorts of weird and mind-screwy effects.

If you want to use the power's common sense effect that is not in the RAW effect line, the common sense effect of the power needs to be fixed, which means the fluff should not be changeable.

RedBeardJim

2009-06-11, 04:09 AM

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-11, 04:12 AM

Balance in itself doesn't make the game not make sense. You can have a believable game that is also balanced. It's just that balance should not be justified from an out-of-game point, just to be balanced.

This summarize what I think. If I see that a system is unbalanced, one thing is fix it, another thing is make another system and pretend that this system is the fix of the former.

THIS is insulting people intelligence, too.

Sir Homeslice

2009-06-11, 04:45 AM

...wait, what?

You can use slings to deliver sneak attack damage.

Except why would you?

They're +2, 1d6 damage weapons in the sling group that don't have any bonuses attached to them. At least if you flung a shuriken, they're +3 1d6 light blades which have all sorts of enchantments and feats to boost them. Slings...don't. No (good) magic item enchantments, no feats to support them, they literally have nothing given to them. At all.

Moreover, twenty sling bullets cost 1 GP and weigh 5 pounds. 20 crossbow bolts? 1 GP, 2 pounds. And at least with the crossbow group you can take a feat to get Superior Crossbows, which are +3 1d10 load minor, or you can go Daggermaster, or Student of Caiphon and have creepy amounts of fun with Two-Fisted Shooter and a hand crossbow (same stats as sling, but in crossbow group).

And if you're going through the angle of a sling being easier to conceal with easy to find bullets? Daggers (can) run the gamut of every size imaginable from creepily long to disturbingly short (depends on DM), cost the same amount of gold with no need for ammo, and have a +4 proficiency bonus, at the bost of (oh no!) 1d4 damage and 5/10 instead of 10/20.

In short, Slings are quite possibly the worst PHB weapon, neck to War Picks.

RedBeardJim

2009-06-11, 04:52 AM

You can use slings to deliver sneak attack damage.

Except why would you?

Ah, got it. I kind of thought it was a metagamey statement, but I wasn't sure.

Talic

2009-06-11, 05:04 AM

Icy Terrain, for example, does the following:
*Uses magical cold to cause everything in an area to take damage and suffer certain mechanical penalties, plus make the area harder to move through for a while.If you mean by "suffer certain mechanical penalties", "makes creatures prone", you are right. Changing descriptions and changing mechanics are two seperate things. Let's say, for example, you have an ability that can be done whenever something is prone. If you say that the ooze isn't prone, but is instead something else, that does the exact same thing, but isn't prone, because we all know something with no top or bottom can be prone... Then that ability doesn't work.

The problem with the ability isn't the fluff. It's the mechanic. The mechanic that anything can be made prone. Animate an object. Make that object a perfect sphere that magically rolls around and hits things. That can be made prone. That is not fluff. That is mechanic. Over half of the people that say "refluff it"... don't know what "Fluff" is.

Fluff is a descriptive element that has no impact on the crunch of a game.
"Crunch" is mechanics.

So, if the prone mechanic has a problem, then any solution made must be a crunch solution. But if you're altering the mechanics, the rules, then what you end up with is no longer the rules as written. It's no longer 4E. It's your homebrew.

And if you must homebrew it to fix it... It's not a "fixed" system. It's just differently flawed.

Using a description other than the italicized text in the power entry doesn't change the fact that it uses magical cold to do that stuff to the area.Yes. It uses magical cold to render enemies with the "Prone" status condition. That is the exact mechanic of what it does. Trying to seperate the mechanic into something different fails to take into account that some things trigger off of prone. And if you remove prone, and instead add "the ooze has difficulty holding itself together in the face of the cold that should actually increase its viscosity, and thins, lowering itself to the ground, and hindering its movement until it pulls itself together" (which would actually be logical if it were heat... But then oozes immune to heat would be mechanically affected), then you are changing the ability mechanically. Because if it's not prone, it's not prone. If the ability says "makes something prone" and you do not explicitly make it prone, you're changing the rules.

Again, fine homebrew, but not the game as it is written. And by changing it, or advocating change to it, you're changing the game.

