PDA

View Full Version : [3.5-4e] Comparative Advantage



Burley
2009-07-15, 07:21 AM
Maybe I'm just looking to hard into this, and maybe I'm about to make a big mistake by starting another edition discussion thread, but here goes:

There is a thread open now discussing a 3e spell that lets you roll d20s twice and take the better result. While the spell lasts round/level, I can't help feel shocked that it is a 9th level spell of a specific domain. It's really hard to get a hold of, apparently.
But... Elven Accuracy? Various paragon path powers and features? Items? I see a lot of rerolls in 4e, available at all levels and starting low.

I understand that they are two different games, and I'm comparing two different games, not two editions of a game. I don't even know what I'm asking...
I guess, has anybody else noticed things like this? Things that are really hard to do in one game, and super easy to do in another. (Doesn't strictly apply to D&D, but that's all I know.)

Saph
2009-07-15, 07:40 AM
Yeah, rerolls and roll-twice effects have gotten a fair bit easier to get hold of in 4e than they were in 3.5. They're some of the most powerful abilities you can get, for obvious reasons - Elven Accuracy is arguably the best 4e racial ability out there.

Things that are easier to get in 4e than in 3.5:

Raising the dead - now instead of spending 5,000 GP and needing a 9th-level cleric, anyone with Ritual Casting can pull it off for pocket change. Most important, there's no more level loss. Once you hit level 8, death becomes a speedbump.
Teleportation - again, anyone with Ritual Casting can now do it, and you don't have the chance of going off-target or that awkward limit on the number of people you can bring along. Only problem is you need the "email address" of the destination.

Things that are easier to get in 3.5 than in 4e:

Flight - it's exasperatingly hard to get it with any degree of reliability in 4e. 5 minutes per day just isn't very satisfying.
Long-duration effects - anything with a duration of more than one encounter tends to either have a prohibitive cost or just isn't worth the amount of effort it requires.

There are plenty more in both categories. In general, 4e characters are stronger at low levels than 3.5 ones, and work better out-of-the-box, but at higher levels a well-built 3.5 character will leave a 4e one in the dust due to having so many more tricks.

(Hoping this won't turn into another edition war, but I'm not holding my breath.)

- Saph

Oslecamo
2009-07-15, 07:52 AM
Yeah, rerolls and roll-twice effects have gotten a fair bit easier to get hold of in 4e than they were in 3.5. They're some of the most powerful abilities you can get, for obvious reasons - Elven Accuracy is arguably the best 4e racial ability out there.


Bear however in mind that roll-twice isn't that usefull when save or die effects are a lot less plentyfull.

Sure the 4e hero has much better acuraccy, but what's he gonna do with it? [W]+main stat? Really doesn't scare anybody.

In 3e, roll twice are harder to get, but when they're used, they're much more effecient.

4e orbwizard however gets a consolation price for, with some worck, actually having a save-or-die, making elven wizard the supreme anything killer.

For some strange reason, there still aren't hordes of fanboys crying that 4e wizard is the brokenest and claiming that 4e fighters are actually NPCs because they don't get save or die, but hey, that's actually good. Seems like 4e actually opens people's eyes to the obvious, that D&D wasn't built to be a PvP game.

Sinfire Titan
2009-07-15, 08:23 AM
For some strange reason, there still aren't hordes of fanboys crying that 4e wizard is the brokenest and claiming that 4e fighters are actually NPCs because they don't get save or die, but hey, that's actually good. Seems like 4e actually opens people's eyes to the obvious, that D&D wasn't built to be a PvP game.

What? (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=101912#101912)


Click some links, read some threads. People know the Wizard is the most powerful class in 4E (the rest of the controllers are not too far behind him). People have been complaining about the Orb Wizard option since before the Adventurer's Vault even came out!

Burley
2009-07-15, 08:30 AM
It's because the 4e wizard isn't the brokenest thing ever. I honestly don't think a penalty to saves makes the Orbizard that tight. It's only one enemy per encounter, and it isn't an auto-win button. Is there some extra power or feat or item that makes it even better?
In you look at the invoker, they get a lot of powers like that, as well. I'm sure there are other builds that lock-down that I can't think of right now (like the Trippin-Stick fighter.)

What about the Avenger? They get to reroll freaking everything and let allies reroll all pretty often. Why doesn't anybody clammer to take that class? Its attacks are usually radiant (which is one of the most potent keywords) and it hits a freakin' lot. But, looking over it... I guess the bonus effects are only great for the Avenger and they're just buffs.
Bad example.

I dunno... I should just read and not post. I'm not great at optimizin'.

Tiki Snakes
2009-07-15, 08:39 AM
For some strange reason, there still aren't hordes of fanboys crying that 4e wizard is the brokenest and claiming that 4e fighters are actually NPCs because they don't get save or die, but hey, that's actually good. Seems like 4e actually opens people's eyes to the obvious, that D&D wasn't built to be a PvP game.

Yeah. Though on account of being so enthralled by the concept of the Test of Spite, etc, I really would enjoy a similar thing ran in 4th edition. (Because I basically can't recall enough about 3.5 to even consider making a test of spite character.)

I even rolled up a Minotaur fighter|barbarian for just such a purpose. Even though no-such thread actually exists. *le-sigh*

Kurald Galain
2009-07-15, 08:40 AM
There is a thread open now discussing a 3e spell that lets you roll d20s twice and take the better result. While the spell lasts round/level, I can't help feel shocked that it is a 9th level spell of a specific domain. It's really hard to get a hold of, apparently.
But... Elven Accuracy? Various paragon path powers and features? Items? I see a lot of rerolls in 4e, available at all levels and starting low.

(1) allowing one specific reroll per combat is far less powerful than letting you roll twice for everything for a certain duration, (2) a reroll is less big of a deal in 4E because there is less difference between hitting and missing, and (3) considering that spell doesn't show up all that often, it's probably over-leveled a bit in 3E.


I guess, has anybody else noticed things like this? Things that are really hard to do in one game, and super easy to do in another.
Plenty. Many things are restricted or forbidden in 4E because "it wouldn't be balanced". That includes flight, invisibility, illusions, multi-critter summons, tiny or large races, pretty much anything with a range of more than 30 meters, and pretty much everything with a duration of more than "one encounter" (and most combat encounters take 30 to 60 seconds).

Unsurprisingly, it is therefore easier to have a balanced party in 4E, although many complaints about how imbalanced 3E is are based on what people read on forums, rather than on actual practice. Other things that are easier in 4E, generally because "it wouldn't be fun otherwise", include making light in darkness, getting enough food or sleep, healing (including resurrection), and getting rid of any and all adverse conditions or afflictions in a manner of minutes.

For a fun example, a 3E rust monster will eat your equipment; a 4E rust monster will eat a maximum of one piece of equipment, and if it does, it will increase the loot it drops by the exact value of that piece of equipment.

Perhaps surprisingly, something else that's easier in 4E is killing dragons.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-15, 08:44 AM
It's because the 4e wizard isn't the brokenest thing ever. I honestly don't think a penalty to saves makes the Orbizard that tight. It's only one enemy per encounter, and it isn't an auto-win button.

Heh. Sleep + Orb of Inescapable Consequences = automatic unconsciousness on a failed save. Earthroot Staff + Spell Focus + Phrenic Crown = -11 penalty on all saves, meaning they succeed on a roll of 21 or more on 1d20.

And you wake up on a succesful save. Good luck!

(Yeah, solo monsters have a save bonus. But it's not all that hard to optimize the save penalty a bit further, considering the above doesn't even use Orb of Imposition yet)

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-15, 08:45 AM
For a fun example, a 3E rust monster will eat your equipment; a 4E rust monster will eat a maximum of one piece of equipment, and if it does, it will increase the loot it drops by the exact value of that piece of equipment.

...what...

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-15, 08:47 AM
Perhaps surprisingly, something else that's easier in 4E is killing dragons.

IMHO, in 3rd, after some age category, dragons are killed by DM fiat. Unless one thinks that an ancient powerful Gish with 3 high mental stats can be tricked by 4-6 morons.

