3.5 vs 4e (Please read post #16 first) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Mando Knight

2009-09-16, 02:07 PM

We already have about thirty threads on the matter...

4E has a unified means of character advancement and considerable attention paid to balance. This strengthens the melee characters, but is often criticized for homogenizing the characters too much. Out of all the classes released so far, only the PHB3 preview classes have a real variation in acquiring/using powers. The abilities and fluff still vary quite a bit, though...

Compared to 3.5, it has:
-Fewer "broken" abilities, such as teleporting several miles in a single action or shutting down an entire army with a single spell (optimization can lead to such abilities)
-Greater reliance on a tactical grid, as most powers deal with movement and range increments given in squares
-More methods of short-range teleportation. The latest class has an at-will limited teleportation ability.
-More sources of HP recovery, especially for the tank-types (Defenders), who heal themselves, and the cleric-types (Leaders), who heal and buff everyone.
-A better challenge-design system, which provides a fairly well-balanced means of calculating the monsters and rewards, at least compared to every eldritch algorithm I've seen for 3.5.
-Better melee characters, outside of 3.5's ToB, especially the Martial characters.
-Longer-lasting baddies. Except for minions and a lucky critical from the pure DPR-types (Strikers), nothing goes down in a single hit anymore. Battle is still often nearly decided after the first few rounds.
-Less variance between class progressions. A sorcerer gains powers on the same level as a wizard, fighter, cleric, or rogue.

Mordokai

2009-09-16, 02:08 PM

I find that 4e suffers far too much from all race/class combinations being too generic. Sure you can get one or two powers throughout your career that are interesting, but the difference between the fighter and wizard is minuscule.

Yes, it improves parity between characters, but they're far too bland for my tastes.

While I agree with this, this is also the point from where the topic goes downward, in my opinion.

They are different systems. And the topic has been debated couple of times, in the very least. Look it up with search or manually, I'm sure you'll find a lot of info. Me, I'm too 3.5 biased to be able to give you a good advice.

Obrysii

2009-09-16, 02:10 PM

I find that 4e suffers far too much from all race/class combinations being too generic. Sure you can get one or two powers throughout your career that are interesting, but the difference between the fighter and wizard is minuscule.

Yes, it improves parity between characters, but they're far too bland for my tastes.

I can't agree with you more.

I played a Centaur Wizard and I did not feel much mechanically or anything else different from any of the other members of the party.

Tengu_temp

2009-09-16, 02:13 PM

I find that 4e suffers far too much from all race/class combinations being too generic. Sure you can get one or two powers throughout your career that are interesting, but the difference between the fighter and wizard is minuscule.

Yes, it improves parity between characters, but they're far too bland for my tastes.

I disagree. All 4e characters use the same ruleset (at will, encounter and daily powers), but that doesn't mean the differences between them are miniscule. Different roles have very different focuses - good luck trying to build a wizard as the party's main tank.

AgentPaper

2009-09-16, 02:33 PM

I find that 4e suffers far too much from all race/class combinations being too generic. Sure you can get one or two powers throughout your career that are interesting, but the difference between the fighter and wizard is minuscule.

Yes, it improves parity between characters, but they're far too bland for my tastes.

Please post a fighter ability and a wizard ability that you feel are similar enough that the differences are "miniscule".

Edit: I'd also like to mention that, in 3.5, the cleric, the druid, and the wizard all use the same exact caster system, and yet nobody calls them out on being clones of being generic clones with minuscule differences.

FMArthur

2009-09-16, 03:09 PM

Please post a fighter ability and a wizard ability that you feel are similar enough that the differences are "miniscule".

Edit: I'd also like to mention that, in 3.5, the cleric, the druid, and the wizard all use the same exact caster system, and yet nobody calls them out on being clones of being generic clones with minuscule differences.

I played low-level 4th, and that description holds up at the levels I was playing (1-3). I tried to be a controller wizard and couldn't escape having to spend most of my actions on what boils down to mere archery with a different description. All of my possible actions are replicated in other classes as differently-flavored abilities. A party is split into ranged attackers and melee attackers and it's that simple. Everything beyond that is maneuvering.

NeoVid

2009-09-16, 03:15 PM

Well, I've had more fun with 4th in a few months of play than I did in years of 3.5, and the amount of fun I have is the thing I care most about.

WalkingTarget

2009-09-16, 03:18 PM

Whereas in the game I'm in currently (in the high teens at the moment), our tank is a fighter with a reach weapon who tries to Mark as many opponents as possible in order to maintain their focus (or suffer penalties otherwise) while our rogue flanks, our Avenger of Unity (me) helps herd the outlying enemies towards the fighter, and our TWF ranger (with lots of movement) goes around and takes on guys too far away from the rest of the action.

And that's just our melee characters. In my experience at least, the classes play differently enough to make them interesting.

I'll echo the opinion that teamwork is emphasized.

Roland St. Jude

2009-09-16, 03:19 PM

Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread may end poorly and please feel free to report any posts that violate the Forum Rules. But derailing it with dire predictions or nonsense posts is not helpful (and many such posts have already been excised from this thread). In addition, calling someone a troll is plainly against the Forum Rules.

Assume the OP is genuine and engage in the kind of civil discussion we allow around here. Or roll your eyes privately and don't post. But either way, please don't you be the cause of this thread's derailment or locking.

Fax Celestis

2009-09-16, 03:26 PM

The difference I feel is that 4e is a miniatures wargame, whereas 3.5e is a tabletop RPG.

arguskos

2009-09-16, 03:34 PM

The difference I feel is that 4e is a miniatures wargame, whereas 3.5e is a tabletop RPG.
That... is not true, nor is it fair to 4e in any real fashion. Note that I personally dislike 4e with the burning hatred of a thousand angry suns, BUT, it's unfair to degrade it as merely a minis game.

4th Edition is a fine RPG, that happens to place a much stronger mechanical focus on teamwork and tactical maneuvering. This does not preclude roleplaying in any way at all. Saying otherwise is fanning the flames of war for no real reason.

If we're to have a thread about this topic, can we at LEAST present each system reasonably? :smallwink:

Giggling Ghast

2009-09-16, 03:37 PM

The difference I feel is that 4e is a miniatures wargame, whereas 3.5e is a tabletop RPG.

Combat-wise, perhaps. But otherwise, the game remains the same.

Sir Homeslice

2009-09-16, 03:39 PM

If we're to have a thread about this topic, can we at LEAST present each system reasonably? :smallwink:

That's a lark.

ZeroNumerous

2009-09-16, 03:41 PM

Please post a fighter ability and a wizard ability that you feel are similar enough that the differences are "miniscule".

Icy Terrain vs Shield Bash. Difference? d6 vs d10. Oh, and Icy Terrain hits allies too.

oxybe

2009-09-16, 03:44 PM

4th is a minis game tacked onto a PnP WoW ripoff
3rd is a foray into accounting and spreadsheets dressed up an RPG
2nd ed is a failed attempt to cleaning up 1st ed
1st ed is a group of disjointed, incohesive and unorganized rules calling itself a game

alright so now that that's out of the way, i've got the hot dogs and marshmallows. i'm prepping a few marinated steaks & onions in foil to throw onto the oncoming fire.

any takers? you can stay in your bunkers, but then you can't have any. so nyah.

Kurald Galain

2009-09-16, 03:45 PM

In my opinion, both games are fun to play, and enjoyment of any roleplaying game is caused by the DM first, the group second, and the ruleset a distant third. I've played both 3E and 4E extensively, having no strong preference for either. I've found that, while both have their fervent fans, the "problems" with both games are largely the same. And take the word "problems" with a grain of salt, because they should not stop you or anyone from enjoying the game (and if they do, there's always Whitewolf and GURPS).

For instance, both games have:
* the Christmas Tree effect: moderately-leveled characters are expected to have lots and lots of magical items to be competitive.
* Balance problems. By paying attention to the charop boards, or reading through lots of rules minutiae, or sometimes by accident, you can make a character much more powerful than the rest of the party (3E: CoDzilla, King of Smack; 4E: stunlock orbizard, crit fisher)
* Slow combat. Starting from moderate levels, many characters have so many explicitly defined actions they can take in combat, that this makes it rather slow (3E: most casters and particularly summoners; 4E: pretty much all classes)
* Unnecessary restrictions. Numerous actions that could be reasonably performed by anyone in real life are impractical without the proper feat (3E: Short Haft) or disallowed if you don't have the proper power (4E: Sand in the Eyes)
* Some rules that completely fail to work as written (3E: grappling and epic rules; 4E: skill challenges and rituals)
* Heavy abstraction. Both editions allow you to e.g. use your str score to increase reflexes, or your int score to increase health. The result is that there is very little correlation to what the "str score" means in-game, and what the word "strength" means in real life.
* Random skill system. It is not possible to become an expert in anything to the level where you can routinely perform tasks that are challenging to a novice.

Of course, Oberoni fallacy applies heavily here, in that all of these can be solved or bypassed by a competent DM.

Fax Celestis

2009-09-16, 03:52 PM

If we're to have a thread about this topic, can we at LEAST present each system reasonably? :smallwink:
Do note where I said "feel". I'm neither omniscient nor a definitive answer on anything. I gave my opinion and my preference, as requested.

I personally prefer 4e for one-shots and 3.5e for longer campaigns, mostly due to the difference in complexity in creating a character: 4e is very "pick your stuff and go", whereas 3.5e requires a while considering your multitude of options.

Giggling Ghast

2009-09-16, 03:53 PM

The real weakness of Dungeons and Dragons in general is that it fails to be all things to all people.

Yukitsu

2009-09-16, 03:57 PM

I randomly built a character for 4.e, randomizing my race, class, randomizing my feats amongst the ones I could qualify for, randomized my selected abilities, randomly distributed my stats. I wound up with an eladrin star pact warlock with cross class feat and skill focus, which I obligingly put into a random skill. Then I played a session and did fine. That's where I learned something about this system is not for me.

4e is very much a "balanced" game in that it's hard for a character to deviate away from the sort of middle position of power. Apparantly, randomly doing stuff isn't enough. I have to actually actively hamper myself to fail at this game. I don't like that. I enjoy optimization, and I enjoy carefully crafting my characters level by level. I even enjoying helping the party with optimization.

My other game of 4e, I put together a fairly conventional rogue halfling. It wasn't much better at anything other than DPS than the warlock, and even then, it wasn't some eartshattering value above.

Mando Knight

2009-09-16, 04:29 PM

Icy Terrain vs Shield Bash. Difference? d6 vs d10. Oh, and Icy Terrain hits allies too.

Icy Terrain is a burst 1 within 10 that deals a small amount of damage, knocks the targets prone, and causes difficult terrain for a turn.

Shield Bash is a melee attack that pushes and knocks a single target prone while dealing roughly average damage for a Fighter, and can be used on a charge.

The only real similarities are that they're level 1 encounter attacks that target Reflex, deal damage, and knock the target(s) prone.

AgentPaper

2009-09-16, 05:12 PM

Icy Terrain vs Shield Bash. Difference? d6 vs d10. Oh, and Icy Terrain hits allies too.

Thank you. However, those aren't really similar, as stated. Icy terrain is used from range, hits multiple enemies, (and allies, if you position it wrong) and produces a lasting effect that inhibits movement. Shield bash hits only one target, in melee, can be used as part of a charge, and also knocks the enemy back. These are not miniscule differences, and each one should be used in very different circumstances. Icy terrain is best used to restrict movement of groups of enemies, kill minions, and slow down fast enemies so that melee players can close in, or so ranged players can run away. Shield bash is best used against a single, strong opponent, to push him away from weaker players, and to keep him from moving as much. Since it can be used as part of a charge, it's especially good for catching fleeing foes, both closing the distance between you and also limiting their movement next turn by making them use an action to stand up.

Would you like to try again?

Crow

2009-09-16, 06:53 PM

For my group, 4e felt too bland and all the classes felt the same. Even material from subsequent book releases has been more of the same bland stuff.

Your group might love it though.

Borrow the books and try them with your group to see how you like it. Don't attempt to find what works for your group by asking a bunch of strangers on this forum. Try it for yourselves and you be the judge.

Tiki Snakes

2009-09-16, 07:15 PM

Borrow the books and try them with your group to see how you like it. Don't attempt to find what works for your group by asking a bunch of strangers on this forum. Try it for yourselves and you be the judge.

The books are barely even necessary for these purposes.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/dndtestdrive

You can get a pretty decent look at the beast without even leaving your house, let alone going to an actual library. ;)

Note - The Free version of Keep on the Shadowfell is substantially better than the one I paid money for, even. Try out an encounter or two's worth of the module and that should give you enough to know whether it's worth looking into the books.

Weezer

2009-09-16, 07:26 PM

For me its all about complexity and customizability. 4E simplified the skill system, made all combat work off the same mechanic, simplified the rest of combat and basically streamlined everything. Thats one thing I don't particularly like, i enjoyed how complex 3.5 was, there was a rule for every instance, so many different mechanics for classes etc. It stopped it from getting boring and made every class/character feel unique mechanically. I know 4E hasn't eliminated this uniqueness entirely but they have toned it down.