Examples of Fluff:

"The mage points a finger at the ground, and a blue beam shoots from his finger, striking it, and spreading ice across the ground. Creatures in the area fall prone."
VS.
"The mage focuses, and the air around the ground ripples, creating ice where none was before. Creatures in the area fall prone."

Note: No mechanics were harmed in the fluff alteration. If any were, the mechanics would be changed, which means it's not a fluff alteration.

OK, I should have worded that better (or at least put "cover" in quotation marks). I didn't mean provide cover as in provide cover, I was just thinking up explanations that accounted for the fact that prone enemies get a bonus vs. ranged attacks. It was just one of many off the top of my head.An incorrect explanation/alteration/workaround, that confused fluff and crunch. When you alter fluff, you must take care to affect nothing mechanical. If you make the slightest alteration to an ability's mechanical function, it's not a fluff solution. It's a mechanical alteration.

Dagren

2009-06-11, 05:37 AM

You say that as though it was a bad thing. It's just zombies, there are still plenty more undead out there.No, I don't care about the zombies. But if you are justifying that as a headshot, then why aren't crits an instant kill on everything? A headshot on a living human should take them down just as quickly as a zombie. Does 4th really have that much of a "leave your logic at the door" going on?

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-11, 05:40 AM

No, I don't care about the zombies. But if you are justifying that as a headshot, then why aren't crits an instant kill on everything? A headshot on a living human should take them down just as quickly as a zombie. Does 4th really have that much of a "leave your logic at the door" going on?

I guess that works on Zombies because it's cinematic.

See, before 4th relase, I was wondering if they will integrate in the system called shots.

Poor, poor little Kaiyanwang.

Dagren

2009-06-11, 06:00 AM

I guess that works on Zombies because it's cinematic.

See, before 4th relase, I was wondering if they will integrate in the system called shots.

Poor, poor little Kaiyanwang.Well ignoring for the moment why on earth cinema should come into it, why are zombie headshots any more cinematic than human headshots? I think that's the point that others are making, actually. The game only works as long as you don't think about it. "Leave your logic at the door". Obviously some people like that, and others don't, which I guess is the crux of the entire debate.

Sebastian

2009-06-11, 06:15 AM

No, I don't care about the zombies. But if you are justifying that as a headshot, then why aren't crits an instant kill on everything? A headshot on a living human should take them down just as quickly as a zombie. Does 4th really have that much of a "leave your logic at the door" going on?

Well, Yes.

I mean, in 4e (and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong) you can grab and hold a swarm of creatures with your bare hands.

with just one hand to be precise. Unless it says somewhere that swarms are immune to grabbing, which I can't find in the 4e books

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-11, 06:30 AM

Well ignoring for the moment why on earth cinema should come into it, why are zombie headshots any more cinematic than human headshots? I think that's the point that others are making, actually. The game only works as long as you don't think about it. "Leave your logic at the door". Obviously some people like that, and others don't, which I guess is the crux of the entire debate.

See above, this is my point, too.

Designers decided that think about things is too difficult, so we can see things like this. Or monsters entry not too long or otherwise i get an headache (this is a design intent of late 3.5 too - "more than 3 spell like abilities? no, they are too dumb").

The designers decided that some things are good, and others are badwrong fun. This is 4th edition. Enjoy it.

So, yes 4th edition insults intelligence. And these are few examples, think about the infamous tiefling entry. See, the 4th edition tiefling is really explanatory.
From a rare, so particular indivividual with fienblood, to a race of wannabedevils. Massive trivialization...

And I see, apparentely, after all of this I cannot even ask for explaination, because immediately someone come put with 3.5 brokenness.

3.5 brokenness is not related. This disgusting dumbness is an akward result of a "go around problems instead of face them" desing.

Dagren

2009-06-11, 06:47 AM

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-11, 07:03 AM

Ah, so you're on that side too. It's pretty confusing as to who is saying what.

As you may have guessed, I've never seriously looked at 4th ed. I'll probably get around to it some day, but until then I restrict myself to commenting on what others are saying. It seems to be working so far, I think.