My players killed elder dragons, but still*

*Meaning that in my campaings happens, but not because my players are geniuses, actually they are morons, too.

/derailment

Sinfire Titan
2009-07-15, 08:48 AM
It's because the 4e wizard isn't the brokenest thing ever. I honestly don't think a penalty to saves makes the Orbizard that tight. It's only one enemy per encounter, and it isn't an auto-win button. Is there some extra power or feat or item that makes it even better?
In you look at the invoker, they get a lot of powers like that, as well. I'm sure there are other builds that lock-down that I can't think of right now (like the Trippin-Stick fighter.)


Eh?! -13 to all saves for the duration of the encounter every encounter isn't broken? How many spells in the Wizard's arsenal have the text "Save Ends"? Guess what? If you have a -13 penalty to all saves, you can't pass any saving throw you make unless you get a +4 bonus to the save.

PH1 Wizards were powerful enough as-is (Sleep, a 1st level Daily, has the power to end encounters well into the Epic tier). Name a PH1 Heroic tier Encounter or Daily power that retains that kind of utility for all 30 levels and isn't on the Wizard's class list. Adventurer's Vault broke the Wizard even further.

It's to the point where the Wand and Staff options aren't even considered unless Arcane Power is allowed, and Arcane Power just adds to the Wizard's dominance!

Being able to take out entire Solo encounters is pretty damn powerful, especially in 4E (a system that was supposed to remove Save or Dies).

Its one thing to force enemies to reroll. Forcing a reroll means they at least have a chance of making the roll. Penalizing saves to the point that the enemy statistically cannot make the roll is different.


At the bottom of the 1st post in the thread I linked to are a number of other links. Read those threads, they explain a lot more than I can in one post.

ZeroNumerous
2009-07-15, 08:50 AM
...what...

It eats your crap, then craps better or equivalent crap.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-15, 09:29 AM
It eats your crap, then craps better or equivalent crap.

It's fallen a long way since the days when getting your equipment eaten was actually, y'know, a bad thing. Goodbye actual permanent impediments, hello steady-state heroes.

Indon
2009-07-15, 09:38 AM
Multiple rolls and rerolls are potent mechanical advantages that don't involve additional tactical advantage - I'm unsusprised they get tapped extensively for 4ed abilities.

3'rd edition tapped tactical advantages extensively for abilities - Haste's additional action in 3.0 and Slow's removal of an action are good examples, as is the category of save-and-die and the many categories of save-or-suck effects. So, if you want even a fraction of the quantity of abilities in the new edition, you have to tap all the tools you have remaining.

In fact, it would seem that the most powerful combat build in 4'th edition is indeed the build with access to 3E-style Save-or-sucks. It's a shame they're probably the only ones now.

ZeroNumerous
2009-07-15, 09:47 AM
It's fallen a long way since the days when getting your equipment eaten was actually, y'know, a bad thing. Goodbye actual permanent impediments, hello steady-state heroes.

Technically speaking, it craps "residium" (read: Magic crap) that you 'harvest' from it's corpse. You do actually lose your magical item for all of an hour, IE: That being how long it takes to cast Enchant Item.

Tiki Snakes
2009-07-15, 09:53 AM
Technically speaking, it craps "residium" (read: Magic crap) that you 'harvest' from it's corpse. You do actually lose your magical item for all of an hour, IE: That being how long it takes to cast Enchant Item.

Assuming you have at least one PC capable of making the (probably pretty easy) knowledge roll to know it exists. :)

(Never going to be an issue with my current group, and their 3 rangers...)

Asbestos
2009-07-15, 10:11 AM
It eats your crap, then craps better or equivalent crap.


The 'problem' with the Rust Monster is actually addressed in the Rust Monster entry in the MM2.


For a PC, the threat of losing gear can be greater than the
threat of being reduced to 0 hp. Because of this fact, rust
monsters can be more terrifying for players to face than
a rampaging red dragon. A character who loses his or her
armor becomes extremely vulnerable, and a character
who has lost a magic weapon won't be as effective in
later encounters. When a rust monster consumes a PC's
weapon, it effectively gives that PC a significant penalty
on attack and damage rolls until he or she can find a
suitable replacement weapon. A PC who loses armor to
a rust monster suffers an even more dramatic reduction in
AC unless replacement armor can be found.
The possibility of recovering residuum from a rust
monster or a dweomer eater alleviates this disadvantage
to some degree, but the PCs will still need to find time
to rest and use the Create Magic Item ritual, and they
might even need to "head back to town" to find a way
to replace the item. But you don't want an encounter
with a rust monster to be one that forces the PCs to
stop adventuring. When you include a rust monster in
an encounter, think about ways to allow the PCs to carry
on, with perhaps less optimal gear. For example, the
PCs might have had a previous encounter that provided
armor or weapons that they wouldn't normally use, or
the PCs might be able to fashion clubs or other simple
weapons out of nearby materials.
Eventually, though, the PCs should have an opportunity
to regain their lost equipment by using the residuum
found in the monster. Although a PC might lose an item,
it is intended that the loss be only temporary, which is
why the residuum recovered from a rust monster is equal
to the full value of the destroyed item. How the PCs deal
with the loss is what makes the rust monster fun. Be wary
of PCs who try to abuse a rust monster's powers to their
advantage by using rust monsters to consume items the
PCs would otherwise sell for one-fifth value. In such cases,
you should reduce the resulting residuum to one-fifth value,
effectively making the rust monster a free Disenchant
Magic Item ritual.

Also note that the 4e Rust Monster can eat a wider variety of items than the old Rust Monster. For instance the level 11 Dweomer Eater, basically a large sized RM, can devour any magic item and can cause any magic item used to attack it (even implements) to 'decay' (read: Rust)

Also, it says nowhere at all in the monster description that it only eats a maximum of one piece of equipment per encounter. It says that usually one suit of heavy armor or a few weapons is enough and then the content monster will run off. I think this was added to get DMs to avoid a single Rust Monster eating every single metal/magic item the PCs have.

As for Orbizards being the most unbeatable class in 4e... I have yet to actually see this in practice.

Also something that Saph should note:
Raise Dead in 4e: Mostly impossible in combat, except for a number of epic abilities.
Long Range teleportation in 4e: Impossible in combat.
Long Duration Flight: Possible via rituals, but impossible in combat.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-15, 10:13 AM
Technically speaking, it craps "residium" (read: Magic crap) that you 'harvest' from it's corpse. You do actually lose your magical item for all of an hour, IE: That being how long it takes to cast Enchant Item.

Yeah, I've read enough 4e rules to know how residuum and crafting works...but "Oh, don't worry, guys, you can gather the stuff at the end of combat and recreate in a few hours" is a far cry from "What do you mean, 'is it gone for good'? It rusted to nothingness when the rust monster ate the damn thing! Buy a new one when you finish the adventure."

Saph
2009-07-15, 10:14 AM
Also something that Saph should note:
Raise Dead in 4e: Mostly impossible in combat, except for a number of epic abilities.
Long Range teleportation in 4e: Impossible in combat.

Eh? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I said that rezzing/porting is generally easier in 4e than 3.5. Are you disagreeing, or agreeing?

- Saph

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-15, 10:15 AM
As for Orbizards being the most unbeatable class in 4e... I have yet to actually see this in practice.



This sentence reminds me what I say when people talk about "monk suxx" and "god wizard".

Not to be offending toward you, Asbestos.

Yakk
2009-07-15, 10:16 AM
*nod*, rust monsters eat magic items. When you kill them, the residuum of the eaten magic item can be harvested from their remains (with DM fiat allowing it to be as low as 1/5th to deal with abuse).

It is a way to make the rust monster eat items, without turning rust monsters into the "I gave the PCs too many items, and want to destroy some" gygaxian tool.

As for Orbizards being the most unbeatable class in 4e... I have yet to actually see this in practice.
It is an issue in 4e. But it is one opponent (out of an expected 5) per encounter.