I also enjoyed the customizability, there was a class or class combo for every eventuality, there were more feats than you could shake a stick at, there were thousands of spells. I loved that, having something for everything and everyone. admittedly it led to balance issues and a need for a massive time investment to make a character that uses all the options but i enjoyed that time spent.
4E might reach that level of complexity and with how WOTC works it probably will, but it wont match the sheer number of splat books with interesting content in them for years.

Zeta Kai

2009-09-16, 09:38 PM

4E Bashing
To be honest, I liken 4E to the game chess. It is a fine tactical combat game, & can have deep & engaging strategic scenarios. But the mechanics are so thoroughly divorced from reality, or even realistic fantasy, that any true roleplaying (that is, attempting to place yourself in the role of your character & pretending that your not just playing a game) is difficult at best.

Also, I enjoy skill-based systems & simulationist-systems, & 4E reduced both. In fact, 4E reduced a vast number of things, in a systematic pattern of reductive changes that were all geared toward doing one thing, & one thing only: achieving an ideal of game balance. However, this pursuit of balance-above-all-else has proved demonstrably flawed & wasteful, because said balance was not achieved. The game's flaws can be readily exploited, providing players with multiple means of breaking the game that are even easier to perform & harder to block by DM-fiat than the crippling flaws of 3E.

Lastly, it has also been proven that the game designers failed to adequately playtest & edit their game. This meant that many of the designer's statements about their game do not match up well with what the game can actually do. In fact, many of the game's pre-release selling points, as stated by the game's designers, do not function in the actual game, or even do the exact opposite. A good example of this is the supposed elimination of the 15-minute adventuring day, which was touted over & over, & has since proven to be false, as the game mechanically encourages this play style. Another thing that was claimed was that combat would be more varied, & there would be no need to just stand around, slugging it out with enemies in a back-&-forth tit-for-tat hack-fest; in reality, the high number of HP makes hack-fests frequently advantageous or even necessary.

And I won't even get into the skill challenges system, which does not function correctly out of the book, & required multiple errata to make even barely functional. Not that they are really worth it; most of the games I've seen played eschew skill challenges altogether in lieu of more traditional skill use.

Now that I'm done bashing 4E, let's go over to 3E & see what's so great over there...

3E Bashing
Well, 3E has been around longer, so it's flaws are better understood. And they are Legion. I tend to be much harsher towards 4E, because game designers should've known better by now. But poor old big dumb 3E gets some slack for just showing up & not embarrassing itself on the carpet.

First off, the whole game does not encourage team-building or group strategy, one of the few things that I think 4E actually does rather well. 3E nominally requires group dynamics to compete against level-appropriate challenges, but the whole character generation & advancement process is centered around personal power acquisition, encouraging single-player builds that don't factor in anything remotely resembling teamwork. This would be fine in a videogame (even an MMO, where this philosophy would lead to some interesting & dynamic PvP gameplay), but in a collaborative tabletop RPG, it's counterintuitive & counterproductive.

Also, as much as I love skill based systems, this one has some glaring faults. The classes have varying amounts of skill points available to them. Now this wouldn't be a problem, except that almost every class gets far too few of them. It's as if the designers were afraid of breaking the game by being too generous with skill points, & overcompensated. In their stinginess, they nearly shut some classes out of the skill system altogether, which is just no fun. Not to mention that the cross-class system made things more complicated, & meant that most classes were pigeonholed into certain roles without being able to make interesting characters via skills. Most importantly, not all skills are created equal. Some skills allow players to do almost nothing interesting with them (Appraise or Forgery), whereas other skills are able to break the game with only modest investment (Diplomacy or Tumble). To be fair, most skills are fairly balanced, especially those that oppose one another (Bluff/Sense Motive, Hide/Spot, or Listen/Move Silently). But with Diplomacy, you can easily make the whole world love you, negating most plausible challenges without effort. And with Tumble, you can easily avoid most Attacks of Opportunity, which is an integral part of the combat system. Which brings me to...

Attacks of Opportunity. Good god, are they a headache. They kinda made sense when the game first came out, but they haven't aged well. Understanding when you can use an AoO & when you can't requires an investment of time, & unlike the grappling system (which is even more of a headache), AoO's are an unavoidable part of the combat system. No other part of the game requires the use of a grid more than AoO's, which means an investment of more money for little benefit. And here's the thing about AoO's: they are completely unnecessary. Since the invention of immediate actions, AoO's could've been scrapped & replaced by a more elegant & simpler system in which one could make attacks as immediate actions instead of standard actions, & the game would've been much better off. Alas.

Then there are feats. Feats are cool, & we all like feats. But (& this has been pointed out before, like everything else that I've said) they didn't go far enough. Many feats are worthless, or only desirable as prerequisites for other feats or prestige classes. There just aren't enough cool feats to go around, & the inequality of feats is just obnoxious. Feats have a built-in balancing mechanism, in the form of prerequisites; free ones should be kinda weaksauce, & costly feats (those with many difficult prerequisites) should be awesomesauce. But this potential balancing mechanism is all but ignored, allowing many feats to not be worth their cost, & making others practically free. Natural Spell, Improved Initiative, & certain metamagic feats are must-haves, while a glut of feats (Toughness, Far Shot, Dodge, et al) are complete wastes of a slot, except when absolutely required.

I could go on, and on, and on, AND ON. Classes are inherently imbalanced, heavily favoring casters over melee combatants. The level adjustment system over-penalizes most non-standard race options, needlessly limiting choice. The games monetary economy (like any of its other economies) can be broken without much effort, subverting the arbitrary wealth-by-level system & encouraging powergaming & munchkinism. The entire system is bloated with too many rules, covering obscure scenarios with vastly differing mechanics, which encourages rules-lawyerism (notice a pattern?). Lots of magic items are required for gameplay, making low fantasy games difficult & creating a Christmas-tree effect, where PCs are decked to the nines with so many items that they tend to forget about half of them; this cheapens the impact of magic items as a whole. The all-powerful casters grow to little demigods very quickly, obviating many challenges with spells that give them control of not only the battlefield, but also the pace of the game itself, giving rise to a 15-minute adventuring day. The CR system for monsters is an ill-conceived joke, based mostly on wild guesses & without objective means of determining proper adjudication. Most combat maneuvers aren't truly viable without taking feats to specialize in them, meaning that most melee combat devolves into trading punches or spamming your One Special Trick, which is as boring & repetitive as chopping wood. And it goes on, and on, and on...

Most of the above points were discovered & explained before, by wiser men than I. But I've experienced just about every issue above with both systems, & any true discussion of either system requires that these things be said.

There, I contributed meaningfully, I hope. Now, I'd like to return to trolling from the sidelines, thank you. :smallbiggrin:

Akal Saris

2009-09-16, 10:17 PM

Zeta Kai

2009-09-16, 10:23 PM

The crazy thing is that even though Zeta is pretty spot-on in his critiques of both systems, they are still a lot of fun to play as long as you've got a good group of friends and make up house rules for the dumber stuff.

I don't disagree with you, but it's a shame that better-designed systems don't sell nearly as well as either. It's obnoxious that our entire gaming medium is dominated by two of the clunkiest, most broken systems imaginable. Think about how much fun we could be having if we were all playing better systems. :smallsigh:

Yahzi

2009-09-16, 11:00 PM

I don't disagree with you, but it's a shame that better-designed systems don't sell nearly as well as either. It's obnoxious that our entire gaming medium is dominated by two of the clunkiest, most broken systems imaginable. Think about how much fun we could be having if we were all playing better systems. :smallsigh:
You know, I feel exactly the same way about Microsoft Windows. :smallbiggrin:

Zeta Kai

2009-09-17, 10:53 PM

You know, I feel exactly the same way about Microsoft Windows. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah. In a perfect world, Windows would be like AOL, & everyone would be using some Linux/Unix derivative. Alas.

Back on topic, I'm surprised & impressed that this subject isn't attracting the same level of vitriol & ire that it has garnered in the (recent) past. I conjecture that everyone has either...

A) Calmed down, realized that edition wars are futile, & are content to just enjoy their own games, or...
B) Is still fuming, but are afraid of getting an infraction for expressing their true opinions.

If I had to pin it down, I'd say that the truth is a little of both, which is a good sign, I guess. Some progress is better than none.

AgentPaper

2009-09-17, 11:02 PM

My theory, which applies both to DnD and Windows, is that it's not so much that the systems are flawed, but rather that because they're widely used, they get a lot more attention given to their flaws, and those flaws affect many more people, so you see them come up much more often. My bet is that, if everyone suddenly switched over to, say, Gurps or Exalted as a main system, the flaws in those systems (and don't pretend they aren't there) would be complained about just as much as the flaws in DnD are right now. Basically, DnD doesn't have more flaws than other systems, they just have better known ones.

FoE

2009-09-17, 11:05 PM

{Scrubbed}

Gorgondantess

2009-09-17, 11:06 PM

4th ed:

more streamlined rules, less swingy power between class. and honestly that "less focused on other stuff" is gorgon **** since the focus relies entirely on the group. if the group wants intrigue and diplomacy, the game supports it just fine. i know i've had sessions where we didn't roll the dice.

different options, different game. see my sig for a free test

It's Gorgondantess. Say it with me. Gorgondantess. Not Gorgon****, though I can see why you might think that.
...Wait. Were you people talking about something?:smallwink:

Mando Knight

2009-09-17, 11:07 PM

My theory, which applies both to DnD and Windows, is that it's not so much that the systems are flawed, but rather that because they're widely used, they get a lot more attention given to their flaws, and those flaws affect many more people, so you see them come up much more often.

Yep. Pretty much. My response to the Mac ads' trumpeting their lack of viruses and such is "Yeah. Because nobody cares."

Crow

2009-09-17, 11:50 PM

Mando Knight

2009-09-17, 11:55 PM

Zeta Kai's mention of the grappling system of 3.5 made me wonder; Has anybody used grappling in 4e? Our group played it for a while and I don't remember a single grapple occuring. It always seemed more beneficial to just use a power or something.

I haven't used it, but an Assault Swordmage who needed to immobilize a target in a pinch probably would. The main thing with grappling is that you need a free hand, which most melee characters won't have unless they're Swordmages or Monks.

Kylarra

2009-09-18, 12:00 AM

Zeta Kai's mention of the grappling system of 3.5 made me wonder; Has anybody used grappling in 4e? Our group played it for a while and I don't remember a single grapple occuring. It always seemed more beneficial to just use a power or something.I have. It wasn't terribly useful TBH. Even with the massive penalty through my druid's latch-on power, it seemed like I could never hold them down for more than a turn.

The New Bruceski

2009-09-18, 12:10 AM

Kurald Galain

2009-09-18, 02:44 AM

Zeta Kai's mention of the grappling system of 3.5 made me wonder; Has anybody used grappling in 4e?
We've considered it a few times, and then realized that it's almost always pointless. Grabs don't do all that much since you can't actually keep people from attacking that way, and it's generally easy for them to escape.

Pika...

2009-09-18, 02:50 AM

{Scrubbed}

Ashtagon

2009-09-18, 04:01 AM

Edit: I'd also like to mention that, in 3.5, the cleric, the druid, and the wizard all use the same exact caster system, and yet nobody calls them out on being clones of being generic clones with minuscule differences.

Actually, that has been one of my pet peeves about the game ever since 2E and the splatbooks that attempted to tone down the martial side of being a cleric. Druid not so much, since their wildshape and class features do distinguish them (they are merely overpowered), but cleric to me has never really had a proper niche when he isn't playing healbot (which is not fun for the player).

The criticisms of 4e that (to me; highly subjective) seem valid are:

* Everyone is a caster. Since every class uses basically the exact same mechanics, there is a certain feel of sameness involved, even if the actual powers are different in the specifics.
* With some of the "martial" abilities, it's hard to see how the actual ability comes from actual mundane skill and training, even at the heroic tier. Essentially, they are fluffed as martial, but the rules make it feel magical, especially in the resource management limitations. Bruce Lee never felt constrained not to attempt his blue dragon flying backwards kick more than once a day, after all.
* The skill challenge system is broken. I don't have the link handy, but I read a convincing explanation. It's not just in the maths either; the very concept of needing X successes before Y failures leads to odd situations (such as failing to find a hidden door makes it harder to climb over the wall).

ymmv

AgentPaper

2009-09-18, 04:27 AM

While only being able to pull off a really cool martial abilty once per day is a bit hard to swallow for many, it does make at least a little sense if you take it that "1/day" actually means "You only get the chance to pull something like this off once a day, tops". It's just an abstraction. (albeit a rather major one)

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of homebrew system where, instead of martial abilities being X/day or X/encounter, instead you rolled a d6 for each ability to determine if you have an opportunity to use that power this turn or not. For example, you might need to roll a 6 to use a daily power, 4-6 to use an encounter power, or 3-6 for a reliable encounter power. Someone would have to do some math to figure out what % chance each ability should have, though.

Anyways, it's just a rough idea I want to throw out there, because the way 4E is constructed lends a lot towards customization, both in fluff and mechanics, and it'd be a shame to not take advantage of that.

Thurbane

2009-09-18, 04:31 AM

Totally Guy

2009-09-18, 04:38 AM

My theory, which applies both to DnD and Windows, is that it's not so much that the systems are flawed, but rather that because they're widely used,

Spot on.

The systems are so well known that it makes them attractive to learn. If I picked one RPG and wanted to communicate with as many RPG players as possible to help me find a group it would be a D&D system I'd pick.