Sarcasm? If not, I say now something that could surprise you. Try 4th edition before drop it, because you couldn't trust of things you find in the internet. :smalltongue:

Edit: I mean, what is good for you could not be good for me, and the opposite. Try, first.

jseah

2009-06-11, 08:41 AM

Kaiyanwang:

That nicely completes where I was going to go with my logic. 4E implies we should shut up and not look at it closely because by examining it at all, glaring flaws appear.
I note that it's only an implication, designer's comments notwithstanding, since intent does not have any impact on the merit of the content. When considering 4E's merits and flaws, we should consider it by itself and what we can infer from it.

Although I disagree that it insults players. They did a good job balancing it. That, at least, I have to concede. At a cost of something I considered important for play.

The framework for powers is nice. But having different mechanics for acquiring powers for different classes would have been nicer.

Dagren:
Despite the fact that I dislike 4E, I would recommend playing it one time. At least if you wish to make a stronger argument for/against 4E. I got most of my dislike from that one game I played after noticing all these... holes. Without playing it, I wouldn't have such a coherent argument.

XD Grappling swarms indeed. The prone ooze incident happened in that one game I played. I didn't like it... despite the fact I was the wizard doing the Icy Terrain.

I suppose leaving logic at the door was never ever an option for me. >.> I can't just put things down and say, "well, who cares?" Little things... like the prone ooze just niggle so much I can't ignore it.

Dagren

2009-06-11, 09:11 AM

About me trying 4e, like I said I do plan to sometime. I have, however, heard quite a lot about it, and frankly none of it really appeals to me, so while I do plan to try it, it isn't really a priority for me. I don't really care about learning to argue against it either, you may have noticed that most of my posts are asking "is it really that bad?", it's for my own curiosity rather than a desire to make points against the system. So yeah, I might get a copy of the books out the library to check out, but I don't really see myself buying them. Until then, I'll just lurk on the relevant threads. :smallwink:

Talic

2009-06-11, 09:32 AM

LOL, it's not against the rules to grapple swarms? I've gotta check that!

Doom314

2009-06-11, 11:51 AM

If grappling swarms and unconscious wizards still add IQ bonus to AC isn't insulting, check out the Rustmonster in DnD4.0, which is as much a rustmonster as DnD4.0 is Dungeons and Dragons.

Seriously, you gotta pick up the MM2 and read it to believe it.

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-11, 11:54 AM

hamishspence

2009-06-11, 12:02 PM

You can still be deprived of your weapon by the monster. And if DM is feeling mean, monster can be moving in, using its power, and fleeing- thus, classic example of old rust monster effect- lose your weapon, can't get it back.

They decided to cut back on item-destruction because at high levels it can be problematic. As it is, rust monster is the closest thing to an item-destroyer. And if there is nobody with the right rituals, and no town nearby to get a replacement, you can still end up with players being minus an item for a while.

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-11, 12:10 PM

You can still be deprived of your weapon by the monster. And if DM is feeling mean, monster can be moving in, using its power, and fleeing- thus, classic example of old rust monster effect- lose your weapon, can't get it back.

This is like level draining issue. If I don't want level draining or save or die, I will not use Wights, Spectres, Bodaks and Basilisk. But If I want that kind of challenge and monster, I have one.

The different nasty things a monster can do make the encounter more challenging and interesting, IMHO.

And snatch a weapon or a PC/NPC and flee, I can do with previous editions too.

They decided to cut back on item-destruction because at high levels it can be problematic. As it is, rust monster is the closest thing to an item-destroyer. And if there is nobody with the right rituals, and no town nearby to get a replacement, you can still end up with players being minus an item for a while.

Well, you are without an item for a while... you are without an item for a while. No backups? And maybe challenges muste be faced always the same way?

No adventures resolved during a dinner at the duke's castle, the fighter improvising weapons with tables and chairs, the wizard avoiding spells with material component?

This brings to me an idea of infinite sameness.

hamishspence

2009-06-11, 12:13 PM

all are possible, but can require the right context. If you are at the bottom of a dungeon full of monsters, with no weapon, having just beaten the monster but been lowered significantly in power, just getting out can be a pain.

jseah

2009-06-11, 12:25 PM

PairO'Dice Lost

2009-06-11, 12:55 PM

There had better sunder rules in 4E.

The Rust Monster isn't need to destroy weapons. Sundering already does that out of the box.