Assuming you have at least one PC capable of making the (probably pretty easy) knowledge roll to know it exists. :)

(Never going to be an issue with my current group, and their 3 rangers...)
Dungeoneering -- the knowledge skill that people neglect to their peril!

Tiki Snakes
2009-07-15, 10:16 AM
Yeah, I've read enough 4e rules to know how residuum and crafting works...but "Oh, don't worry, guys, you can gather the stuff at the end of combat and recreate in a few hours" is a far cry from "What do you mean, 'is it gone for good'? It rusted to nothingness when the rust monster ate the damn thing! Buy a new one when you finish the adventure."

Yes.
Thank god.

Kylarra
2009-07-15, 10:20 AM
Dungeoneering -- the knowledge skill that people neglect to their peril!My 4e group is full of idiots (INT <=12). :( Arcana and Religion checks are our bane.

Luckily Dungeoneering is Wis, so even my druid is pretty decent at it, even untrained. :smallamused:

Kurald Galain
2009-07-15, 10:25 AM
The 'problem' with the Rust Monster is actually addressed in the Rust Monster entry in the MM2.
Does it not strike you as silly that characters would fear the loss of their sword more than death? Even then, we've had a nice source of tension and tactics in the past ("use decent tactics or lose your sword") whereas now we don't ("don't worry little spoiled fighter, you'll get a new sword immediately").


Also, it says nowhere at all in the monster description that it only eats a maximum of one piece of equipment per encounter.
Actually it does: its equipment rusting is an encounter power. The rest of what it does is called rusting, but actually wears off after a few seconds.

Oslecamo
2009-07-15, 10:28 AM
What? (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=101912#101912)


Click some links, read some threads. People know the Wizard is the most powerful class in 4E (the rest of the controllers are not too far behind him). People have been complaining about the Orb Wizard option since before the Adventurer's Vault even came out!

That's the Gaming Den. They complain about everything, all the time. The rage concentrated in that place would make a frenzied berseker chose them as their diety if he had the chance.

They, however, don't know a thing about balance.


You know their sugestion to control wealth by level? High level items can only be acquired with souls. Hmm, yeah. Cough summon monster cough planar binding. It also makes one wonder why dragons collect gold at all, since sudenly it is worth less than crap. Yes, one of themselves said the purpose of the rule was to allow dragons to have beds og gold whitout worryng that the players would be over equiped after defeating it. So where's the fix again?

They also have such nice things as homebrewed classes with at will time stop right out of the bat whitout you needing to optimize anything. That's balanced, of course, because it was designed by them.


So, in conclusion, the gaming den should never be considered as "the people" and it's better left alone on their own hate and rage discussions togheter with it's master wich acepts no logic but his own, and has banned people just for disagreeing with him.

Yakk:Sleep is an area power if I remember correctly. And if I'm not mistaken arcane power gives you a way to increase the area.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-15, 10:40 AM
That's the Gaming Den. They complain about everything, all the time. The rage concentrated in that place would make a frenzied berseker chose them as their diety if he had the chance.
I find it very funny to read. However, yeah, take it with a few metric cubes of salt.


Yakk:[/B]Sleep is an area power if I remember correctly. And if I'm not mistaken arcane power gives you a way to increase the area.
It is an area power, but not increasable by the Arcane Power feat Enlarge Spell (since sleep doesn't do damage, and only damaging spells can be enlarged). However, it can be boosted by the Staff of the War Mage just fine.

Yakk is referring to how Orb of Imposition (wis penalty to one enemy's saving throw) works only once per encounter. And it does, but most of the other save increasing gear works all the time. You don't need OOI to stunlock any more. Also, you're not guaranteed to have five enemies: there's always solo fights (which, yes, can be made trivial in numerous ways, including stunlock).

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-15, 10:56 AM
Does it not strike you as silly that characters would fear the loss of their sword more than death? Even then, we've had a nice source of tension and tactics in the past ("use decent tactics or lose your sword") whereas now we don't ("don't worry little spoiled fighter, you'll get a new sword immediately").

Agreed. Additionally, if 4e is supposed to be so focused on the character and not the items, why would you care if you lose a sword for a few encounters? Obviously you're at the same power level without it...and if you're not, it's not the rust monster's fault that removing equipment is so debilitating after we've been told it won't be.


You know their sugestion to control wealth by level? High level items can only be acquired with souls. Hmm, yeah. Cough summon monster cough planar binding. It also makes one wonder why dragons collect gold at all, since sudenly it is worth less than crap. Yes, one of themselves said the purpose of the rule was to allow dragons to have beds og gold whitout worryng that the players would be over equiped after defeating it. So where's the fix again?

While I don't agree with everything they're doing over there, let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

Everything the Den does is predicated on the assumption that they're playing with people with high levels of rules mastery and that magic has a realistic effect on the world--that's why everything built there is meant to be balanced with a Batman wizard and why gold is almost valueless, since anyone with access to wish (starting with a 17th-level wizard and ending with anyone holding a candle of invocation) can have as much as he wants.

Souls as currency makes sense when you keep in mind that (A) summoned creatures aren't actually the creature physically present and thus have no souls, and (B) any souls you could get by chain-binding something would be vastly less valuable than ones you could get by actually adventuring. Trapping souls, demons desiring souls for power, and such have been in fantasy for a long time; making souls currency in the Outer Planes gives those stories a mechanical reason to happen in D&D.


They also have such nice things as homebrewed classes with at will time stop right out of the bat whitout you needing to optimize anything. That's balanced, of course, because it was designed by them.

It's obviously not balanced with the baseline D&D game; the express purpose of Frank & K's Tomes is to replace those rules. Their fighter is widely derided for its ability to Foil any enemy action, but in a Tome game where every class is CoDzilla- or Batman-level, it's necessary just for survival. You don't play that way? Well, neither do I, so do what I do and borrow some cool ideas while leaving anything you don't like behind.

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-15, 11:00 AM
Does it not strike you as silly that characters would fear the loss of their sword more than death?

This. Even if, sad enough, at high level is not only a 4th edition thing.

Myrmex
2009-07-15, 11:01 AM
For some strange reason, there still aren't hordes of fanboys crying that 4e wizard is the brokenest and claiming that 4e fighters are actually NPCs because they don't get save or die, but hey, that's actually good. Seems like 4e actually opens people's eyes to the obvious, that D&D wasn't built to be a PvP game.

That's because the discrepancy isn't as big. Take the Sorcerer/Wizard spell Gate, and compare it to any 100 fighter bonus feats. The fighter could have all 100 of those bonus fighter feats, and still just be a chump with a stick.

Totally Guy
2009-07-15, 11:15 AM
Magic items tend to have a higher level than the level of the party.

The best sword a level 10 party has might be level 13 or 14. So if that got eaten the party would need to wait for a few levels before recreating it.

Oslecamo
2009-07-15, 11:29 AM
Everything the Den does is predicated on the assumption that they're playing with people with high levels of rules mastery and that magic has a realistic effect on the world

And the best thing they've managed with it is, as Kurald said, to get a few laughs from the readers, as their conclusions many times make even less sense than anything that Wotc ever published. Like "nobody ever carried more than an handfull of gold". Makes one wonder how nobles got castles built and paid their armies and stuff.



Souls as currency makes sense when you keep in mind that (A) summoned creatures aren't actually the creature physically present and thus have no souls, and (B) any souls you could get by chain-binding something would be vastly less valuable than ones you could get by actually adventuring.

Says who? K and buddies themselves don't mention that, so summon/binding-farming worcks perfectly by their RAW, wich means economy is now easier to breack than ever. Sure you can try to fix K's system, but hey, why not just fix the older system?
(for the record, summoned creatures are there, but their bodies are healed and go back to their homeplane when the spell ends or if they're destroyed. Souls stay back if captured)



Trapping souls, demons desiring souls for power, and such have been in fantasy for a long time; making souls currency in the Outer Planes gives those stories a mechanical reason to happen in D&D.