It's like choosing a second language. The more people that speak it the better it is. So lots of people choose English because many people speak english.

It's like Xykon says "Power equal power" except in this case it's popular. Popular because it's popular.

Kurald Galain

2009-09-18, 05:08 AM

* With some of the "martial" abilities, it's hard to see how the actual ability comes from actual mundane skill and training, even at the heroic tier. Essentially, they are fluffed as martial, but the rules make it feel magical, especially in the resource management limitations.
Good point.

A good example is the heroic fighter power, Come And Get It. It automatically makes a group of enemies move forward to engage you in melee, no save. It doesn't matter if the enemies are full-of-bravado orcs, or cowardly kobold archers, or mindless skeletons.

* The skill challenge system is broken. I don't have the link handy, but I read a convincing explanation.
Here, and scroll down (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05d.html) (note that SCs have been errata'ed, but that the errata doesn't fix most of those issues). Overall, that series of posts gives a good analysis of 4E and the MST3K mantra ("it's only a game, don't think about it too heavily"), e.g. when martial skill (fighter mark) automatically dispels a divine compulsion (paladin mark).

Angelmaker

2009-09-18, 05:13 AM

* With some of the "martial" abilities, it's hard to see how the actual ability comes from actual mundane skill and training, even at the heroic tier. Essentially, they are fluffed as martial, but the rules make it feel magical, especially in the resource management limitations. Bruce Lee never felt constrained not to attempt his blue dragon flying backwards kick more than once a day, after all.

Still, Bruce Lee´s arm wouldn´t have mended within a day because the rules give you full health points and healing surges after a day of Rest, now, does it?

For me D&D 4th is a fun resource management game that relies heavily on team/party tactics to do small scale stategical table-top like warfare. The rules that are involved are pretty clean and make it fun to play, even with usually not heavily into RP-Games involved friends.

Still, if I´d like to play something which has some more feeling into it, I prefer every other system than D&D 4. As soon as the battlemap gets involved, Roleplaying time is over and the plain "I do move X, then shift there and end my turn"-announcements take over. I haven´t found any other way of handling this, it´s simply not doable.

Yora

2009-09-18, 05:14 AM

Think about how much fun we could be having if we were all playing better systems. :smallsigh:
Like...?

I've heard so many complains that D&D is bad and stuff, and other games are WAAAY better. But nobody EVER could tell me any reason why any other game would be better.

Orzel

2009-09-18, 05:25 AM

To me the 2 editions are totally different because of different goals.

In 3.5, the important part is fighters use weapons, rogues uses skills and stab, and wizards cast spells. The fluff determines the mechanics.

In 4e, the important part is fighters defend via damage, rogues kill people, and wizards screw up lives. The mechanics determine which fluff makes sense.

Serpentine

2009-09-18, 05:26 AM

From what I understand about them both (disclaimer: the extent of my experience with 4e is skimming through the books, creating a character, and listening to my friends) is thusly:
4e is simpler, easier, faster to prepare and more streamlined. I can see why many people would prefer it, but it doesn't particularly appeal to me. Though there are some good ideas I tend to nick...
3.5e is more complicated, has more options, is more readily adapted, altered and added to (e.g. if you find a flaw in 3.5, like an overpowered spell or underpowered feat, it's easy enough to houserule, whereas (from my understanding), flaws in 4e would require a whole overhaul to overcome), and - in my opinion - more interesting and stimulating.

Incidentally: My Local Hobby Store Guy told me that when 4e first came out, all his customers loved it. Now, noone likes it.

lesser_minion

2009-09-18, 05:34 AM

They are both interesting systems to play.

4e has made a lot of changes - some of them are quite good ideas.

The fix to the 15-minute workday actually creates the ideal situation, IMHO. "Flow control" effects are now basically non-existent, which means that players are not guaranteed the ability to retreat and rest after a fight. At the same time, all characters now eventually burn out if they have to fight their way through seven hundred legions of the BBEG's elite shock troops, which scores a point for verisimilitude.

At the same time, 4e gives players a very restrictive system, and I personally think that it prioritises class balance way too much for something that doesn't necessarily have any merit.

The designers' notes and excerpts actually gave me the impression that the game would be very different to how it actually turned out.

Verisimilitude isn't always a selling point either - the powers are given as "fluff-neutral", but no effort is actually made to make them reasonable - just "cool" and "balanced".

A good example of this is the 1st-level rogue daily Blinding Barrage - I don't have a problem with it only being usable once per day, but it does shoot verisimilitude in the face somewhere around the point where I've learned to shoot eight people with a crossbow in three seconds.

Samurai Jill

2009-09-18, 05:46 AM

My theory, which applies both to DnD and Windows, is that it's not so much that the systems are flawed, but rather that because they're widely used, they get a lot more attention given to their flaws...
Nope, they suck. Honest. Same with C++ and English. They suck because they grew by a steady accumulation of features without much thought being given to elegance or cohesion. It's the result of a greedy algorithm in action: a sequence of locally rational decisions that nonetheless amount to collective lunacy. ...Though I actually rather like 4E. No, it doesn't make sense, but neither do classes, levels, HP and XP in the first place.

Seriously, whose bright idea was it to rate attributes between 3 and 18, subtract 10, and then halve the result, rounding down? What's wrong with just picking the modifiers!?

Kurald Galain

2009-09-18, 05:59 AM

Seriously, whose bright idea was it to rate attributes between 3 and 18, subtract 10, and then halve the result, rounding down? What's wrong with just picking the modifiers!?

Backwards compatibility.

It has been a mandatory design principle for 3E, 4E, d20 modern and Alternity that, regardless of what else they change, there must be six ability scores and those must have an initial range of 3-18. Apparently, this mechanic is what defines a system as "being D&D".

Note that 2E actually makes exceptions to this: Skills & Powers essentially uses 12 attributes, not six; and separate scores for Perception and Comeliness used to be common (albeit houseruled).

lesser_minion

2009-09-18, 06:19 AM

Well, I think C++ is fine, but I'm not really qualified to argue the point (and I actually prefer Pascal).

As for Windows - Microsoft seem to have finally figured out that their operating systems are about five times larger than they should be. Windows 7 looks like a pretty massive improvement on Vista (although XFCE now has all of the shiny new user interface features that Windows 7 promises).

Hitpoints are more reasonable than you might think as well. They're actually a slightly more random way of assuming that the number of times a particular hit 'kills' a character follows a Poisson distribution, averaging, and assuming that a character dies when they are killed.

They aren't perfect (the model isn't 100% appropriate, for a start), but they can make a decent compromise between fairness and verisimilitude.

Eldan

2009-09-18, 06:53 AM

Seriously, whose bright idea was it to rate attributes between 3 and 18, subtract 10, and then halve the result, rounding down? What's wrong with just picking the modifiers!?

It's seen from a statistical viewpoint, basically... when rolling 3d6 for stats, 10.5, i.e. the midpoint between ten and eleven is the average, so it has a modifier of 0.
Not saying it's a great idea, though.

Nightson

2009-09-18, 07:06 AM

Well, I'm a partisan, I much prefer 4e to 3.5, primarily from the DM perspective. From a player perspective, while I prefer 4e it doesn't matter as much to me.

So in no particular order, the places I feel 4e performs better then 3.5

-There is an accurate system in place for estimating the difficulty of monsters. 3.5 CR is not of a lot of use. Individual monsters vary wildly in power with identical CRs, and the system offers almost zero help in determining the combined CR of different level monsters. The 4e XP mechanic provides an accurate estimation of the difficulty level of a monster and the encounter budget provides a good estimation of challenge to the group (the estimate will likely diverge after time based on the tactical skill and optimization of your group)

-Custom monsters. Basically, 3.5 has a system for generating monsters. 4e has mechanical benchmarks for monster levels. It's a much more organic and easier way of creating balanced monsters. I have designed monsters in the space of ten minutes, which were fun, functional and balanced. I simply cannot do that in 3.5. I might be able to if I reworked the CR system, reassigned all the monster CRs, and worked out a range for all of the monster traits. Or I might be able to do it that fast if I DM'd 3.5 for years, but in 4e you can do it out of the box.

-Balance. Balance does not feel artificial to me, balance feels natural. Balance leads to more fun all around. Balance can be a straitjacket, I have seen people who insist that deviating a gold piece for the treasure guidelines destroys balance. 4e is very transparent, it tells you what assumptions the system was set up with. Some DMs take this to mean that they must never mess with those assumptions ever, but that's 100% the wrong way to look at it. 4e gives you transparent assumptions which means you can modify the game easier because you aren't running afoul of hidden assumptions in the game system.

-Interesting combats. It's simply a lot easier to make interesting combats in 4e. There are certainly pitfalls that need to be avoided, the system is not perfect, but I find ti is far more enjoyable. The combats tend to have more tactical variety and depth.

-Alignment. They got rid of the mechanical effects. This is an amazingly nice thing to me, I know there are people who miss it.

-Magic got nerfed. Magic in 3.5 was powerful, not just in a balance between characters sort of way, but in a way that created a logical inconsistency between the extreme power of high level magic users and their overall low effect on the world. Magic is no longer the solution to every problem. I mean truthfully, you could take high level spell casters in 3.5, remove the rest of the game, and have a passable Exalted like system.

And this is probably the biggest thing and the most subjective of them all. In 3.5 I felt constrained by the rules. I found the rules often violated common sense, the rules were easily gamed, half the time I felt I was fighting the system not running the system. With 4e I don't feel that. I feel like the 4e rules are trying to help me run a fun game, and I think they work quite well to do that.

And sure, 3.5 has points in it's favor too, otherwise the edition war would have ended pretty quickly.

Deme

2009-09-18, 08:02 AM

Last_resort_33

2009-09-18, 08:15 AM

Hitpoints are more reasonable than you might think as well. They're actually a slightly more random way of assuming that the number of times a particular hit 'kills' a character follows a Poisson distribution, averaging, and assuming that a character dies when they are killed.

Nice!

I agree that 4th feels very samey and bland... When comparing it to languages, I would say that 3.x is more like English, overly complicated, difficult to learn properly, but very, very expressive and potetic. 4e is like Esperanto, it seems like a good idea, and it's easy to learn, but the design is more "functional", which lacks feeling, colour and expression.

Essentially, I played 4e, and the system felt bland. Although 'technically' you can express the same gameplay forms in both systems, it's a lot more difficult to feel your character as being individual.

I also would make the comparison to music. A violin is a difficult instrument to play, but the player appears to be doing nothing more than converting the music on the paper into sounds. Midi can do exactly the same, and any idiot given the sheet music could program it into a computer and select the violin voice. They both have the ability to do the same thing, one is much more difficult than the other, but I'd sure as hell rather listen to the violinist. 4e feels like programmed midi to me. Too perfect.

Totally Guy

2009-09-18, 08:50 AM

Essentially, I played 4e, and the system felt bland. Although 'technically' you can express the same gameplay forms in both systems, it's a lot more difficult to feel your character as being individual.

But I thought we were having fun.:smallfrown:

:smallwink: This next system I've been learning is the antithesis of your 4th edition complaints. Problem is all the learning involved.

Aotrs Commander

2009-09-18, 09:52 AM

First thing about 3.5 to 4E is argueably that the latter is less of a new edition of the former, and more a totally different game. There's more difference between 3.5 and 4E than in any of the previous editions (mainly because 4E redesigned the basic concepts of what the prior games had maintained for their inception.) They really are different games, in the same way Warhammer 1st edition and Rolemaster are different games, despite both using percentiles and a D100 for mechanics. (Okay, the difference is perhaps not quite that extreme, but there are more differences than similarities.)

My experience with 4E is that, while mechanically functional, it is too gamist and not simulationist enough for my taste. Granted, 3.5 is not hugely simulationist either, but it at least has made an attempt to model the world, rather than just model the mechanics.

As a DM, I won't touch 4E with a bargepole. Not ever. I simply found it utterly unusable (to me), being too gamist and flat. When I'm DMing, things have to be RIGHT and 4E's MST3K-ing of world mechanics simply rubs me raw. As a player, I can simply sey my expectations to minimum (same as with, say HeroQuest or Dungeoneer), but not when DMing.

I also dislike that 4E took out some of the elements that in 3.5 I thought were the most clever ideas; sufficently clever I exported them to other systems. 3.5's multiclassing, for example, I think, is one of it's best points; as is monsters and character being built of the same platform (which 4E explicitly doesn't do.)

4E does have some good ideas, but then very few sets of rules don't have one or two that can't be pinched. FATAL, maybe.

I find 3.5 to be the most mechanically superior set of rules I've read (for a roleplaying game...). What some people struggle with (AoOs, grappling) we take in stride without so much as blink these days.

(Also, I had to chuckle at this:

3rd is a foray into accounting and spreadsheets dressed up an RPG
as oxybe has apparently never played Rolemaster...Which was my system of choice pre 3.x.)

Not to say 3.5 doesn't have flaws. (Gaping flaws at that.) However, show me a system that doesn't have flaws, and I'll call you a liar. Zeta Kai covered them in detail earlier, so I won't re-iterate them.

(By the by, my impression of Pathfinder is also not great; I don't think they adressed the flaws correctly, though again, they had some truly excellent ideas.)