If you don't want the players to lose their shiny sword or staff, then disarm them and have the enemies use that fancy cool thing against them.

Well, though I appreciate the pun of sundering out of a box...no, unfortunately there are no sunder or disarm rules in 4e, or at least I haven't found them yet if they do exist. Both of them take the players' stuff, which is a no-no, and both of them are useless in the hands of players, since enemy weapons are basically fluff anyway except in very rare circumstances, so they were left out.

kjones

2009-06-11, 01:06 PM

Please tell me that there is something in the rules that prevents you from grappling swarms in 4e...

hamishspence

2009-06-11, 01:30 PM

why would it be? Swarm grapples you is very evocative (all those movies where the swarm envelops the guy and he stops stationary lashing out in all directions.)

You grapple swarm is simply you getting in this position on purpose.

Shadowtraveler

2009-06-11, 01:34 PM

Please tell me that there is something in the rules that prevents you from grappling swarms in 4e...No, but the rules about swarms make this situation a bit interesting. Namely, since grabs only immobilize an enemy, it doesn't prevent the swarm from attacking you, and it's Swarm Aura means it gets to make a free attack because you're right next to it. Furthermore, swarms can't be pulled (or pushed or slid, for that matter)*, so they're impossible to move in a grab, and attempting to do so will break the grab.

So while grabbing a swarm is possible, it's almost completely pointless.

*Edit: Well, they can, but not from a melee or ranged attacks.

jseah

2009-06-11, 01:37 PM

So while grabbing a swarm is possible, it's almost completely pointless.
"You go ahead, I'll hold it here! Run!"

=P

Shadowtraveler

2009-06-11, 01:43 PM

"You go ahead, I'll hold it here! Run!"

=PThat would only work with one swarm. If you're running for your life you're probably dealing with more.

Unless the party is entirely rat phobic. :smallbiggrin:

shadzar

2009-06-11, 03:55 PM

No, I don't care about the zombies. But if you are justifying that as a headshot, then why aren't crits an instant kill on everything? A headshot on a living human should take them down just as quickly as a zombie. Does 4th really have that much of a "leave your logic at the door" going on?

Minions are/were one-hit-one-kill also. No crit required just a hit of any kind. Even a bare handed hit will kill a minion, but only minions.

hamishspence

2009-06-11, 04:11 PM

cinematic logic. Hordes of Mooks which are no threat individually, can be taken down easily, but dangerous in large groups working together.

The New Bruceski

2009-06-11, 04:47 PM

cinematic logic. Hordes of Mooks which are no threat individually, can be taken down easily, but dangerous in large groups working together.

Don't bother, I've seen these arguments before and you need to deal with folks who think people get "minion" stamped on their foreheads at birth and walk around terrified of paper cuts.

There are three kinds of people in regards to 4e:
Those who get it.
Those who don't.
Those who get it but claim they don't in order to drive people insane.

Only the third kind are to be shunned, but the first and second kind need to realize that there are two kinds of reasonable folks, and stop acting like theirs is the only proper way to look at things.

shadzar

2009-06-11, 06:19 PM

How about those that don't want it? You forgot that group or pairing.

Sure for anyone wanting to play Feng Shui where you are playing in a movie, you want those "cinematic" things, but not everyone wants these minions, and there is nothing to replace them with a standard monster.

Kobold is a good example of variety with minion types. Don't recall the one example of minion only I talked about often...but someone, somewhere (its been a year) compared the minion version and skirmisher, and stated the minion was a better skirmisher and better monster, but was insta-kill, and said just swapping them (minion<>skirmisher) made better sense and swap the XP for each.

So some on either side may be ones that just don't want minions or things that are one hit one kill.

:smalleek: Massive amount of creatures! Blast it with a powerful daily! :smallfurious: Just minions, and wasted a daily on those things that a paper cut could kill!

When removing save-or-die, so players couldn't die on a single hit, then it seems rather dumb to have enemies that pop when poked.

The sides aren't balanced.

As a player I expect my enemy should be able to do the same I can, so why can't they kill me with a single lucky blow? :smallconfused:

I guess I then fall in the I don't get it form a gameplay perspective, but get it from a mechanics perspective.