Souls already had plenty of uses in basic D&D, particularly as spell components and material for crafting items (see BoVD).



It's obviously not balanced with the baseline D&D game;

It's not balanced with anything! Time stop at will is one of the few really unstopable "I win lol" buttons.



the express purpose of Frank & K's Tomes is to replace those rules. Their fighter is widely derided for its ability to Foil any enemy action, but in a Tome game where every class is CoDzilla- or Batman-level, it's necessary just for survival. You don't play that way? Well, neither do I, so do what I do and borrow some cool ideas while leaving anything you don't like behind.

Oh, they have some good ideas, but rest assured, they're there by statistical probability. Build enough random stuff and you're bound to do something that actually worcks. It's not really worth it the effort to filter it up. I've seen much more and better ideas on the homebrew forums of this very site.

Myrmex: 100 free fight feats? Versus one single spell wich cannot be spammed due to fat exp price? That's actually very doable! Heck, if I was a fullcaster I would acept the trade whitout second tought and stock up on stuff to increase my defenses. :smalltongue:

Yora
2009-07-15, 11:36 AM
And the best thing they've managed with it is, as Kurald said, to get a few laughs from the readers, as their conclusions many times make even less sense than anything that Wotc ever published. Like "nobody ever carried more than an handfull of gold". Makes one wonder how nobles got castles built and paid their armies and stuff.
Not by paying them cash from the small purse on their belt, I would believe.

Eorran
2009-07-15, 11:38 AM
Does it not strike you as silly that characters would fear the loss of their sword more than death? Even then, we've had a nice source of tension and tactics in the past ("use decent tactics or lose your sword") whereas now we don't ("don't worry little spoiled fighter, you'll get a new sword immediately").

I dunno, back in 2e, my players were rarely worried about death. Losing equipment was a big deal, once you got magical or even masterwork stuff. Let's face it, many characters depend highly on their equipment for their survival. Less so in 4th than in any other edition I've played, though.

The big fear in 2nd was level drain. Especially at higher levels. One failed Save vs. Spells and you could lose a year's (real-life time) worth of adventuring, which seems a disproportionate penalty just to increase tension.

Asbestos
2009-07-15, 11:47 AM
Eh? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I said that rezzing/porting is generally easier in 4e than 3.5. Are you disagreeing, or agreeing?

- Saph

I'm saying that you forgot some variables. I would say that porting is easier in 3.x since it takes less time which can make it a viable escape tool. In 4e it is only a transportation tool.


This sentence reminds me what I say when people talk about "monk suxx" and "god wizard".

Not to be offending toward you, Asbestos.
You are correct, just because I have not seen it (and have even played an orbizard, though I cared not for optimizing my ability to stun-lock things, instead desiring to be slightly more versatile) does not mean it is or is not true.


Does it not strike you as silly that characters would fear the loss of their sword more than death? Even then, we've had a nice source of tension and tactics in the past ("use decent tactics or lose your sword") whereas now we don't ("don't worry little spoiled fighter, you'll get a new sword immediately").
Oh, it is indeed silly, its all very game-ist, but it was true in 3.x as well. When all you need is 5k and a minute to bring someone back to life and you just lost your magic weapon with 5 different magical properties, players may be inclined to be more upset about losing an item than their characters life. Also, its useful to note that an hour is not 'immediate', especially when its likely that the rust monster is not the only creature in the encounter. Losing your weapon when you still have an encounter to go is not a good thing in any way.


Actually it does: its equipment rusting is an encounter power. The rest of what it does is called rusting, but actually wears off after a few seconds.
Actually it turns out we are both right (and a little bit wrong). The level 6 RM does it as an encounter power, the level 11 version has it as rechargeable.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-15, 11:50 AM
Like "nobody ever carried more than an handfull of gold". Makes one wonder how nobles got castles built and paid their armies and stuff.

It's true. No one walked around with 200 gold pieces in their pocket unless they wanted to get robbed. Having wealth equivalent to lots of gold pieces, which may be liquidated to gold coins on a sale or credit basis in order to pay people with gold pieces, was quite common, as were intangible rewards such as land and title.


Says who? K and buddies themselves don't mention that, so summon/binding-farming worcks perfectly by their RAW, wich means economy is now easier to breack than ever. Sure you can try to fix K's system, but hey, why not just fix the older system?
(for the record, summoned creatures are there, but their bodies are healed and go back to their homeplane when the spell ends or if they're destroyed. Souls stay back if captured)

Well, there's no fluff in the SRD so I can't check right now, but I'm fairly sure summoned creatures are just the essence of actual creatures given form on the Prime, so they remember everything and generally are themselves but don't die if killed and disappear.

...or I could be misremembering older edition rules. I'll get back to you on that.


Souls already had plenty of uses in basic D&D, particularly as spell components and material for crafting items (see BoVD).

I don't see any soul spell components in the SRD, and aside from trap the soul and soul bind nothing to do with trapped souls. BoVD is 3.0, so they're not addressing that, just making up new material for the Tomes of Fiends and Necromancy.


It's not balanced with anything! Time stop at will is one of the few really unstopable "I win lol" buttons.

1) Where are you seeing time stop at will? I'm pretty sure that's hyperbole.

2) The swiftblade, a WotC PrC, can already turn hastes into time stops.


Oh, they have some good ideas, but rest assured, they're there by statistical probability. Build enough random stuff and you're bound to do something that actually worcks. It's not really worth it the effort to filter it up. I've seen much more and better ideas on the homebrew forums of this very site.

Granted, there's better stuff out there, but claiming that the Tome material is worthless and horribly unbalanced is doing them a huge disservice.

Starsinger
2009-07-15, 12:38 PM
Does it not strike you as silly that characters would fear the loss of their sword more than death? Even then, we've had a nice source of tension and tactics in the past ("use decent tactics or lose your sword") whereas now we don't ("don't worry little spoiled fighter, you'll get a new sword immediately").

Yep, I've seen tension and tactics, from the fighter stripping naked then putting his gear in a portable bag and watching the wizard and monk handle it, to the "Keep running while we pepper it with arrows and magic missiles!", to the "We're sorry the rust monster ate your Ancestral Daisho, OA Samurai..." incidentally, the latter is when we learned that DR/Magic does matter past like level 2.

Saph
2009-07-15, 12:56 PM
I'm saying that you forgot some variables. I would say that porting is easier in 3.x since it takes less time which can make it a viable escape tool. In 4e it is only a transportation tool.

I didn't forget them. Teleporting is available earlier in 4e; it's accessible to more classes; it never goes off target; and you don't have the awkward "one person per 3 levels" limitation.

By comparison, the main benefit of the 3.5 teleport is that it's only 1 standard action. That doesn't mean that teleporting is easier, though, it just means that it's faster. Hence, teleporting in 4e is easier than in 3.5.

- Saph

Indon
2009-07-15, 12:58 PM
Agreed. Additionally, if 4e is supposed to be so focused on the character and not the items, why would you care if you lose a sword for a few encounters? Obviously you're at the same power level without it...and if you're not, it's not the rust monster's fault that removing equipment is so debilitating after we've been told it won't be.

Well, in 4ed's defense, it's immensely easier to put in a houserule to trivialize magic items. In 4'th edition, you just add an additional +to hit/damage/defenses progression and maybe grant an additional utility power or two and you've replaced 90% of the function of magic items in the game.

In 3'rd edition, it's obviously not so easy - personally, I use gestalt rules with specific classes to replace magic items, and I'm not sure how good it is yet.

Sinfire Titan
2009-07-15, 01:04 PM
I didn't forget them. Teleporting is available earlier in 4e; it's accessible to more classes; it never goes off target; and you don't have the awkward "one person per 3 levels" limitation.

By comparison, the main benefit of the 3.5 teleport is that it's only 1 standard action. That doesn't mean that teleporting is easier, though, it just means that it's faster. Hence, teleporting in 4e is easier than in 3.5.

- Saph

What? Dimension Door VS 4E's Teleport ritual? Which one is easier to use?