So what I play now is a heavily modifed 3.5, drawing elements from Pathfinder and a few high-end concepts from 4E, plus numerous house-rules. (So it basically resembles our version of Rolemaster, or indeed any other system, wargames or roleplaying, that our groups have ever used over the past nearly twenty years.) As I tend to run big, long campaigns written up in advance, so testing out my house-rules can take a while, but by this point, I think I've addressed, suitable to my style of play (which is decidely not similar to the original 3.5 Core's style) those flaws in a reasonable fashion.

All you can do with 4E is examine it, and give it at least a fair shake in practise in the odd session; then you can make your mind up whether you think it is better, worse or merely different.

Indon

2009-09-18, 09:58 AM

4th edition presents a more balanced combat experience than 3rd edition does.

The game can indeed potentially be dominated by combat, if only because combat can potentially take quite some time, depending on your group composition. I agree with the sentiment that it's very miniature-wargamey in combat; combat has a very strong tactical element in that regard. Another thing you see a lot of is various degrees of lockdown on the part of the players.

What 4th edition is, is more rules-oriented than 3rd edition. The game is more precisely designed and not meant to be tinkered with (not that it can't be). But if you go into the game with a strong homebrew mindset, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

The downside to that is, if you homebrew 4E extensively, you basically lose the system's major benefit over previous editions of D&D - that it's better balanced.

There are a couple things 4E homebrews seamlessly, though - for instance you can easily abstract magic items out by granting characters additional static bonuses, and maybe a bonus encounter or daily power.

On powers:

The only real similarities are that they're level 1 encounter attacks that target Reflex, deal damage, and knock the target(s) prone.

There's not much more to those powers than that. Most powers, in fact, are pretty simple.

They have a <Stat> vs. <Defense> attack, they do <Secondary Effect> to <Secondary Target>. Encounter and Daily powers can have more effects, or just more powerful ones. Most of the time spent in 4ed combat is spent tracking power secondary effects, not because they are complex but because everyone has them.

Powers are extremely modular, the function of a system that uses the interaction between a wide variety of simple mechanics in order to produce diverse effects in total.

This means, of course, that the differences between abilities tend to be similarly simple. Two powers might require a different type of armament (weapon vs. implement) or have a different aiming system (close burst vs. area burst), or use a different stat or target a different defense - but ultimately, all those things are individually pretty minor things.

When you have a system that tries to distinguish players through preponderance of minor differences, it's understandable that you can get a certain aura of... vanillaness, to them.

As such, the power system is one of the more wargamey features of 4th edition.

oxybe

2009-09-18, 10:03 AM

verisimilitude is in the central eye of the beholder.

one should remember that D&D is the game where the elven princess Starshimmer, riding her unicorn, battles the tentacle poop-monster with magical rainbows is a very plausible scenario.

for me, magic in previous editions strained my suspension of disbelief since it seemed that no caster could learn their basic spells and use them all day long... not until classes like the warlock or the reserve feats were i able to be a "real" spellcaster, at least IMO. I mean, you study for years these ancient arts and once you gain your first PC level, all you are is a glorified commoner with a crossbow. then, five months later you're somehow exploding the world in twain because it's somehow easier to pick the theory & knowlege up as you go. instead of studying it and practicing it every day (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html).

so did i do until then? i MST3K'd it and stopped worrying about the finer details. after all, unicorns and poop monsters and whatnot.

when 4th ed came around and i saw daily martial powers, it wasn't straining anything. i mean, the 3rd ed barbarian could only become angry X times per day and some reason a cleric of pelor (who kinda dislikes undead) can only turn undead a Y amount per day.

i had long stopped the line of thinking that martial=mundane. martial characters, to me, are non-magical people able to do things that defy our perception of what is possible, be it through training, experience, natural ability or a mix of all 3.

EDIT: i've never played rolemaster, but from what i heard the madness it leads to is approximately three steps below "My Neighbor Cuthoro (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a356/The_Daemon/cthulhu_totoro.jpg)"

Indon

2009-09-18, 10:17 AM

Don't knock magical rainbows. They represent some of the more powerful spells in D&D's history.

oxybe

2009-09-18, 10:41 AM

well yeah.

why else would the CG elven sorceress be using the prismatic line of spells against the otyugh?

theTroll

2009-09-18, 10:51 AM

What I always find amusing is the idea of "balance". What does balance mean? Well most people think it means that in a fight everyone does about the same amount of damage. But is that really what it means?

My view of balance is that in a good game that everyone has a good role to play. In a dungeon crawl, yeah, I guess balance would come down to damage dealt. But I idea of a good game is not just a dungeon crawl.

A rouge used properly can help avoid combats that serve no real purpose. A caster is more then just as damage dealer.

The whole 15 minute day is absurd also. Why would a DM allow a party to get away with it? Yes, a high level caster can often slaughter a bunch of bad guys in a very short amount of time by using up their spells for the day. But why would they do that? A caster is good at slowing down and softening up the hordes so the melee types can do their thing.

The problem is that often players think they have to be the "best". What is best? If I have a caster and they don't have to cast a spell in an encounter I think that is a good thing for the party because that leaves more available power for the next encounter. I will shoot my light cross bow and be happy doing it.

I am not a fan of 4E because it forces this idea of "balance" when there is really no such of thing.

theTroll

Oracle_Hunter

2009-09-18, 11:05 AM

4e vs 3.5 is extremely controversial. My group do not like 4e for a number of reasons, but you might like it for those same reasons.

The only way to know if 4e is for you is to try it. Borrow the core books from the local library.
Your local library stocks RPG books? :smallconfused:

Anyhoo, there isn't much more to add - obviously disregard any post that tries to sum up the games in a single sentence; both RPGs are sufficiently robust that to adequately compare them requires at least a paragraph, if not a short essay.

I will note that the weak points of 4E are in Skill Challenges, Rituals, and Passive Perception - but they are relatively easy to fix.
Running a Skill Challenge is an art, rather than a science; I have yet to see a good guide to running one, but I probably could write one if need be. In any case, it is a mechanic you can take or leave - unlike, say, broken classes, there is no need to "ban" anything if you don't like them.

Rituals are designed to be used by higher level characters than their listed level; they are not like TSR D&D spells. The PHB II Classes found a way to make Rituals both more useful and flavored by giving certain Classes "free" usage of certain Rituals 1/Day. You can house-rule this on the PHB I Ritualists by picking an appropriately flavorful Ritual for each of them to use 1/Day; I use Gentle Repose for Clerics and Tenser's Floating Disk for Wizards.

Passive Perception has poorly defined limits and, if played by RAW, a Perception Maxer can bring back the auto-success/auto-fail issues you saw in 3E Fixed DC situations. I fixed this by creating an additional set of modifiers for Passive Perception only to better define the level of detail a Passive score can reveal. This lets you use traps and secret doors again without overly penalizing the Perception Maxer. Passive Insight remains an issue, but a lesser one.
Aside from these, most other statements are purely matters of personal preference. Are powers distinct enough? Do all classes play the same? Personally, I've never met someone who actually held these beliefs, but the Internet suggests they are out there; you just need to give it a shot to see for yourself.

Also: make sure you read the Errata (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates) before you start, and have some tolerance for the learning curve. Every RPG takes some getting used to before it can shine; 4E is no different in this respect.

EDIT:
@theTroll - Balance is not having a class feature stronger than a 1st level PC of a different class :smalltongue:

Zeta Kai's mention of the grappling system of 3.5 made me wonder; Has anybody used grappling in 4e? Our group played it for a while and I don't remember a single grapple occuring. It always seemed more beneficial to just use a power or something.
Actually, I tried to use the Grab & Drag power to haul someone out of the way, but it was too hard to use. With Improved Grab, it would have been a lot easier; +4 is a nice modifier to have :smallbiggrin:

Mando Knight

2009-09-18, 11:10 AM

On powers:

There's not much more to those powers than that. Most powers, in fact, are pretty simple.

They have a <Stat> vs. <Defense> attack, they do <Secondary Effect> to <Secondary Target>. Encounter and Daily powers can have more effects, or just more powerful ones. Most of the time spent in 4ed combat is spent tracking power secondary effects, not because they are complex but because everyone has them.

Powers are extremely modular, the function of a system that uses the interaction between a wide variety of simple mechanics in order to produce diverse effects in total.

This means, of course, that the differences between abilities tend to be similarly simple. Two powers might require a different type of armament (weapon vs. implement) or have a different aiming system (close burst vs. area burst), or use a different stat or target a different defense - but ultimately, all those things are individually pretty minor things.

When you have a system that tries to distinguish players through preponderance of minor differences, it's understandable that you can get a certain aura of... vanillaness, to them.

As such, the power system is one of the more wargamey features of 4th edition.

It's only vanilla if you look on the outside. After all, even in 3.5 a full attack and a fireball are both simply a means of directly decreasing your opponent's HP. One does it with a ranged sphere that deals a number of dice of elemental damage, and the other does it with a large number of melee attacks that each deal damage equal to a few dice and some static modifiers. The only real difference between 3.5 and 4e in this regard is that melee characters get access to similar options of secondary effects as casters do in 4e, while melee characters have a severely limited set of abilities compared to the casters' do-anything spells in 3.5.

In practice, the powers are wildly different. A spot where Icy Terrain would be perfect might not be a good spot to use Shield Bash. Circumstances make up a large part of combat and can't be ignored when comparing things. Otherwise, we'd never build fortresses or trenches, the English would have lost the battle of Agincourt, Germany could have swept through Russia, and so forth.

EDIT:
@theTroll - Balance is not having a class feature stronger than a 1st level PC of a different class :smalltongue:
For example, Druids. Oh, look. At first level, one of their class features is access to a loyal ally who is approximately as effective as a level 1 Fighter. It's like having Leadership early. And being able to take normal Leadership in addition to it.

kentma57

2009-09-18, 11:12 AM

{Scrubbed. Please read my earlier post about the doomsaying and flame-inviting, which is to say - don't. ~Sheriff}

Sipex

2009-09-18, 11:21 AM

Meh, they both have pros and cons, neither is better, etc, etc.

I play 4e mainly because those are the books I was given to play with so play I will. I'll outline, from my DM point of view the pros and cons of the game.

One thing I`d like to emphasize is the pros and cons of any system can always be solved by common sense and creativity.

Pros:

1) Balance
The balance is great, it's hard to overwhelm your party if you know what you're doing (or if you follow the guide lines) and it's hard for them to truly break the game.

2) Easy to learn
Honestly, compare 4e to 3.5 and it's very apparent that the system is so much easier to learn. Each class uses the same base rules which means less complexity for new players.

3) Everyone can contribute
In every situation each party member has a chance to contribute somehow. No longer do your skill monkies conquer trap challenges alone or does the bard take full responsibility as the party face. Each class is designed to give you access to a few skills to start (although rogues and bards still get access to more) and chances are you'll have at least two you're the best at.
Powers also add to this as now your character always has some cool moves they can pull of during combat.

4) The game is made as a game
You know it's a game, yes you roleplay but it doesn't focus so much on the realistic that it becomes frustrating. Healing only takes one night, healing surges allow you to continue adventuring (and help eliminate 15 minute days), powers give you a variety of ways to feel useful and the battle grid allows for advanced tactics.

Cons:

1) The rules make you feel like you're not supposed to deviate from them
Don't deviate from treasure (which the guidelines are very stingy on), don't deviate from encounter difficulty, don't deviate from skill challenges, the party must consist of these classes, you can`t do that without the appropriate power, etc.
This is the wrong way to look at things and if you have a bad DM (or a new one) you'll find your game gets blocky and boring. Hopefully if you have a new DM they'll learn that the rules are simply guidelines, not rules.

2) Many modules make the game seem combat focused
Many of the pre-made modules (ie: Keep on the Shadowfell) make the game feel like it`s heavily combat focused with encounter after encounter when this isn`t the case. Yes, there are lots of rules for combat made up but that doesn`t mean the game has to be based on combat. I`ve run a few sessions where no combat has taken place at all and we`ve focused on social and skill situations. Heck, I`ve run a 6 hour session (long for our group) where I was sure there would be combat at the end but the PCs instead negotiated their way through the combat instead.

3) Combat can take a long time for such few rounds
Since everyone has powers combat can take a long time to run and players (even combat savvy ones) get bored. I`ve found ways to help solve this though.
- Use a 1 minute timer, I use an hourglass from scattergories (sp?). On a players turn they have exactly 1 minute to state what they are going to do for their turn. From here you don`t time how long it takes to roll and perform said actions (as long as the player doesn't dawdle). This also encourages players to pay attention during combat so they know what's going on and can plan ahead of time. Do this for the DM monsters as well.
- Get your players to know their powers...or if you're a player KNOW YOUR FRIGGEN POWERS. It's simple, make sure everyone knows what each of their powers do, a bit of leniancy goes out if it's a brand new power. Power cards help IMMENSELY here too.
- Make sure players know their base bonus for their normal basic attack. (ie: When the rogue makes a basic attack with a dagger he gets a total of...say +6 and does 1d4 +3 damage)
- Make bonus sheets for when your player makes more than a basic attack. Some classes have an absurd amount of bonuses to damage/hit/AC, not just number bonuses (+1!) but things like target is knocked prone on a critical hit. Have a sheet of these bonuses for each player so they can quickly calculate these things in.
- Bring a few calculators. Seriously this helps a ton. Bring more than one to avoid 'who has the calculator?' and make sure the DM gets a permanent one.
- Roll initiative ahead of time, like...when you start the session. This avoids the break in game flow where you have everyone figuring out init. Monster initiative should be rolled before the session even begins...if you forget, roll it while the PCs are playing other stuff.
- Use init cards. Helps keep track of initiative, damage done, if the monster is bloodied, and effects on each character.
- Have monster groups act on the same initiative. You have 3 harpies and 2 goblin warriors? The 3 harpies act on the same init and the goblins act on the same init.
- Roll monster attacks en-masse or ahead of time...or both. That way you're not rolling (monster attacks you, hits, roll damage, here you go...next monster)

4) The game is made as a game
This is also a con, yes. You don't get the measure of immersion some other systems might give you. You'll find a party of level 1 PCs starts out at a combat level where they're assumed to already be 'smarter than the average bear' so maybe they can already take on a young dragon (which will make the fight seem a tad less epic) or maybe death doesn't seem as threatening.