Minions aren't needed nor were they wanted. They just came into being and don't work, as per Mike Mearls in the podcast; and I think MMII reworked them so they do work. Too bad without buying MMII you don't get the minion errata and left with an incomplete or broken* game. :smallconfused:

*Requires fixing or maintenance.

Lord_Kimboat

2009-06-11, 08:57 PM

With respect Shadzar, minons aren't that bad.

4e is supposed to be more like an action film - think Commando. Arnie can march through the island of mercenaries and kill each of them with a single hit but he's got to actually fight long and hard against any of the 'named' villians.

I see 3.x as being more cerebral, more like Lord of the Rings where even people who haven't 'adventured' before can still do well (ie. Merry and Pippin).

Also, minions can be pretty dangerous. They can have tough attacks, good damage and some have some pretty high defenses to prevent them from popping. One of my 10th level characters once had to take five attacks at one minion just to hit the damn thing. It hit me for a fair bit of damage while I was fighting it too and prevented me from helping other members of the party.

All I'm saying is that they have their place.

Artanis

2009-06-11, 09:23 PM

How about those that don't want it?

Those who don't want it are not being forced to play the game.

shadzar

2009-06-11, 09:52 PM

^^^You just completely missed the point of the post on purpose to try to start some fight. Makes me wish I knew where this mysterious ignore feature was since clicking on a username doesn't provide IGNORE as an option, only adding to some buddy list. :smallconfused:

With respect Shadzar, minons aren't that bad.

4e is supposed to be more like an action film - think Commando.

I understand the concept of minions, but the point of 4th edition play is what is affecting the entire game for many people. Not everyone wants to play in an action film, nor is that the reason they play D&D.

The entire combat system is built around two parties fighting each other, as expressed by Bill Slavicsek in the G4 video.

Ok so in order to balance the game, where does a PC party pick up its minions (read henchmen) from? :smallconfused:

The reasons for many things in 4th don't match with the system, or their function within the game.

The goals contradict each other. Balance, movie-like, yet party vs party. Its like pick two and only two, and there is always something missing.

The way minions function is exactly that. The only offer the movie-like approach for everyone even those that don't want to be Aragon in the middle of orcs with Gimlee at the bridge swatting them down like flies.

The fact that they are tougher to hit, means they don't fulfill their function, and are against one party vs another party entirely.

This is further found out when MMII came out and the minions and such were changed, and Mike Mearls, expresses in the podcast (or was it Andy?) that minions just didn't work.

:smallconfused: Weren't these things playtested at all?

Minions are a neat concept, that may or may nor belong in games, but their implementation was completely screwed up and counter to the design goals.

Recent discussion about the Assassin class to be an exclusive in Dragon has people discussing how 4th does away with single hit kills as part of its original design goal....:smallconfused: Has everyone forgotten that minions were in there for a year now and were EXACTLY single hit kill monsters?

For the party vs isue you have the problem with minions being that they may tie people up a while for the big bad monster in the encounter to bitch-slap the PC party half to death just trying to hit or get past the minions to get them out of the way. With that in mind there are spells and such at various levels (not tiers but levels) meant purposefully to deal with minions. Low powered spells that hit many people just to take out swatches of minions, rather than something else there for other occurances, which cuts into the powers those classes possess when minions are not used giving those classes effectively fewer power to pick from than other classes, which in turn cuts into the balance isue wherein the classes internal balance within the party is borked up.

:smallconfused:

Players weren't supposed to be smart enough to notice this stuff and figure it out at "Ages 12 and UP"?

:smallconfused:

Neat idea, pee poor implementation being so hard-coded into every fiber of the rules that removing minions now would mean having to replace major parts of some classes to re-balance the original classes for player balance of options.

:smallfrown:

Lord_Kimboat

2009-06-12, 12:00 AM

The entire combat system is built around two parties fighting each other, as expressed by Bill Slavicsek in the G4 video.

I'm unfamiliar with this and disagree with it very strongly. I see 4e very much focused (right or wrong) as being like an action film. The PCs have the advantage, the story is about them and they should, ultimately succeed.

I don't see 4e suited at all to some sort of PvP combat. If this was their intention, I agree with you Shadzar that WotC failed miserably!