The ritual takes 10 minutes, a set amount of cash that cannot be removed without being a Bard, the knowledge of where you are going, and another circle set up on the other side.

DDoor needs a standard action, a 4th level spell slot, and an image of where you want to be. The range is more limited, but Enlarge Spell can be used to increase it to 800+80/CL (and CL is easy to boost). One casting of DDoor can get you damn near anywhere within Sigil's borders if your CL is high enough.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-15, 01:06 PM
No one walked around with 200 gold pieces in their pocket unless they wanted to get robbed.
They'd also have pockets the size of sacks, made of leather and reinforced with smaller sacks. Gold is heavy,

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-15, 01:08 PM
It eats your crap, then craps better or equivalent crap.

So what I need to do is buy cheap magic weapons, a few rust monsters, two acres of land, and set up my rust monster farm.

I'll be raking in those +5 Vorpal Greatswords in no time.

Saph
2009-07-15, 01:11 PM
What? Dimension Door VS 4E's Teleport ritual? Which one is easier to use?

The ritual takes 10 minutes, a set amount of cash that cannot be removed without being a Bard, the knowledge of where you are going, and another circle set up on the other side.

DDoor needs a standard action, a 4th level spell slot, and an image of where you want to be. The range is more limited, but Enlarge Spell can be used to increase it to 800+80/CL (and CL is easy to boost). One casting of DDoor can get you damn near anywhere within Sigil's borders if your CL is high enough.

The cost is trivial. 135 Gp at level 8? Please.

10 minutes to cast is only an issue if you're in combat (in which case getting everyone together for a teleport ain't exactly easy, either, and I'm talking from experience here).

Dimension Door at level 8 takes you and two other people 720 feet. Linked Portal takes your entire party across the world. Totally different scale.

So the only serious limitation is that you have to go to a known circle.

- Saph

Burley
2009-07-15, 01:12 PM
That's an amazing idea.
I want it.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-15, 01:26 PM
That's an amazing idea.
I want it.

Gheed's Marvelous Rust Monster Gambling-Exchange Farm welcomes its first customer.

Taking advantage of the fact that 4th edition goes out of its way to provide you with magic items since 2009 AD.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-15, 01:46 PM
Yep, I've seen tension and tactics, from the fighter stripping naked then putting his gear in a portable bag and watching the wizard and monk handle it, to the "Keep running while we pepper it with arrows and magic missiles!", to the "We're sorry the rust monster ate your Ancestral Daisho, OA Samurai..." incidentally, the latter is when we learned that DR/Magic does matter past like level 2.

This isn't the only instance where loss of equipment or suppression of class features is trivialized, simply the only one relevant to the rust monster.

And by the way, having to run away from an encounter isn't a bad thing. The idea that you are somehow guaranteed to either fight to the death or kill all your enemies and that they'll never retreat is not assumed in any edition of D&D (unless there's a note in the 4e DMG I've somehow missed) and not one I accept at all. Running away from a rust monster so it doesn't eat your items is no different and no less honorable than running away from an ambush so you don't get killed.


Well, in 4ed's defense, it's immensely easier to put in a houserule to trivialize magic items. In 4'th edition, you just add an additional +to hit/damage/defenses progression and maybe grant an additional utility power or two and you've replaced 90% of the function of magic items in the game.

In 3'rd edition, it's obviously not so easy - personally, I use gestalt rules with specific classes to replace magic items, and I'm not sure how good it is yet.

Either a game is dependent on items for the math to work, or it isn't--either effects that remove your sword cause you to take penalties for a while (however short that period may be), or they don't. The notion that you can houserule the former to the latter doesn't mean the devs saying "You won't need a given item at any given level any more! The characters are important, not the gear!" since 4e was announced and then turning around and making it so a particular +X is necessary at certain levels is a good thing.

It's not any better than 3e's system of "You need +X to attack and damage, +Y to AC, and +Z to saves, around...this level or so. Don't lose your stuff. Have fun." or even 2e's system of "We're not assuming you have a given item! What makes you think you're even going to get a magic item at level X, much less that one!?" The only thing it really affects is changing the entire game for low-magic or -equipment purposes; it does absolutely nothing to help with avoiding rust monsters, or surrendering your weapons when meeting with the king, or any other scenario.

Indon
2009-07-15, 01:53 PM
Either a game is dependent on items for the math to work, or it isn't--either effects that remove your sword cause you to take penalties for a while (however short that period may be), or they don't. The notion that you can houserule the former to the latter doesn't mean the devs saying "You won't need a given item at any given level any more! The characters are important, not the gear!" since 4e was announced and then turning around and making it so a particular +X is necessary at certain levels is a good thing.
Well, you see, in 4ed the game is dependent on magic items for the math to work - because it's more carefully balanced, and it's dependent on everything being run as it is in the book for the math to work.

3'rd edition has that problem (though less so because the math often doesn't work as everything is run in the book), and the additional problem that 3'rd edition isn't just reliant on magic items for the math to work, it's also frequently reliant on magic items for tactical situations to be resolvable.

The easiest example is flight. Flight's relatively easy to get in 3'rd edition - with magic. Without magic, you need magic items, or you don't have flight. So anything that does fly, you have an immense tactical disadvantage against. This sort of issue was basically removed in 4th edition, which as a result makes characters much less reliant on magic items - the only remaining reliance is relatively easy to compensate for if you don't want it to work that way.

So in terms of the expendibility of magic items as a system, yes, it is better.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-15, 01:58 PM
Well, you see, in 4ed the game is dependent on magic items for the math to work - because it's more carefully balanced, and it's dependent on everything being run as it is in the book for the math to work.
Hm. That seems like it might be problematic.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-15, 02:19 PM
Well, you see, in 4ed the game is dependent on magic items for the math to work - because it's more carefully balanced, and it's dependent on everything being run as it is in the book for the math to work.
That's the theory, at least. In practice, that doesn't work out so well. In 3E, when flight is necessary, either the wizard should cast Fly on the fighter - claims on the internet notwithstanding, 3E is still very much a team game. Lacking a wizard, the fighter should quaff a potion (after all, that's what potions are for); if he lacks anything of the sort, the DM shouldn't be putting players in a situation where flight is necessary.

However, in 4E this also occurs. Take one flying monster with a ranged weapon, and the entire system breaks down: many groups simply won't be able to handle that. So again the DM shouldn't be putting players in situations they can't handle, but because of the rarity of countermeasures (like flight, or detect invis, or even dispel magic), there are simply more situations that the group may be unable to handle.

Examples abound in official adventures. There's one with a group of monsters that (1) regenerate, (2) are insubstantial, thus taking half damage from most attacks, and (3) weaken you, thus making you do half damage. That adds up to the party doing 25% of normal damage against self-healing monsters. That's... pretty bad. These monsters happen to be undead, so if you have a reliable way of doing radiant (holy) damage, it's not really a problem; but if you don't, it's TPK material. Other examples include needlefang drakes, or a monster with a large sustainable movable zone of selective darkness (that the monsters can see through but the PCs can't). Easy for the right party composition, near impossible for the wrong one - I'm not sure if I'd call that "balanced".

ghost_warlock
2009-07-15, 02:25 PM
What? (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=101912#101912)

:smallsmile: I found this quite entertaining:


...3.5. Answer me these questions...
1) Who is more powerful, a beguiler or a wizard? Why?
2) What is the most fundamental flaw to the 3.5 fighter?
3) What is an example of a character who can play the game at all levels effectively and why?
4) Why is the Complete Arcane warlock inefficient?
5) Is Tome of Battle unbalanced or not? Why?

And then, these questions about 4E:

1) What is the most powerful cleric paragon path yet printed? Why?
2) What is the most powerful epic destiny in the 4E Player's Handbook? Why?
3) Is the two-weapon ranger the best two-weapon user in the game? Why or why not?
4) What is the optimal fighter race? Why?
5) What is the most effective 4E tactic at any level?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-15, 02:28 PM
5) What is the most effective 4E tactic at any level?
A: Pew pew! Imma firin' mah lazers!