...

There's more but I'm lazy now

Oracle_Hunter

2009-09-18, 11:24 AM

Hey, that's an unfair criticism. I didn't just say martial = mundane. What I said was martial + low-level (ie. heroic tier) = non-magical effects. At some point, I want to be able to make a low-level non-magical hero, and not worry about the fact that I might accidentally pick up magical powers for him. 4e fails that.
Not particularly - I can make a LV 10 Fighter without any "magical" abilities.

Just like any good warrior, he can push people around, keep them from running away, and knock them off their guard.

I'll throw the build up if you'd like - it's not particularly hard to do, even using just Core.

Mando Knight

2009-09-18, 11:31 AM

Hey, that's an unfair criticism. I didn't just say martial = mundane. What I said was martial + low-level (ie. heroic tier) = non-magical effects. At some point, I want to be able to make a low-level non-magical hero, and not worry about the fact that I might accidentally pick up magical powers for him. 4e fails that.

Generally, that's not going to happen in 4e because of its assumption as to what the Martial power source entails: being so badass (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadAssNormal)as to do things (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower) by swinging a stick around that others can only do by the grace of their god. If a martial character does something that seems magical that doesn't have to do with the powers of their equipment, it's because they're just that awesome.

Artanis

2009-09-18, 11:34 AM

A big problem with debates like this is that many people like aspects of 4e for the very reasons that make other people hate it:

Some people like 4e because the characters are closer to each other in terms of effectiveness and usefulness. Some people dislike 4e because they dislike being forcibly balanced.

Some people like 4e because it openly admits that it's a game, and presents itself as such. Some people dislike 4e because it's less simulationist.

Some people like 4e because casters are not inherently stronger than non-casters. Some people dislike 4e for the exact same reason.

Some people like 4e because the rules are more streamlined. Some people dislike 4e because the rules have been simplified.

Some people like 4e because it gives a more tactical feel to combat, with a greater emphasis on teamwork. Some people dislike 4e because it almost requires a battle mat.

Some people like 4e because optimization is less necessary to designing a character. Some people dislike 4e because optimization has smaller limits on what is possible (with a couple exceptions here and there, of course).

Some people like 4e because it simplified multiclassing. Some people dislike 4e because it removed a lot of multiclassing options.

Some people like 4e because it got rid of alignment-based mechanics. Some people dislike 4e for the exact same reason.

Did I miss anything? :smallwink:

theTroll

2009-09-18, 11:46 AM

I like the older systems because your character is not the same as everyone else.

It is much like real life. If you are a typical person, you can do your job and not much else (ignoring hobbies). If your car breaks down you call a mechanic, if you need some meat you go to a butcher, if you pipes break you call a plumber, etc. Does this mean your job as a doctor is worthless? Don't think so.

The problem is that it seems the in 4e that everyone needs to be able to do everything to be "balanced", that in my opinion is just crazy. Let the rogue be a trapmonkey because that is what they do. Let the warrior mow people down in melee, let the wizard waggle his finger. That is what they do.

theTroll

Artanis

2009-09-18, 11:48 AM

The problem is that it seems the in 4e that everyone needs to be able to do everything to be "balanced", that in my opinion is just crazy. Let the rogue be a trapmonkey because that is what they do. Let the warrior mow people down in melee, let the wizard waggle his finger. That is what they do.

theTroll

That's...that's pretty much the case in 4e, only less blatantly so.

Good luck trying to tank with a Wizard.
Good luck trying to actually kill something with a Swordmage.
Good luck trying to heal somebody with a Rogue.
Good luck trying to keep somebody locked down and debuffed with a Ranger.

And so on.

Indon

2009-09-18, 11:51 AM

It's only vanilla if you look on the outside.
Quite the opposite - it's only vanilla if you look inside the powers - under the hood, if you will.

Under the hood, a power attack charge and a fireball spell are catastrophically different, because 3'rd ed D&D simply has little to no modularity on that level. You could concievably trade a Wizard power for a Fighter power or vice versa with little impact on the game, but such on-the-fly flexibility exists only in small scales in 3.5, because mechanics are so utterly divergent.

In practice, the powers are wildly different.
You mean, in usage. And that's one of the things that make 4th edition so much like a wargame - each of the minor details that construct a power need to be tracked because each could potentially be very tactically important. For example, two otherwise identical powers, but one with a range of "Close Burst 1" and the other with a range of "Area Burst 1 at self", can be wildly different in usage due to a single, almost entirely insignificant mechanical difference.

theTroll

2009-09-18, 11:54 AM

{scrubbed}

Kylarra

2009-09-18, 11:55 AM

That's...that's pretty much the case in 4e, only less blatantly so.

Good luck trying to tank with a Wizard.
Good luck trying to actually kill something with a Swordmage.
Good luck trying to heal somebody with a Rogue.
Good luck trying to keep somebody locked down and debuffed with a Ranger.

And so on.Well arguably 2 will happen .... eventually. :smallwink:
and being dead is locked down right? So 4 could happen.

but yes, snark aside, I do agree that they made the majority of roles pretty clearly defined, albeit with many classes having secondary tendencies.

Tiktakkat

2009-09-18, 12:32 PM

4E Bashing
. . .

3E Bashing
. . .
Most of the above points were discovered & explained before, by wiser men than I. But I've experienced just about every issue above with both systems, & any true discussion of either system requires that these things be said.

I will second this, and just add:

A lot of times the "discussions" come down to "Well 3.5 is flawed too!"
Yes, it is. That in no way eliminates the problems in 4E anymore than 4E's failure to achieve its design goals eliminates the problems in 3.5.
That means for more than a few people it will come down to a question of sticking with the broken system they already invested $2K+ in, or starting the cycle of spending $2K+ for a new, broken in other ways, system.
And I might add, except for the cost (so far), the same looks to be applying to Pathfinder.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-09-18, 12:41 PM

Yes, it is. That in no way eliminates the problems in 4E anymore than 4E's failure to achieve its design goals eliminates the problems in 3.5.

:confused:

This is new. What design goals has 4E failed to meet? Judging from the rules, 4E was designed to be Balanced, Streamlined, and Modular - and in my experience, it has done well in all three.

Kylarra

2009-09-18, 12:44 PM

seedjar

2009-09-18, 12:54 PM

I kind of feel like the whole balance concern assumes a lot about the group you play with, and has little to do with the system. Of course, the system defines the choices you can make, but from what I've read of other people's gripes, the biggest factor is self-sabotage. If you build a character in any game with the expectation that you shouldn't need help from your teammates, then you'll naturally get builds that are "unbalanced" because it's hard (maybe impossible?) to make an engaging game that's perfectly symmetrical.
Most of the groups I play with take a different approach - everyone has specialties, and they try to excel in their own area of expertise. So long as we do a little planning ahead out-of-character, no one is stepping on each other's toes. And because we're not there to steal each other's kills (at least, at the OOC level) it never becomes a pissing contest. The question of whether or not our characters are balanced never even comes up - the closest I ever got was, "Waah, why is his to-hit so much better than mine?" "Because you can bypass fights without making an attack roll." "Oh, right. That works."
As for which system is better, I couldn't say. 3.5 is the one I like more. I'm a lot more comfortable with a game that's obviously flawed, where all the pitfalls have been nicely mapped out for the past ten years, than one that advertises itself as perfect and for which there is little objective review.
~Joe

Oracle_Hunter

2009-09-18, 01:01 PM

Well one that is often cited is the christmas tree effect, which they had intended to move away from, but didn't in the end.
Well, considering that WotC still thinks Magic Items = Commodities, that was bound to happen. I doubt most people would be happy if 4E were like 2E where a Sword +1/+3 v. Lycanthropes was pretty much the best weapon imaginable :smallamused:

But more seriously, by removing/limiting stat-boosters and keeping an eye on untyped bonuses you end up with a substantial lessening of the Effect.
Remember that the "Christmas Tree Effect" refers to the necessity of characters to be loaded down with mystic paraphernalia to remain effective at higher levels. To start with, the removal of stat-boosters means that items are no longer intrinsic to your effectiveness - a 11th level 4E Wizard without a magic wand is at a disadvantage, but not out of the game; a 3E Wizard without a Headband is going to have trouble getting anyone to fail their saving throw.

Secondly, keeping a rein on untyped bonuses reduces the incentive to get lots of little bonuses from different bits of magic. Now only your Armor's bonus is going to add to your AC - not your armor, plus your shield, plus some rings.

Finally, by putting a hard limit on Daily Uses 4E makes it sub-optimal to purchase lots of little items "just in case." While the Batman build is hanging around the forum, I've yet to see anyone really get much use out of it; it's only marginally more flexible than, say, a bard. In truth, the best effects are all Dailies and if you can only use one of your half-dozen Daily item powers per day, it is probably better for you to melt it all down for residuum to enhance your armor.
That said, magic items are still very important in high-level play; the monsters are built with those pluses in mind. However, playing with less than a full complement of magic gear is less fatal in 4E than in 3E - particularly at the higher levels.

oxybe

2009-09-18, 01:01 PM

It is much like real life. If you are a typical person, you can do your job and not much else (ignoring hobbies). If your car breaks down you call a mechanic, if you need some meat you go to a butcher, if you pipes break you call a plumber, etc. Does this mean your job as a doctor is worthless? Don't think so.

and just like in real life if the doctor decides to learn how to fix his car or plumbing nothing is stopping him, and a 4th ed character can also do so.

i'm no electrician but when the dryer's knob broke off and i had to buy a new one (it broke at the base... old dryer knob+tired me= a wee bit too much turning), i unplugged the thing, popped off the cover, made note of the connections, removed the broken part, walked to the local maytag's parts department, asked for a new one & swapped it out.

i'm no mechanic, but me and my roommate had little difficulty changing the side mirror & door speaker of his dynasty. we read the manual and followed the step-by-step instructions, went to a u-pick, ripped a busted up dynasty apart, found the parts & replaced them.

i'm no repairman but i can fix most things around the house with a few nails, screws, duct tape & crazy glue. worst case scenario, i take out the tape measure, take a few measurements & go down to the Home Depot with what's broken to find the part and maybe some advice.

you'd be seriously amazed at what a "typical guy" can do by taking 20 and adding a +5 circumstance modifier due to Internet, a few right tools (actual and improvised) + Library Card. mechanics, repairmen, electricians... those are trained specialists. they are trained with a particular skillset and only called upon if their talents are absolutely needed or the "typical guy" is feeling lazy/unsure of his own skill.

now what is stopping the fighter from grabbing the training to be a trapmonkey? the player really. now, the trained fighter will probably never be as good as a trained rogue, as it doesn't come innately to the fighter (his dex is generally lower & it's not a class skill), but like all people, he has that option available to him by taking the proper training.

now that training is gained through a feat that could be used for something else, like enhancing his core fighter abilities. but it's a choice you made and you always have the option in 4th to retrain yourself.

but then again D&D characters, IMO, aren't just your "typical guy". they are very atypical in that they are the protagonists of the story. heroes or villains in the eyes of the average joe. if your pc was just a "typical guy" he wouldn't be an adventurer.

he'd be a doctor, possibly learning how to change the side mirror of his car after it got side swiped.

Tiktakkat

2009-09-18, 01:45 PM

:confused:

This is new. What design goals has 4E failed to meet? Judging from the rules, 4E was designed to be Balanced, Streamlined, and Modular - and in my experience, it has done well in all three.

Among other things:
It is far from simpler. The vast array of terms and definitions has not been reduced. At most it has been shifted to new terms and new calculations. Similarly the requirement for greater grid-based tactical ability has shifted "system mastery" requirements from character design to mini-gaming ability.
Eliminating design traps has not been achieved, with the classes requiring significant expansion of powers to provide real options for choosing different primary abilities for each class.
Magic items still have a significant impact on character power, despite assertions otherwise.
Trying to eliminate background skills then realizing they are important interactions and trying to shift them to just declarations is bad on multiple levels.

As for balance, the math behind their asserted balance is so flawed as to not even be salvageable short of a total rewrite. The save mechanism, the recharge mechanism, the skill challenge pseudo-mechanism, and particularly the encounter budget and monster types balance are all victims of this, with the last being particularly egregious. They pretty much eliminated all the flaws of the CR system at the expense of their mathematical opposites.