My take on the balance issue is NOT so that PCs can fight each other, all with a fair chance of success; but so that one PC in the party isn't able to hog the limelight. I've been in several 3.x games where the Batman Wizard essentially babysits the rest of the party - which tends to drain the fun out of the game.

This may also be why their are the problems with the proposed Assassin class. With minions, 1 hit from ANYONE will kill them - they don't want the Assassin to be able to 1 hit kill almost any monster around to keep the balance.

Artanis

2009-06-12, 12:46 AM

shadzar

2009-06-12, 12:59 AM

The New Bruceski

2009-06-12, 01:15 AM

I'm unfamiliar with this and disagree with it very strongly. I see 4e very much focused (right or wrong) as being like an action film. The PCs have the advantage, the story is about them and they should, ultimately succeed.

I don't see 4e suited at all to some sort of PvP combat. If this was their intention, I agree with you Shadzar that WotC failed miserably!

My take on the balance issue is NOT so that PCs can fight each other, all with a fair chance of success; but so that one PC in the party isn't able to hog the limelight. I've been in several 3.x games where the Batman Wizard essentially babysits the rest of the party - which tends to drain the fun out of the game.

This may also be why their are the problems with the proposed Assassin class. With minions, 1 hit from ANYONE will kill them - they don't want the Assassin to be able to 1 hit kill almost any monster around to keep the balance.

Shadzar is misrepresenting things. It's not based around two groups of players fighting each other, it's in reference to the style of combat.

In 3rd Edition monster CRs are based around "many versus one" combat. One CR X monster is supposed to be a challenge for 4 level X PCs (for their measure of challenge, poor balancing of classes to CRs, et cetera et cetera).

In 4th edition CRs are based around "many versus many" combat. Five CR X monsters are supposed to be a challenge for 5 level X PCs (for their measure of challenge, modifications for minions/solos, et cetera et cetera).

That doesn't mean that the PCs and the foes are identical to each other. Minions are something you'll only find among the enemies (well, I suppose if your level 1 guys take on Tiamat, the DM can treat you as minions if you want), and while monsters are designed around similar roles as the PC classes (leader, brute, etc.) they have powers of their own that the PCs can't do.

Oslecamo

2009-06-12, 01:30 AM

In 3rd Edition monster CRs are based around "many versus one" combat. One CR X monster is supposed to be a challenge for 4 level X PCs (for their measure of challenge, poor balancing of classes to CRs, et cetera et cetera).

Wrong. Nowhere in 3.X it says to throw single monsters at the party. There are rules to calculate multiple monsters CR. Each monster entry has sugestions to throw groups of monsters at the party. Published campaigns have almost all ecounters with several creatures. Even a newbie can tell you that.

There are many kinds of people who play 3.X. Guess to wich one you belong?

potatocubed

2009-06-12, 01:46 AM

Wrong. Nowhere in 3.X it says to throw single monsters at the party.

Challenge Rating
This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty.

Compare the design principles.

In 3.x what you had was monsters with individual CR that you converted into an EL when you used more than one. The extra work came when building encounters with multiple monsters.

In 4e you start with an EL and 'buy' monsters to fill it. The extra work comes when building an encounter with just one monster, because you have to generate a solo version of whatever it is.

The New Bruceski

2009-06-12, 02:10 AM

Wrong. Nowhere in 3.X it says to throw single monsters at the party. There are rules to calculate multiple monsters CR. Each monster entry has sugestions to throw groups of monsters at the party. Published campaigns have almost all ecounters with several creatures. Even a newbie can tell you that.

There are many kinds of people who play 3.X. Guess to wich one you belong?

I never said nothing else was allowed, that's just what CRs, an arbitrary indicator of power, are calibrated around. That's what they were talking about in the linked video, and that's what Kimboat mistook as PvP combat, since they refer to both groups as "parties" in the video.

Kaiyanwang

2009-06-12, 02:10 AM

Compare the design principles.

In 3.x what you had was monsters with individual CR that you converted into an EL when you used more than one. The extra work came when building encounters with multiple monsters.

In 4e you start with an EL and 'buy' monsters to fill it. The extra work comes when building an encounter with just one monster, because you have to generate a solo version of whatever it is.