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-15, 02:32 PM
Well, you see, in 4ed the game is dependent on magic items for the math to work - because it's more carefully balanced, and it's dependent on everything being run as it is in the book for the math to work.

Let's take a look at that once again: "it's dependent on everything being run as it is in the book for the math to work." That right there means the item issue is a problem--for instance, one problematic houserule I can think of is granting all of the numerical bonuses of magic weapons but not realizing that a special ability is necessary (such as flaming against fire-vulnerable foes or whatever). 3e may not be as carefully balanced, but it doesn't break down with every stray +2 you send its way.


The easiest example is flight. Flight's relatively easy to get in 3'rd edition - with magic. Without magic, you need magic items, or you don't have flight. So anything that does fly, you have an immense tactical disadvantage against. This sort of issue was basically removed in 4th edition, which as a result makes characters much less reliant on magic items - the only remaining reliance is relatively easy to compensate for if you don't want it to work that way.

It wasn't removed in 4e, it was made worse! In both editions there are flying creatures, but in 3e you can actually do things about it in combat starting from at least level 5. Ranged weapons and spells exist in both editions, so the problem to lack of flight is the same--flying creatures can just get out of range. In 4e, a well-played dragon should never get hit, because he'll just swoop in, breathe, and fly off...but I've seen many accounts by DMs saying they have to have the dragon land because doing that isn't fun.

Which reminds me of another comparative advantage of 3e: Stats are consistent across the board. Dex does ranged attacks unless you go out of your way to change that, so since most won't dump Dex due to needing good AC and initiative, if you come upon a flying monster without access to flight, you can pull out a bow and be fine. In contrast, in 4e your powers are based on whatever stat is key for your class, so if you have no bow powers you'll probably suck with ranged basic attacks unless you spend resources to fix that.

Indon
2009-07-15, 02:44 PM
Hm. That seems like it might be problematic.

It's necessary for another feature of the system. In order for a system like CR (in either 3E or 4E) to work, combat must be very statistically abstractable - everything needs to be accounted for and made predictable.

The worst possible scenario when you tweak the numbers is that CR breaks and the DM must dictate the power of encounters offhand. In 3E, that's very often the case because the CR system kinda sucks. In 4E, much more of the system is dedicated to CR functionality - but if you aren't married to the CR system, none of that dedication is strictly necessary.

Or, in short, 3E is not a more robust system - it only seems more robust because experienced 3E players do not rely on the game's CR system to determine encounters - because they know the CR system does not work because the game is not in fact robust in that sense. The worst you can do to 4E's encounter balancing system using houserules is just make the whole thing like the 3E equivalent.


However, in 4E this also occurs. Take one flying monster with a ranged weapon, and the entire system breaks down:
I bet flying monsters aren't supposed to use ranged weapons for precisely that reason. :P

And I wouldn't be surprised if this fact was denoted somewhere - this is, after all, a system that changes the digestive effectiveness of the Rust Monster based on the intent of humanoids around it.


Which reminds me of another comparative advantage of 3e: Stats are consistent across the board. Dex does ranged attacks unless you go out of your way to change that, so since most won't dump Dex due to needing good AC and initiative, if you come upon a flying monster without access to flight, you can pull out a bow and be fine.

If we're to play that game, in 3E you can make yourself all but immune to ranged weapons. In 4E no such power exists (I hope) - as a tactical ability it is too powerful to be used in combat.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-15, 02:49 PM
I bet flying monsters aren't supposed to use ranged weapons for precisely that reason. :P
"Oi boss, let's pepper those boyz right good with arrows for sneaking into our mountains and whatnot."

"You fool! They can't fight back if we do that! We must land in front of them and engage them in melee where they have the advantage!"

"Ah, that's good thinking what that is. No wonder it is that you're the boss."

You people must be joking when you say that flying monsters don't have ranged attacks. This is all some huge practical joke on the internet. That is the only logical explanation.

I call shenanigans on all of this. SHENANIGANS!

Sinfire Titan
2009-07-15, 02:49 PM
:smallsmile: I found this quite entertaining:

Here's some answers to those questions:


1) Who is more powerful, a beguiler or a wizard? Why?

Wizard, irrespective of the combat options. Even Blasting Wizards win against a Beguiler. Hell, one spell negates half of the Beguiler's spell list (Mind Blank).


2) What is the most fundamental flaw to the 3.5 fighter?

Too many to list. Mobility, magic item dependency above and beyond the stat boosters+misc., lack of combat options, inflexibility beyond the 5 basic combat actions (Attack, Grapple, Trip, Disarm, Bull Rush), lack of feats within the Core environment (meaning Splat or Die), incredibly vulnerable to anything that requires more effort than "I hit it". The list goes on.


3) What is an example of a character who can play the game at all levels effectively and why?

Anything Tier 3 and up. Specific ones? Druids, Clerics, Wizards all the way down to Warblades, Crusaders, and Swordsages.


4) Why is the Complete Arcane warlock inefficient?

Similar to the Fighter problems, but not as numerous (average damage/round is in the low 40s, high 30s, lack of options, limited abilities known, best abilities are far overshadowed by equal-level Full Casters or even the lowly Archer).


5) Is Tome of Battle unbalanced or not? Why?

In comparison to the Attack, Attack, Attack version of the Fighter or a Blaster Wizard? A little. In comparison to a properly optimized Fighter or a decently optimized ANYTHING, not really.



1) What is the most powerful cleric paragon path yet printed? Why?


Dunno, I don't play Clerics (Wizards are my best).


2) What is the most powerful epic destiny in the 4E Player's Handbook? Why?

IIRC, Demigod. Outside PH1, the Epic for the Beastmaster Ranger in Martial Power may cut it close (depending on if you read HP damage as an effect).


3) Is the two-weapon ranger the best two-weapon user in the game? Why or why not?

WotC borked the Errata for Martial Power, and nerfed the Tempest Fighter into the mediocre category. Oh, and the TWFing Ranger had a higher damage output anyway.


4) What is the optimal fighter race? Why?

Wasn't it Gnoll?


5) What is the most effective 4E tactic at any level?

Party of 4 Orbizards spamming Pinball strategy.

Indon
2009-07-15, 02:57 PM
Too many to list.
I can sum it up easily in one line:

It's not a casting class.


Party of 4 Orbizards spamming Pinball strategy.
...Pinball Wizards?

*music begins playing*

Sinfire Titan
2009-07-15, 03:16 PM
I can sum it up easily in one line:

It's not a casting class.


...Pinball Wizards?

*music begins playing*

Not the band. The broken.

Indon
2009-07-15, 03:24 PM
Not the band. The broken.

Well, Tommy was hella unbalanced.

He would totally not be allowed to play pinball in 4th edition.

Panda-s1
2009-07-15, 04:07 PM
Things that are easier to get in 4e than in 3.5:

Raising the dead - now instead of spending 5,000 GP and needing a 9th-level cleric, anyone with Ritual Casting can pull it off for pocket change. Most important, there's no more level loss. Once you hit level 8, death becomes a speedbump.


- Saph

*sigh* First off, while Raise Dead starts at 500 gp to cast, it suddenly raises to 5,000 gp at paragon tier, which is the cost of a level 10 magic item, i.e. it's hardly pocket change, it's an investment. By epic tier the cost is 50,000 gp, around the cost of a 16th level item, but this is relatively cheap at epic tier (key word being epic).

And while there's no level loss, you're completely forgetting the -1 to practically everything, which is basically the same effect as level loss, that you keep until you reach three milestones. That's at least six encounters, which if we're going by the metric of ten encounters a level means about getting 2/3's a level back (though depending on how your DM runs, it might take longer to get to that third milestone), and at the very least you're looking at about 3 sessions until the affliction wears off.

And while we're on the subject of speedbumps, lets not forget casting times. Resurrection in 3rd ed. took 10 minutes. That's it. Raise Dead in 4e? Oh, we're looking at about 8 hours. 8 hours isn't a speed bump, it's a detour, especially if you're not somewhere safe. Resurrecting someone in a dungeon-like environment is basically asking to get ambushed (hey, what do you know! The illustration at the beginning of the Rituals chapter depicts this very scenario!).