Streamlining would be applicable, in theory, if they had done something about their market plan. As long as they rely on the splatbook stream, streamlining will never apply for more than a month or two before the new hawtness shows up to be incorporated.

Modular is mostly true, except that since their business model inherently fails to control power creep it means that increasingly certain classes and races will be made obsolete, thus creating more design traps, and making the modular nature less useful. Not everyone is going to want to throw out old material for new just to keep up with the power curve.

So overall, 4E has indeed failed to meet virtually all of its design goals. For every problem from 3.5 they fixed, and they did indeed fix quite a few of them, they created a new problem that is just as bad, if not worse.
As such, as I noted: Yes, 3.5 is flawed/broken. So is 4E. So is Pathfinder. None excuses the flaws in any of the others, and my decision going forward will be based purely on cost. (Knowing that 3.5 henceforth costs me nothing.)

Oracle_Hunter

2009-09-18, 02:18 PM

@Tiktakkat - I guess I have to object to the metrics you are using.

Perhaps some terms need to be defined
Streamlining generally involves removing things that slow you down; in game design, I take this to mean needlessly complex mechanics and conflicting rules. Among other things, character advancement, character building, skill usage and NPC/Monster creation are examples of streamlining. Additionally, by creating a rules system that treats Terms of Art properly and one that avoids ambiguous terms in the crunch, 4E requires less argument and philosophical inquiry to actually use the system.

Balance is, of course, hard to define; for me, I'm looking for a system that does not make legitimate choices obsolete through expansion or otherwise create design traps. An example of obsolete choices in 3E is the Fighter outside of Core; an example of a design trap is HP damange in high-level 3E games. In the first case, there are plenty of splatbook classes that can serve the Fighter's ostensible function far better than the Fighter itself - if you wanted to be a Fighter, you should be a Warblade. In the second case, HP damaging effects become a losing proposition in high-level games; save or die and ability drains are far better at taking out single targets and save or suck area effects can better handle a mob.

4E deals with these issues admirably, even with splatbooks. The 1H and 2H Fighter is still a legitimate choice even with Battleragers and Tempest Fighter options in Martial Power; the Warden does not make the Fighter obsolete despite being Defenders in similar veins. Even Weapon Expertise does not make Nimble Blade obsolete - more pluses to hit are always good. The traditional design traps in 3E are put in the open in 4E - if you're going to be a Paladin, it tells you that Wisdom is important right on the first page of the class.

Modularity refers to the ability of the system to incorporate new features easily as well as reducing system mastery costs. In 3E, each spellcaster had complicated rules and spell lists; for many 'casters, the rules were unique to their class. In addition, splatbook features often clashed with core features, to the point that in order to fix the Fighter, WotC released a whole new class instead. In 4E, the power system makes it easy to slot in new class features (like Battlerager), power choices (Invigorating Powers), and game systems (Alchemy). In addition, learning to play a new class requires less specialized system knowledge - a Fighter player can pick up a Wizard with only minimal additional system learning.
With that in mind, I must say I find your response perplexing. Why shouldn't magical items have an impact on character ability? How is the recharge mechanism mathematically flawed? What power creep are you talking about?

Some of your other statements seem... off-base. I, for one, have had no trouble with the various Encounter design systems in the DMG - in fact, they are one of my favorite parts of 4E from a DM's perspective. And what exactly do you mean by your "background skills" statement? As far as I can tell, 4E doesn't contemplate skills like Craft beyond the maxim "If the outcome is important for gameplay, use DMG 42; if not, then narrate" - a maxim that saves me a lot of bookkeeping, for sure.

I certainly am not going to argue that 4E is flawless, or that it has perfectly achieved each of its design objectives; however I find it odd that anyone would consider 4E to have utterly failed to reach the objectives I've listed above - if anything, many people dislike 4E for achieving those very objectives.

Have you been having the sorts of problems you described as existing in 4E? If so, could you please elaborate on one particular example - perhaps I am missing the point.

Sinfire Titan

2009-09-18, 02:29 PM

me and my friends play 3.5, but i am curious about fourth edition. apparently 4e is more combat oriented and less focused on other stuff. but i have also heard that it is more fun cause you don't have to worry about pointless and annoying rules. please post your ideas and your view of the matter.

thanks!

{scrubbed}

Anyway, if you are looking for Simplicity alone, 4E is the better choice. 3.5, as you may be aware, is very complex. It becomes more obvious in the later supliments, but even Core has the complex portions (Grapple and Vanican casting being the two most commonly named offenders).

From what I hear though, the PH3 in 4E is going to mix things up a bit by adding a new subsystem to the stangation. I pray that this is true, as it is the only way 4E will do the 3.5 Psionic system justice.

I prefer a large amount of material to read through, and learning new things is something I enjoy. I disliked how many of the 4E classes were more or less a bunch of Photoshop edits here or there.

This is new. What design goals has 4E failed to meet? Judging from the rules, 4E was designed to be Balanced, Streamlined, and Modular - and in my experience, it has done well in all three.

Balance being the 1st one. Compared to 3.5? Yes, 4E is very balanced. Compared to itself? Hell no. It isn't even Power Creep, the base 3 books have a huge gap in power between the classes. Hell, the PH1 was broken before it was even released to the public, requiring the fastest errata WotC has ever issued to prevent it (not that it was exactly overpowered, but it did enable a specific 15th level build to solo Orcus).

Then you get into the whole Orbizard problem. And Demigod. And Beastmaster Rangers (thanks to a single Epic Destiny making them invulnerable to HP damage, Petrification, and so on).

The PH1 Wizard is actually capable of ending encounters outright thanks to the fact that Sleep can disable every enemy in a burst 2.

The other issue is actually the Streamlining and Modular nature of 4E. Modular? That means each piece is capable of being used for another purpose. That is a flat-out lie, as A) the multiclassing mechanic sucks and B) you can't shift between ranges (barring a very few powers, everyone has difficulty going from Melee to Ranged due to either Stats, equipment, or lack of power access). No class or combination of powers allows a Defender to cover the Striker role, or the Leader role, or the Controller role. The reverse applies. In other words, every class is forced into a role that they have no control over. Is there a class capable of being either a Defender or a Striker, based soley on powers? No. A Controller can be a psuedo-Defender, but it takes effort to keep the enemies in one place, especially at the lowest levels.

Oh, another couple of balance issues: Stealth and Skill Challenges in general. Stealth was given an entire revamp that nerfed it into nearly unusable mid-combat, preventing the Warlock from becoming a true Striker (prior to this, the Warlock was a very capable Striker, just under the Ranger in terms of damage). It also nerfed the Rogue.

Skill Challenges are all over the board here. I think we all know how messed up those rules are.

Indon

2009-09-18, 03:09 PM

Anyway, if you are looking for Simplicity alone, 4E is the better choice. 3.5, as you may be aware, is very complex. It becomes more obvious in the later supliments, but even Core has the complex portions (Grapple and Vanican casting being the two most commonly named offenders).
4th edition offers simple character creation - but it does not offer simplistic combat. Combat is exceedingly intricate and time-consuming, especially with a proliferation of controllers/leaders and controller/leader abilities (which my group has, so it takes us hours to run through a single encounter). This is not because characters have too many choices, though - it's because players have to remember a litany of effects on them and others. My 4th edition group uses a wide variety of props in an attempt to facilitate this, and frankly, it's still slow.

Tiktakkat

2009-09-18, 03:12 PM

@Tiktakkat - I guess I have to object to the metrics you are using.

If you like 4E more than 3.5, that is natural.

With that in mind, I must say I find your response perplexing. Why shouldn't magical items have an impact on character ability?

I did not say they should not.
What the designers of 4E said was they wanted to eliminate the "Christmas tree" effect. They did not. Certain modifiers are still required by level in 4E, and the minor incidental bonuses provided by magic items still add up, and will be a significant loss, even if you use a low/no magic option and just give generic bonuses at certain level breakpoints.
That means they failed to achieve a stated design goal of reducing magic item dependence.

How is the recharge mechanism mathematically flawed?

This is difficult to explain.
The 4E recharge mechanism is based on the presumption that, using the example the designers gave, a dragon with a breath weapon has a 40% chance of breathing each round after it first breathes. As a result, instead of using a roll of 1d4 and keeping track of what you rolled, you now roll 1d6 at the start of each turn and see if you get a 5 or 6. Unfortunately, this does not produce a similar result. Instead, it radically alters the probability of the dragon both recharging every turn and never recharging again for the duration of the encounter. As best as I can figure this is because the 4E designers confused the perceived probability from the player's point of view with a static unrevealed duration, then conflated that probability with a random chance per turn without considering the Gambler's Fallacy.
Mathematically speaking, their system is nonsense.

What power creep are you talking about?

As I have read, that is not having played the system myself, there are very quantifiable differences in certain PHB 2 classes and races that make them definitely superior to PHB 1 classes and races.
This is power creep.

Some of your other statements seem... off-base. I, for one, have had no trouble with the various Encounter design systems in the DMG - in fact, they are one of my favorite parts of 4E from a DM's perspective.

From an ease of use perspective, you are right, the Encounter Budget system is brilliant. It simplifies and codifies a gaping hole in 3.5 encounter design, specifically of accounting for multiple creatures of different CRs, while streamlining the general process.
Unfortunately . . .
It is mathematically broken because of the assumption that minions are worth one-fifth of a regular monster, elites are worth two, and solos are worth five. They are not.
Minions too often do not require a single attack to eliminate one - area effects drop them in mass quantities, and failing to identify them and wasting an encounter or daily power on them is a waste of resources.
Elites and solos while having the "proper" amount of extra hp to equal regular monsters also have greater offenses and defenses. This means they do additional damage related to the number of hits they can take, as well as being able to take more hits because they effectively negate some, amplifying the effect of their greater hp, and allowing them to do yet more damage because they last longer.
Thus, like recharge, in attempting to reduce monsters to a simple mathematical equation the designers committed a mathematical error, failing to account for the changes in average damage caused and taken when comparing monsters across levels and types.

And what exactly do you mean by your "background skills" statement? As far as I can tell, 4E doesn't contemplate skills like Craft beyond the maxim "If the outcome is important for gameplay, use DMG 42; if not, then narrate" - a maxim that saves me a lot of bookkeeping, for sure.

Exactly.
Back in the first 4E preview book, WotC made the play style insulting statement that if you were using a particular skill then you were not having the most fun playing D&D that you could. Then, lo and behold, they realized that, in fact, using that skill, or at least referring to it in some manner, was . . . essential? integral? to the overall D&D play experience.
Aside from the sheer PR stupidity of that, it demonstrates a dramatic failure to appreciate the design requirements of the game above and beyond just the mathematical requirements of the combat controller.
The simple fact, as can be confirmed from picking up an AD&D PHB or DMG, is that skills were originally handwaved off into narration. Despite this, people "demanded" a skill system. At that very point you are either hardwiring the skill system as just combat applications, in which case, for example, knowledge skills could just be a static effect of gaining levels with no die roll required, or they are, as an inescapable consequence, nothing but a bookkeeping adjunct to control narrative. The only time it becomes unbalanced is when you use the same resources for both combat resolution and narrative effects. i.e. The 3.5 skill system, where Tumbling and Craft (hamster homes) both feed from the same pool of character development points.
The "solution" to this is to absolutely separate the two. 4E did not, and so failed in their design goal in regards to improving the skill system.

I certainly am not going to argue that 4E is flawless, or that it has perfectly achieved each of its design objectives; however I find it odd that anyone would consider 4E to have utterly failed to reach the objectives I've listed above - if anything, many people dislike 4E for achieving those very objectives.

As I said, 4E functionally fixed every flaw by replacing it with a new flaw. ("Every" should be read as hyperbole there. I am not going to produce a list of every flaw, or perceived flaw, in 3.5 and equate it to both a fix and a new flaw in 4E. The effect appears on a system wide level, which should be obvious as to what I mean.)
In a sense, you have it exactly right - I dislike 4E for achieving those goals because the way they achieved them is not an improvement, it is just a sideways shift.
I do not begrudge others their decision to embrace 4E, and I am still waiting for the fixes 3.5 needs (which means kludging themself), but that is far from enough for me to learn a new game.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-09-18, 03:12 PM

Balance being the 1st one. Compared to 3.5? Yes, 4E is very balanced. Compared to itself? Hell no. It isn't even Power Creep, the base 3 books have a huge gap in power between the classes. Hell, the PH1 was broken before it was even released to the public, requiring the fastest errata WotC has ever issued to prevent it (not that it was exactly overpowered, but it did enable a specific 15th level build to solo Orcus).

Then you get into the whole Orbizard problem. And Demigod. And Beastmaster Rangers (thanks to a single Epic Destiny making them invulnerable to HP damage, Petrification, and so on).

The PH1 Wizard is actually capable of ending encounters outright thanks to the fact that Sleep can disable every enemy in a burst 2.

:confused:
What is this gap in power I keep hearing about? At worst you have the Orcus Slayer (a LV 30 Ranger that has been fixed), the Oribizard (which is only broken due to a few splatbook items), and (apparently) Beastmaster Rangers who take a specific Epic Destiny. All of those are subsets of classes, and mostly they become problematic in Epic.

The base classes, themselves, all seem to be equally valid.