4th edition handle in a better way multiple encounters, yeah. But this does not say that you cannot have multiple one in 3rd.

Colmarr

2009-06-12, 02:46 AM

Each monster entry has sugestions to throw groups of monsters at the party.

They do? I own the 3.5e MM and MM3 and I don't recall a single suggestion to that effect.

Perhaps you are referring to the monster ecology entry (which details how the monsters live/travel)?

I only raise this query because the 4e MM does specifically include suggestions for encounter groups.

Panda-s1

2009-06-12, 03:21 AM

4th edition handle in a better way multiple encounters, yeah. But this does not say that you cannot have multiple one in 3rd.

We know you can have multiple monster encounters in 3rd ed. The issue is while 4e encounter design is based around having one monster for every player, 3rd ed. encounter design is based around having one monster for every four players. Hell it's not even whether or not it's easier, it's how the system works!

shadzar

2009-06-12, 03:45 AM

Shadzar is misrepresenting things.

No, you are just not reading things correctly. I never said two groups of players. I said two parties, just like Bill said in the video.

On one side you have the player party, and the other side you have the "monster" party.

Like two warbands for DDM.

Group vs group, is the way 4th is inteded to be played via Bill's design rules. Listen to the report.

Panda-s1

2009-06-12, 03:52 AM

Destroying weapons is as simple as attacking it. There were rules for attacking items in 3.5. I don't know if they're in 4E because I haven't completely read through the DMG. There had better sunder rules in 4E.

The Rust Monster isn't need to destroy weapons. Sundering already does that out of the box.

If you don't want the players to lose their shiny sword or staff, then disarm them and have the enemies use that fancy cool thing against them.

Sundering is kinda.... really hard. No, I mean really hard. Like if you want to be effective with it, you have to design your character around the idea of sundering, and at that it's not very reliable. Disarming is a better solution.

And hell, why sunder? That makes no sense, cutting through someone else's weapon is incredibly hard to do in real life, and AFAIK never happened in battle throughout history.

And the entire point of a rust monster is to destroy your stuff, it's thematic, 'cause there was a time in D&D when things like sundering wasn't detailed. That and (older) rust monsters make you lose you stuff permanently.

I'm not asking for super realistic. Just a touch of it, so my inquisitiveness doesn't go off every 5 or 6 rounds.
Here, I'm gonna answer your entire rant with this:

No, I don't constantly ask myself why the world works the way it is, I'm playing a game of pretend. The world isn't real, and just 'cause the system I'm using doesn't specify exactly what happens doesn't mean the world is going to fall apart.

Hell, I don't even do that in real life, 'cause unless we're living in some crazy-ass Matrix-like world, nothing weird is gonna happen to the world. That's not to say I don't ever observe my world, but I don't constantly think about why things are the way they are when I'm walking around.

But what about things the rules don't cover? That's what a DM is for. The rules are intentionally missing holes in 4e 'cause the designers knew that a) they couldn't possibly attempt to cover everything with a rule, and b) just 'cause they made a rule doesn't mean that everyone would agree with it.

This is why, to me, 4e doesn't insult intelligence, and if anything rewards it. The PHB makes very clear that D&D is a game of the imagination, and what your character does is only limited to what you can think your character would do. And the DM is there to make sure that can happen (within reason, again rewarding intelligence), I mean there's a section in the DMG dealing with this very issue. Yes I can do this in 3.x, it's definitely possible, but having so many rules created an atmosphere of "Well you can try and do it, but it works like this," which evolved to "Hang on, there's a rule for it somewhere," and now has a prevailing attitude of "Well there's no rule for it, so you can't do it."

You may say this could be solved by a bunch of handwaving, but as a DM ignoring an established rule means you broke a rule just so something could happen. Adjudicating what happens when a rule doesn't specify something is very much different, it means the DM has a major role in rules interpretation and game play. More importantly it allows more room for good ideas to work. I mean when I was first running 3.5, I don't know how many times the PHB was shoved into my face 'cause I did something wrong. I love running games, and I love coming up with stories and interesting encounters, but I hate it when it seems the rules are trying to confine what I want to do.