Mando Knight
2009-07-15, 04:14 PM
Wasn't it Gnoll?

Bugbear. +2 Str/Dex, Large weapons. Hasn't been updated yet. Give him a Heavy Blade and decent Wis and Con, and he'll smash through everything.

No, wait, scratch that. Give him Double Sword proficiency and a Large Double Sword. Then he'll smash through everything, whether you want him to or not. :smallamused:

Kurald Galain
2009-07-15, 04:19 PM
And while there's no level loss, you're completely forgetting the -1 to practically everything, which is basically the same effect as level loss, that you keep until you reach three milestones.
That means that on average, you will miss about two attacks that would have hit otherwise, over the course of six encounters. -1 is not a big deal, it's a minor slap on the wrist.

OTOH the 8-hour casting time is definitely problematic.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-07-15, 04:44 PM
Oh look, Edition Warz :smalltongue:

I didn't forget them. Teleporting is available earlier in 4e; it's accessible to more classes; it never goes off target; and you don't have the awkward "one person per 3 levels" limitation.

By comparison, the main benefit of the 3.5 teleport is that it's only 1 standard action. That doesn't mean that teleporting is easier, though, it just means that it's faster. Hence, teleporting in 4e is easier than in 3.5.

- Saph
Ah semantics.

What is meant by "easier?"
In 3E you needed a 9th level wizard (or a scroll) and 1 standard action to travel 100 mi/LV to anywhere you have at least "viewed once."

In 4E you needed a 8th level wizard (or a Ritual Scroll), 135 GP of Arcane Reagents or Residuum, and 10 minutes. With that, you can open a portal to any Teleportation Circle that you know the access code for; depending on your Arcana check that portal will be open between 1 and 5 rounds.

In terms of requirements for use, I would say 3E teleportation is far easier - it takes a standard action, trivial components, and can be used to get to any space within 900 miles that you have "viewed once." Why, you can use that as an Escape Button to get out of a dangerous combat.

Now, which is safer?

In 3E Teleportation requires a d% roll to land on target. Your chance of landing "on target" is between 75% and 96% (depending on familiarity); if you failed you could end up "off target" (d10% of the total distance to be traveled, in a random direction) or in a "similar area" within spell range. There was never more than a 3% chance of having a "mishap" which resulted in 1d10 damage and likely landing somewhere beside the target.

By level 13, these risks disappear - or you can forgo them at any time by using a Scroll of Greater Teleportation.

In 4E there is never a risk of landing off-target; the risks come from your Teleportation Circle being in hostile hands and the time it takes to cast the spell.

While 4E teleportation is far safer, I wouldn't say that a 4% chance of not ending up in your saferoom is a significant degree of risk.Now, 4E makes a distinction between Strategic and Tactical Teleportation. It is indeed far easier to get a line-of-sight teleportation effect that has a range between 20' and 50' - in 3E these sort of effects were either Dimension Door (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dimensionDoor.htm) (7th level Arcane Caster, without error within 680'+) or the aforementioned Teleport - either took 1 action to cast.

In short, I would heartily disagree that 4E Teleportation is meaningfully "easier" than 3E, and that in many respects, 3E Teleportation could be considered "easier."

As for Raise Dead - anyone with access to a Ritual Scroll of Raise Dead (created by an 8th level Ritualist with 16 hours are 680 gp to kill), 500 gp of Heal Reagents or Residuum, and 8 hours can indeed rez a Heroic corpse. Said corpse must have died within 30 days and, when raised, takes a -1 to all attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws and ability checks until 3 milestones (6 Encounters, minimum) have been passed.

Is it less harsh than 3E Raise Death? Yes, but it is by no means effortless. And, you may find that you cannot spare 8 hours to raise an ally more often than you find yourself short a minute to do the same in 3E.

Asbestos
2009-07-15, 10:32 PM
That means that on average, you will miss about two attacks that would have hit otherwise, over the course of six encounters. -1 is not a big deal, it's a minor slap on the wrist.

OTOH the 8-hour casting time is definitely problematic.

I think its funny that a +1 to hit is a must have but a -1 to hit is apparently trivial.

Saph
2009-07-15, 10:56 PM
And while there's no level loss, you're completely forgetting the -1 to practically everything, which is basically the same effect as level loss, that you keep until you reach three milestones. That's at least six encounters, which if we're going by the metric of ten encounters a level means about getting 2/3's a level back (though depending on how your DM runs, it might take longer to get to that third milestone), and at the very least you're looking at about 3 sessions until the affliction wears off.

I'll put this as simply as I can. I play 4e and 3.5. In 3.5, death is scarier. In 4e, it's less so. Most of the drawbacks you're listing just aren't a significant problem. As long as there's one PC left, then it doesn't matter if my character gets killed - she's up and running again by the next day.

But I'm going to give up on the argument at this point. As expected, it's turning into yet another edition war, which I'm really not interested in participating in. (You'd think I'd have learned by now not to write anything about the differences between the editions.)

- Saph

Reverent-One
2009-07-15, 10:57 PM
Let's take a look at that once again: "it's dependent on everything being run as it is in the book for the math to work." That right there means the item issue is a problem--for instance, one problematic houserule I can think of is granting all of the numerical bonuses of magic weapons but not realizing that a special ability is necessary (such as flaming against fire-vulnerable foes or whatever). 3e may not be as carefully balanced, but it doesn't break down with every stray +2 you send its way.


Except 4e doesn't break down like that either. Sure, if the inbalance starts getting big and you're, say, in the paragon tier and have little to no magic items, the balance gets wonky, but characters being a couple +'s off the expected amount either way isn't going to ruin to the game.

Mando Knight
2009-07-15, 11:07 PM
Indeed. If +/- a point or two of to-hit were absolutely critical, then no one would play Dragonborn Rogues, Dwarf Paladins, Not-Dragonborn Dragon Sorcerers, Eladrin Feylocks, etc. since a straight 18 in the primary stat costs so much. And you could forget about wielding anything other than a Dagger as a Rogue or wielding any not-swords in general because of their lower average proficiency bonus. And Focused Expertise would be completely broken rather than just extremely useful.

The New Bruceski
2009-07-15, 11:22 PM
Speaking from experience as the party's tank when we'd do stupid tactics that left me on the other side of the map from my healer, the worst part of 4e raise dead is -1 to all saving throws. Makes it easier to die the next time. We made a little card as a reminder, and every time I was about to get rid of it I'd die again.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-15, 11:45 PM
Indeed. If +/- a point or two of to-hit were absolutely critical, then no one would play Dragonborn Rogues, Dwarf Paladins, Not-Dragonborn Dragon Sorcerers, Eladrin Feylocks, etc. since a straight 18 in the primary stat costs so much. And you could forget about wielding anything other than a Dagger as a Rogue or wielding any not-swords in general because of their lower average proficiency bonus. And Focused Expertise would be completely broken rather than just extremely useful.

The examples mentioned are the baseline stats, so of course they're playable; the devs aimed for the lowest point. If you subtract another 1/5 level from that, then Leader buffs are simply compensating for the lack and hit chances slowly begin slipping; with the increased importance of teamwork and tactics in 4e, those pluses from Leaders are assumed, so without that chances of TPK rise.

However.


But I'm going to give up on the argument at this point. As expected, it's turning into yet another edition war, which I'm really not interested in participating in. (You'd think I'd have learned by now not to write anything about the differences between the editions.)

I had been hoping to avoid an edition war, but it seems I've become a bit confrontational on this issue without realizing it, so at this point I'm going to have to withdraw from the discussion.

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-16, 02:24 AM
I'll put this as simply as I can. I play 4e and 3.5. In 3.5, death is scarier.


Even if, as I said, I think that the the Players fear more the loss of a magic item, this is true. Think about monsters like the barghest or the beast of bane: if monsters manage to split the players and one is killed, cannot res even if the party eventually kills the monsters.