Oh, another couple of balance issues: Stealth and Skill Challenges in general. Stealth was given an entire revamp that nerfed it into nearly unusable mid-combat, preventing the Warlock from becoming a true Striker (prior to this, the Warlock was a very capable Striker, just under the Ranger in terms of damage). It also nerfed the Rogue.
This, I don't understand. Stealth? A (IMHO) stupid interpretation of the pre-Errata Stealth rules let you have perpetual CA by hanging behind your meatshield; now you need to get Superior Cover or Total Concealment and then maintain Concealment/Cover to keep it up. Works fine outside of combat and inside combat? You use Flanking (and Distant Advantage), not to mention all of the other CA granting powers out there. Hell, I've made Rogues who can grant themselves CA with pretty much every power.

And if Warlocks could Strike with a +2 to hit and can't do it now, this is the first I've heard of it.

I defined Modularity above, a term which I now regret ever using. Anyhow, the idea is that 4E is easy to update, patch, and upgrade - and the system knowledge required to play a different part of the game is minimal.

Also: multi-range combat is solved with Close powers and flex powers (e.g. Ranged/Melee powers). Yes, you're not going to be the best at both without serious investment, but that is the cost of generalism.

EDIT:
@Tiktakkat - I appreciate the clarifications. I'll have to say that the math problems have not, so far, crippled the game for me - or even substantially impacted my ability to run fun games using the so-called broken features.

For the rest - well, don't believe everything you read :smallbiggrin:

Mando Knight

2009-09-18, 03:22 PM

Under the hood, a power attack charge and a fireball spell are catastrophically different, because 3'rd ed D&D simply has little to no modularity on that level. You could concievably trade a Wizard power for a Fighter power or vice versa with little impact on the game, but such on-the-fly flexibility exists only in small scales in 3.5, because mechanics are so utterly divergent.
Is this a good thing? The 3.5 level of mechanical divergence smells of jury-rigging otherwise incompatible systems into a single being. It can work, but it is much harder to keep working, and even harder to make sure each part works just as well.

The thing that the 4e designers saw (I believe... I see it) was that you have multiple ways of trying to represent the same thing. Why does a fireball deal many dice of damage and force the target to roll against a static value supplied by the spellcaster, while a fighter's full attack needs to roll many dice against a static value supplied by the defender, then deal a few dice of damage each time?

You can simplify and streamline these things by having them work with the same basics. It doesn't make them innately more or less complex, but allows for a better user interface. It's like building with LEGO bricks: you know each piece should fit together, so it doesn't matter which boxes you got the pieces from, since they're all made to be compatible.

You mean, in usage. And that's one of the things that make 4th edition so much like a wargame - each of the minor details that construct a power need to be tracked because each could potentially be very tactically important. For example, two otherwise identical powers, but one with a range of "Close Burst 1" and the other with a range of "Area Burst 1 at self", can be wildly different in usage due to a single, almost entirely insignificant mechanical difference.
Close Burst 1 is Area Burst 1 at self, or would be, if the second term would ever be used.

The main reason, I think, that 4e looks like a wargame in combat is that WotC looked at D&D and saw that even though it was a single "system," it wasn't a single system. Wargames are, since they need to be able to accommodate a large number of different units, and keep those units balanced with each other for fair competitive play. Since their development team knew how to make a balanced wargame system, and that tactical RPG combat is not extremely different from wargames anyway, they basically cribbed off of their design notes from developing their wargames.

Sinfire Titan

2009-09-18, 03:32 PM

What is this gap in power I keep hearing about? At worst you have the Orcus Slayer (a LV 30 Ranger that has been fixed), the Oribizard (which is only broken due to a few splatbook items), and (apparently) Beastmaster Rangers who take a specific Epic Destiny. All of those are subsets of classes, and mostly they become problematic in Epic.

The base classes, themselves, all seem to be equally valid.

Level 1 Daily power has use well into the Epic tier. In fact, I don't think anything is outright immune to sleep.

Level 1 strikers are dishing out 20 some-odd points of damage, compared to the Defender's 10. Their AC and HP aren't much different at those levels, so he ends up being much more powerful before level 10 (at which point his damage output increases, but his glass cannon status is confirmed).

The Orbizard was broken off the bat. Adventurer's Vault made it worse, but without it you can still force a -4 or higher penalty to someone's saves every encounter. -4 is huge in 4E. It was the Adventurer's Vault that made us see what was so powerful about the orb, despite knowing from the get-go that the Orb was the best option for a Wizard (and up until Arcane Power, Staves were obsolete).

Really, the difference is pretty glaring there.

This, I don't understand. Stealth? A (IMHO) stupid interpretation of the pre-Errata Stealth rules let you have perpetual CA by hanging behind your meatshield; now you need to get Superior Cover or Total Concealment and then maintain Concealment/Cover to keep it up. Works fine outside of combat and inside combat? You use Flanking (and Distant Advantage), not to mention all of the other CA granting powers out there. Hell, I've made Rogues who can grant themselves CA with pretty much every power.

One of the Warlock's biggest problems is that he can't get CA easily. Stealth helped him out, allowing him to be the second best striker in the game (then Martial Power came out, and it was a toss-up between the Tempest Fighter and the Ranger, but errata put the Ranger in the lead).

Also: multi-range combat is solved with Close powers and flex powers (e.g. Ranged/Melee powers). Yes, you're not going to be the best at both without serious investment, but that is the cost of generalism.

How many classes have flexible powers that allow them to use their primary stat in melee and ranged? The Ranger, and maybe the Rogue. Fighter? Nope. Stuck using basics, even with Martial Power. Paladin? Ranged powers are Cha, melee are Str (save for a very select few). Cleric? Same issue. Wizard? Wait, what? Warlock? 90% ranged. The Bard is an exception thanks to all of his powers relying on Cha (no, literally).

How many powers do you get? 17 total, minus retraining and class features. This means you are power-starved if you want to shift between the two abilities regularly and remain competent. Because the melee/Ranged versatile powers are scattered throughout the level advancement instead of being 2/level like everything else, only a handful of characters can afford it. And because so few powers are able to be used at both ranged and melee, it means you will run dry mid-combat every fight due to how long 4E combat takes.

Half of 17 is 8.5. I can blow through 8 powers easily within 2 encounters. At least one encounter/day will be a tad longer than it needs to be because all of your Dailies will be mostly gone. Even if you rest after everything, you won't have the ability to remain in the fight long because your powers get gradually weaker the longer the fight drags out (if you don't go in reverse order).

edit:

It's like building with LEGO bricks

I wish 4E was more like legos. At least then I could build using damn near everything in the book.

Roland St. Jude

2009-09-18, 03:32 PM

Tiktakkat

2009-09-18, 03:36 PM

EDIT:
@Tiktakkat - I appreciate the clarifications. I'll have to say that the math problems have not, so far, crippled the game for me - or even substantially impacted my ability to run fun games using the so-called broken features.

I understand.
And I appreciate it. If I had not done as much encounter balancing as I have in the past I probably would have overlooked it completely myself. As it was, the problem rather jumped out at me, though it took me awhile to break it down. So for me, it was there, waiting to be the same annoyance it was in 3.5.

For the rest - well, don't believe everything you read :smallbiggrin:

Well, for a bunch of them I have the word of other players whose views on game balance I trust highly. So I will not claim first hand, but I will believe it. :smallwink:

Beyond that, I managed to give up hating different modes of the hobby (CCGs, CRPGs, console games, and so forth) years ago, and likewise give up setting bigotry as well. As far as I am concerned it is more important that you (and others) are playing a game within the overall hobby than whether or not you are playing the exact version I prefer.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-18, 03:39 PM

me and my friends play 3.5, but i am curious about fourth edition. apparently 4e is more combat oriented and less focused on other stuff.Don't drink that kool-aid. Any FRPG can be as much or as little focused on combat as any other. The degree of combat focus is entirely dependent upon the participants. But that said, every version of D&D has one thing in common: Characters gain experience and advance in level by killing things.

4e has exp rewards for completing quests built into the EXP rules, so you could argue that this takes some focus away from combat. But to be completely fair the quests in almost every case have an underlying premise of combat. Take the beginning module, The Keep on the Shadowfell: There is one adventure hook which requires to players to map the Keep and return that map to an NPC in the town they started in. If they accomplish this, they gain some EXP and are paid some golds. This is a non-combat task: Go map this area. But mapping the area brings the players into contact with a great deal of hostiles, and so combat is inevitable.

but i have also heard that it is more fun cause you don't have to worry about pointless and annoying rules. please post your ideas and your view of the matter.

thanks!Meh, don't drink that kool-aid, either. Any set of rules spanning several hundred pages is going to have some which are pointless and/or annoying.

I prefer 4e because it is more internally consistent and offers far greater balance between the classes. 3.5 fails to offer players the ability to be any non casting class they choose and also be the equal in effectiveness as any full casting class. And no one in a group of peers playing a game together should be less able to impact the game in a meaningful way just because they wrote "Fighter" or "Monk" on their character record sheet rather than "Druid" or "Wizard."

Oracle_Hunter

2009-09-18, 03:42 PM

Level 1 Daily power has use well into the Epic tier. In fact, I don't think anything is outright immune to sleep.

Level 1 strikers are dishing out 20 some-odd points of damage, compared to the Defender's 10. Their AC and HP aren't much different at those levels, so he ends up being much more powerful before level 10 (at which point his damage output increases, but his glass cannon status is confirmed).

The Orbizard was broken off the bat. Adventurer's Vault made it worse, but without it you can still force a -4 or higher penalty to someone's saves every encounter. -4 is huge in 4E. It was the Adventurer's Vault that made us see what was so powerful about the orb, despite knowing from the get-go that the Orb was the best option for a Wizard (and up until Arcane Power, Staves were obsolete).

Really, the difference is pretty glaring there.
Comparing Defender and Striker damage is like comparing apples and oranges - they're not supposed to be the same. A 1st level Defender can wear heavier armor and has powers that attract enemy attention and shield his allies. A 1st level Striker has worse defenses and has powers that boost his damage output. They're designed to work that way, and everyone knows it - nobody picks a Defender expecting to do massive damage. And nobody picks a Striker to keep the squishies safe.

Sleep is certainly a Very Good Power and really should have been Errata'd to remove Unconsciousness when damage is dealt. Still not game breaking though.

Orbizard works off of WIS (a secondary stat for Wizards) and only influences one saving throw that he caused. Really, the problem comes with the AV Orbs - so ban then, and the Orbizard is fine.

One of the Warlock's biggest problems is that he can't get CA easily. Stealth helped him out, allowing him to be the second best striker in the game (then Martial Power came out, and it was a toss-up between the Tempest Fighter and the Ranger, but errata put the Ranger in the lead).
If you really need CA as a Warlock (which is weird) then take Distant Advantage or be a Hexhammer. Just because the Warlock isn't the best striker in the game doesn't mean it's a worthless class.

How many classes have flexible powers that allow them to use their primary stat in melee and ranged? The Ranger, and maybe the Rogue. Fighter? Nope. Stuck using basics, even with Martial Power. Paladin? Ranged powers are Cha, melee are Str (save for a very select few). Cleric? Same issue. Wizard? Wait, what? Warlock? 90% ranged. The Bard is an exception thanks to all of his powers relying on Cha (no, literally).
Classes with flexible powers:
- Rangers
- Rogues
- Wizards (Close powers)
- Bards
- Warlocks (Close powers)
- Paladin (there are CHA melee powers)
- Warden
- Avenger
... I think I missed a few too.

Like I said, don't believe everything you read :smallsmile:

Mando Knight

2009-09-18, 03:43 PM

I wish 4E was more like legos. At least then I could build using damn near everything in the book.

So do I. I think it's closer to it than 3.5 was, but it shows the signs of the developers trying to experiment with making it so. Ole Kirk Christiansen and his son and grandson are an anomaly amongst toy and game developers, not too much unlike Shigeru Miyamoto.

Sinfire Titan

2009-09-18, 04:02 PM

Comparing Defender and Striker damage is like comparing apples and oranges - they're not supposed to be the same. A 1st level Defender can wear heavier armor and has powers that attract enemy attention and shield his allies. A 1st level Striker has worse defenses and has powers that boost his damage output. They're designed to work that way, and everyone knows it - nobody picks a Defender expecting to do massive damage. And nobody picks a Striker to keep the squishies safe.

Here's the thing: A tank is a two-fold creature. It has a high defense and a good offense. If I would compare any role in 4E to a tank, it would be the Striker, not the Defender. Defenders just don't deal enough damage to make them a threat.

A party consisting of a leader, 2 strikers, and a Controller will do far better than the WotC-recomended Defender/Striker/Controller/Leader, it just takes a little coordination to make it efficient (in other words, the controller should not be dropping Scorching Blasts when his allies are in the way).

4E messed up the Tank ideaology. There's no such thing as a tank, just the cannon and a turtle. It doesn't help that not everyone can make efficient use of their actions/round (I noticed that Fighters in particular are rather low on Minor action uses, though they have some).

Sleep is certainly a Very Good Power and really should have been Errata'd to remove Unconsciousness when damage is dealt. Still not game breaking though.

When a 1st level Daily power is more effective than a 27th level Encounter power, I'd call it broken. How many level 1 dailes retain relevance throughout the full 30 levels? Not many, and if any then Sleep is the first on the list.