I mean, in 3.x there are ways to scary players about death.


Oh look, Edition Warz :smalltongue:


*hugs OH*

I missed you!

warrl
2009-07-16, 02:42 AM
It eats your crap, then craps better or equivalent crap.

The problem is that it eats your +3 armor, then craps a +3 sword. Or maybe vice versa.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-16, 03:20 AM
I think its funny that a +1 to hit is a must have but a -1 to hit is apparently trivial.
You're still missing the point big time.


no one would play Dragonborn Rogues, Dwarf Paladins, Not-Dragonborn Dragon Sorcerers, Eladrin Feylocks, etc. since a straight 18 in the primary stat costs so much.
People keep saying that, but in fact it's easy to throw an 18 in your primary stat regardless of what your race is. All you miss out is a few skills you won't be using anyway. Other than that it's simply a matter of opportunity cost.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-07-16, 03:32 AM
People keep saying that, but in fact it's easy to throw an 18 in your primary stat regardless of what your race is. All you miss out is a few skills you won't be using anyway. Other than that it's simply a matter of opportunity cost.I wouldn't say it's easy to put an 18 in an ability score; for a standard 22 point buy, that eats up, what, 16 points? Even if you were parsimonious with your other allocations that leaves you with a 14, an 8 and a bunch of 10's.

Plus, you're neglecting stat requirements for feats (minimum of 13 for most) and NADs, two important considerations when character building.

I still don't get it how people can get away with straight-out buying an 18 - heck, I feel dirty when I leave that 8 as it is just to get that extra 14 :smallyuk:

Kurald Galain
2009-07-16, 03:47 AM
I wouldn't say it's easy to put an 18 in an ability score; for a standard 22 point buy, that eats up, what, 16 points?
Yes, it does. Okay, "easy" is perhaps not the best word, but it's very feasible.

It does help if your race boosts one or both of your secondary stats (e.g. Elf fighter). And given that a class has one primary and two secondary stats, and a race will boost two stats, the odds of that are pretty good.


Plus, you're neglecting stat requirements for feats (minimum of 13 for most) and NADs, two important considerations when character building.
Feats, that's a good point. There are likely feats that will be integral to your character concept, and you need to have the prereqs. But in terms of NADs, you usually trade one point in one NAD for one point in another, and that's not a bad deal.

Many players feel like making a build with no obvious weaknesses; but the key here is that having one point less in a NAD really isn't much of a weakness.


I feel dirty when I leave that 8 as it is just to get that extra 14
Yeah, I suppose. But I find it all so abstract that I really don't mind playing a character with two or three mediocre stat. It's usually not noticeable in play anyway.

For example? Welll... you can play a Gnome Rogue, and you can even make him a brutal scoundrel. Drop an 18 in dex, 14 in str, 11 in charisma +2 racial, and you're not missing out on much. More importantly, you get to play a tiny tough guy who kicks ass and then disappears. It may sound like a silly combo but it works just fine.

Frankly, you lose so little from putting an 18 in your primary (or maybe a 17, if you lose out on feats otherwise) that I see little reason not to. Mechanically speaking, of course; fluff is a different cup of tea.

Panda-s1
2009-07-16, 03:54 AM
That means that on average, you will miss about two attacks that would have hit otherwise, over the course of six encounters. -1 is not a big deal, it's a minor slap on the wrist.

OTOH the 8-hour casting time is definitely problematic.

...But it's almost the same as losing a level in 3.5. Sure you don't lose the HP, or the spells, but in this case you get -1 to all skills, all your attacks, and ability checks. The worse one though is -1 to your saving throws. Saving throws don't scale, and getting a -1 to that is kinda rude. Not to mention when you lost a level in 3.5 you XP went to midway to the level you lost, so it's basically the same idea, you just don't actually lose a level. I have to say, it kinda sucks.


I'll put this as simply as I can. I play 4e and 3.5. In 3.5, death is scarier. In 4e, it's less so. Most of the drawbacks you're listing just aren't a significant problem. As long as there's one PC left, then it doesn't matter if my character gets killed - she's up and running again by the next day.

But I'm going to give up on the argument at this point. As expected, it's turning into yet another edition war, which I'm really not interested in participating in. (You'd think I'd have learned by now not to write anything about the differences between the editions.)

- Saph

But if death is rarer in 4e, doesn't that make it scarier? Resurrection in general kinda staves off the fear of death to begin with, but again I reiterate: 10 minute casting time in 3rd ed. That's hardly inconvenient when compared to 8 hours. On top of that, due to the more controlled economy of 4e characters usually don't have a 500 gp pile of residium or mystic salves lying around, and usually a group has to pool their money to get Bob the ranger back in the game (I hope the group liked Bob!). Then the party has to set aside an entire day just to get you back. What if you die when the BBEG is making his escape? Is the party really gonna stop there?

And the level loss thing... well I went over it above. All in all, I have to say death kinda feels the same in 4e, and in some ways even more inconvenient :/

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 03:58 AM
Well i will just say this one of my fellow PCs jumped 30 ft in the air with someone and body slammed them into the floor within the rules of 4e. Where in 3.5e i can barely clear jumping 5 ft

Kurald Galain
2009-07-16, 04:17 AM
...But it's almost the same as losing a level in 3.5.
Frankly, I would be more upset if I lost access to feats or powers.



But if death is rarer in 4e, doesn't that make it scarier?
Not to me. Serious consequences would make it scarier.

For instance, in 3E losing your familiar was seriously problematic (you couldn't get it back for a year, and you lost a hefty chunk of XP). Mind you, I think they overdid this; but it does mean you're going to be really really careful with your familiar. In 4E? Oh, your familiar dies, that's no big deal. He'll pop in again in five minutes sharp.


Well i will just say this one of my fellow PCs jumped 30 ft in the air with someone and body slammed them into the floor within the rules of 4e. Where in 3.5e i can barely clear jumping 5 ft
According to the 4E rules, that would be a DC 150 athletics check (PHB page 182), assuming a running start. I'm curious how you got that high?

Just to clear that up, the jumping record for 3E is about 90 feet (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=943738), or about 27 meters. It gets better if you bring Aberrant or Exalted into the equation :smallbiggrin:

Burley
2009-07-16, 07:03 AM
(2) What is the most powerful epic destiny in the 4E Player's Handbook? Why?)
IIRC, Demigod. Outside PH1, the Epic for the Beastmaster Ranger in Martial Power may cut it close (depending on if you read HP damage as an effect).


Actually, there was an Epic path in Arcane Power (yeah?), but I don't remember the name. Basically, their capstone ability is "Pick an enemy. When he imposes a condition on an ally, he imposes it on himself." No rolls, no saves, no failure. Orcus is weakening and stunning himself with his at-wills. Soldiers would mark themselves, taking a -2 to all attacks that don't include itself in the attack. It's pretty ri-freakin'-diculous.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-16, 07:11 AM
Actually, there was an Epic path in Arcane Power (yeah?), but I don't remember the name. Basically, their capstone ability is "Pick an enemy. When he imposes a condition on an ally, he imposes it on himself."

It gets funnier once you realize that "prone", "surprised", and "dying" are conditions, too...

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-16, 07:11 AM
The problem is that it eats your +3 armor, then craps a +3 sword. Or maybe vice versa.

I'll say it again. Rust Monster Item Farm.

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-16, 07:26 AM
It gets funnier once you realize that "prone", "surprised", and "dying" are conditions, too...

Maye it's simply horribly written, see the thread for IHS.

Maybe Wotc hires dozens of monkeys to type his books. And does not pay them enough.

Burley
2009-07-16, 08:02 AM
It gets funnier once you realize that "prone", "surprised", and "dying" are conditions, too...

The feature says something about using a power that causes the condition. I do see powers that knock enemies prone, but I've never seen a power that says "...and the target is surprised" or "...and the target is dying."
Technically, even Orcus's recharge power says you drop to 0 hp, instead of you are unconscious. It's that wording...