Orbizard works off of WIS (a secondary stat for Wizards) and only influences one saving throw that he caused. Really, the problem comes with the AV Orbs - so ban then, and the Orbizard is fine.

...Solo encounters? Hello? Orbizards make it impossible for a Solo encounter to exist, thanks in part to that single ability. My PHb isn't on me at the moment, so I can't verify if the Orb class feature lasts for more than one save or not (last I checked, it lasts as long as they are affected by the ability that causes them to save, and applies to each save). I do know it only affects one enemy each use, but that isn't exactly enough to balance the ability out.

If you really need CA as a Warlock (which is weird) then take Distant Advantage or be a Hexhammer. Just because the Warlock isn't the best striker in the game doesn't mean it's a worthless class.

I never said the Warlock is worthless. Do not put those words in my mouth. I said it was nerfed. And that's what WotC is doing with errata: nerfing things. There's no way anyone can possibly deny this.

It is improper. Errata is meant to fix things, not make them weaker.

publishers issue an erratum for a production error

I fail to see how a class being effective at a role is a production error, even if the results are not what was expected. If the class was doing fine, they should never have errata'ed it. Errata is supposed to make things work, not make it worse.

Classes with flexible powers:
- Rangers
- Rogues
- Wizards (Close powers)
- Bards
- Warlocks (Close powers)
- Paladin (there are CHA melee powers)
- Warden
- Avenger
... I think I missed a few too.

Close-range powers provoke. The Paladin has 2 At Will powers that are Cha-based, and only a handful of Cha-based melee-range Encounter and Daily abilities. In other words, he's going to run out of steam when he shifts into melee, and just going to be love-tapping the enemy until someone else kills it.

Also, how many ranged Paladin powers are Str-based?

Bards, Avengers, and Wardens are not from the PH1, and can be viewed as a patch to cover up the weakness.

ericgrau

2009-09-18, 04:03 PM

Indon

2009-09-18, 04:24 PM

Is this a good thing?
Good question. I'd say the answer is - maybe.

On the one hand, high modularity can be really nice. If you didn't like, say, Fighter/Wizard multiclassing out of the box, you could just make a class that is allowed to take either Fighter or Wizard powers. Done, and incredibly easy.

On the other hand, players can get tired of playing highly mechanically similar characters - RPG's need to be concerned not only with the game, but the metagame, as players enjoy both on occasion.

Close Burst 1 is Area Burst 1 at self, or would be, if the second term would ever be used.
Area attacks provoke - Close attacks do not. This is the kind of insignificant-seeming detail which, while you do find occasionally in previous editions of D&D, you find frequently in 4th ed, because the power system is basically a modular system filled with seemingly minor details.

It's very 'micro', as it were.

Blackfang108

2009-09-18, 04:33 PM

Close-range powers provoke.

No they don't. It specifically says so in the Opportunity Attack rules.

TheEmerged

2009-09-18, 04:51 PM

RE: Alternity and the 3-18 attributes. Um, no. I can't remember the lower range but the upper range was 14 unless you got a +3 bonus from racials.

RE: "What system is better than D&D?". I can think of three off the top of my head (HERO, GURPS, and SAGA), and I'm sure there are others that are better within their genre. Thing is, it's harder to find players for the more obscure systems.

Mando Knight

2009-09-18, 04:56 PM

Also, how many ranged Paladin powers are Str-based?

None, because they get a ranged basic attack with a Javelin or other Heavy Thrown weapon. Charisma Paladins don't have that luxury, so they have to rely on Encounter and Daily powers for ranged attacks.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-18, 06:33 PM

On the other hand, players can get tired of playing highly mechanically similar characters - RPG's need to be concerned not only with the game, but the metagame, as players enjoy both on occasion.If you're suggesting that 4e characters are highly mechanically similar, this is a frequently made but erroneous statement. 4e characters use the same basic mechanical framework, the Powers system, but within that framework the classes all have very different and distinct capabilities. Claiming that the framework enforces sameness of play style is like claiming that all internal combustion engine vehicles drive the same: "People get tired of driving a Ferrari Testarossa because it is so mechanically similar to a VW Bug."

Matthew

2009-09-18, 07:21 PM

I found 4th edition to be a mixed bag. I liked the simplification of a lot of stuff, but it seemed to play too differently from previous incarnations of the game and combat felt like a sub game within the game. Probably if I played it more I would feel more comfortable with that, but as it stands that was the bit I liked the least. Up until we got into combat I thought it was fine, though character generation was a bit tedious.

Orzel

2009-09-18, 08:23 PM

I find that one thing 4e forces on both the DM and players is to learn everyone's characters. The DM must understand the strengths and weakness of each PC and what they can do. The player must learn their role and the features of their allies.

This is a positive and a negative.
The posittives:
Once the party learns what they can do and create tactics, the chance of TPK is low.
Resource management rarely becomes a major problem since "novaing" isn't crippling and each player easily knows their allies' current strength.
DMs can guess the strategies of the players and correctly create fights of different difficulties.

the negative:
Until players learn their roles and how to spend/use their powers, the chance of TPKs and cakewalk fights are very high.
The first few encounter are slow as everyone learns everything.
If the players start powergaming the teamwork, monsters drop way tooo quick.
Which forces the DM to go harder and results in a total or near party kill vs lowly orcs.

Thajocoth

2009-09-18, 09:04 PM

I've mostly played 4th ed and I've started playing in a 3.5 campaign. 3.5's character creation stage is far more flexible. The rest of it feels like a less refined 4th ed to me.

Outside of battle, they're almost the same, except in 4th each player usually has their domain of things they're skilled at that the rest of the party looks to them for while in 3.5, everyone looks to the Rogue to do almost everything. Half the players have no use outside battle, marginalizing them.

It's also very easy for players to be marginalized in battle, not just because of the lack of any semblance of balance, but also because there's so much overlap from one player to the next in what they can actually do. They cast the same spells, swing the same weapons the same way, learn the same skills, ect... 4th's "role" system helps cut down on this quite a bit ensuring teamwork and making each player important to the battle.

The enemies I've seen have been equally redundant, but that could easily be the DM. Every battle has been the same exact tactic as a result. In 4th the enemy abilities are very different from one to the next, so when you fight 16 ogres, they're not all the same ogre 16 times.

Also, as I'm playing, I'm not seeing the LA system as beneficial to the game, as the more LA someone seems to have, the more interesting and unique their character, but the quicker they die and the more they're in their own way. Centuar, for example, at LA+2 I think it was, weighs 2,100lbs. Now you've lost 2 levels, break many dungeon floors, and can't even attempt to climb. Also, as WotC releases new interesting things for 4th, like the Revenant, the novelty of the customization in 3.5 seems to be losing it's luster for me.

3.5's fun... It just doesn't feel as refined. 4th ed feels to me like the same thing, just with more flexibility, making teamwork more necessary for all players, with far more balance and much more interesting enemies and overall MORE fun.

What seems to confuse a lot of people into thinking it's a pure battle engine now is the short skill list... But here's a handy guide to that for you:
3.5 skill -> 4e skill
Appraise -> History
Autohypnosis -> Endurance
Balance -> Acrobatics
Bluff -> Bluff
Climb -> Athletics
Concentration -> No longer necessary
Control Shape -> Moved to powers
Craft -> Skill challenge
Decipher Script -> History
Diplomacy -> Diplomacy
Disable Device -> Thievery
Disguise -> Bluff
Escape Artist -> Athletics and Acrobatics
Forgery -> Bluff
Gather Information -> Streetwise
Handle Animal -> Nature
Heal -> Heal
Hide -> Stealth
Intimidate -> Intimidate
Jump -> Athletics
Knowledge -> History, Arcana, Nature, Dungeoneering and Religion
Listen -> Perception
Move Silently -> Stealth
Open Lock -> Thievery
Perform -> Diplomacy
Psicraft -> Arcana
Profession -> Skill Challenge
Ride -> Everyone just can. There's a feat to do so better.
Search -> Perception
Sense Motive -> Insight
Sleight of Hand -> Bluff
Speak Language -> Feat
Spellcraft -> No longer necessary
Spot -> Perception
Survival -> Split into Nature and Endurance
Swim -> Athletics
Tumble -> Moved to powers
Use Magic Device -> Usually no check necessary, but rarely Arcana
Use Psionic Device -> Usually no check necessary, but rarely Arcana
Use Rope -> Thievery

Mando Knight

2009-09-18, 09:14 PM

Appraise -> History

Appraise can also fit in with Dungeoneering, Arcana, and Religion... possibly Nature...

Thajocoth

2009-09-18, 09:19 PM

Appraise can also fit in with Dungeoneering, Arcana, and Religion... possibly Nature...

I could see the other 4 knowledge skills giving an assist to a history check, but I'm pretty sure that "Knowledge of something's price tag" is always History... I could be wrong, I suppose.

Also, edited my previous post to better convey what I was saying in it. (Any time I post though, I edit it within 5 minutes, so that's just standard for me, really.)

Kallisti

2009-09-18, 09:30 PM

Wait, wait, wait.

Four pages of flame-free, reasoned discussion about 3.5e vs 4e?

I LOVE this forum! We did it!!!

Also, because I try to avoid derailing threads:
I play almost-exclusively D&D 3.5e, because that's what people in the groups I game with want to play. I have played 4e several times, and enjoyed it about as much as I would have enjoyed 3.5. I consider 4e mechanically inferior, because the power framework makes all classes too mechanically similar without actually improving anything, because the skill system, in my opinion, leaves an unrealistically small gap in, say, Perform between the bard who's been performing all his life and lives for his music and the dwarven fighter who occasionally belts out a drinking song, and, yes, because to play 4e I need to buy new core books, which costs me money I could have spent on 3.5, or Vampire, or computer games, or best of all new books (the non-gaming, story-created-by-ink-on-paper variety). But I've never understood why people get so heated.

I say it's mechanically inferior, yet say I didn't enjoy it less than I might have enjoyed 3.5. How does that work? It's because I game to see fascinating characters portrayed, epic stories told, and nightmarish creatures vanquished, not for the sake of gaming. That'd be silly. Really, if you're enjoying the game, does it matter if the monster attacks you with 3d6 or 1d20.

Thajocoth

2009-09-18, 09:40 PM

...Perform between the bard who's been performing all his life and lives for his music and the dwarven fighter who occasionally belts out a drinking song

Actually, Diplomacy is a class skill for a Bard and uses Cha, which should be higher for a Bard than a Fighter... And Bards get a power to adds to a Diplomacy check. (Perform has been folded into Diplomacy).

Mando Knight

2009-09-18, 09:41 PM

I could see the other 4 knowledge skills giving an assist to a history check, but I'm pretty sure that "Knowledge of something's price tag" is always History... I could be wrong, I suppose.

The relative value of a magic wand, a holy symbol, or such would definitely fall under a different knowledge skill.

greenknight

2009-09-18, 11:33 PM

Appraise can also fit in with Dungeoneering, Arcana, and Religion... possibly Nature...

No one has suggested Insight and Streetwise for this? Granted, they don't strictly fill the role, but Streetwise lets you know where you can get the best deal, and Insight lets you know when someone is bluffing (offering less money than they're willing to pay). Put them together and even if you don't know the real worth of what you're trying to sell, you'll still get the best possible price for it.

Thajocoth

2009-09-18, 11:48 PM

No one has suggested Insight and Streetwise for this? Granted, they don't strictly fill the role, but Streetwise lets you know where you can get the best deal, and Insight lets you know when someone is bluffing (offering less money than they're willing to pay). Put them together and even if you don't know the real worth of what you're trying to sell, you'll still get the best possible price for it.

Well, yeah, but those are for later when you wish to sell the items. We're just talking about initially, to know about how much the item's worth.

Conjurer

2009-09-19, 01:20 AM

I'm quite happy with the way 4E plays and feels.

* Makes your life easier as a DM: It makes it very easy to eyeball the difficulty of encounters and individual monsters. Combine this with the ease of modifying or creating monsters and you have a happy DM. Also, DMG page 42.
* Despite all classes progressing in the same way, they play and feel very different once the dice start rolling. Even classes that share a role. Compare Fighters & Swordmages, for example.
* All classes can contribute with skills. Also, it's much more difficult to obsolete skills via spells.
* Combat is far, far more tactical than before. And more importantly, it emphasizes teamwork. Plus, no longer can some classes finish an encounter with a spell or two.
* Character Creation is fast, even at Epic levels. More so with the Character Builder program. Also, fewer trap choices.
----
Some problems:
* Skill challenges are... temperamental.
* Some balance issues still crop up every now and then. Orb Wizards, Tempest Fighters & Double Weapons.
----

Someone mentioned Tank Wizards being difficult to build? While not a Tank, it is possible to build a Front line Wizard:
* Start with the Staff Mastery feature.
* Pickup Leather Armor & Defensive Staff feats.
* Select some Defensive minded utility powers like Shield, Wizard's Escape and Blur.
* Concentrate on Close Blast/Close Burst offensive powers.

Thajocoth

2009-09-19, 02:10 AM

* Skill challenges are... temperamental.

Here's a trick I use: I count their successes and failures and give them ((Successes - Failures) / 2) monsters of the party's level XP. It works out to the same math and lets me just decide mid-game that something interesting the players decide to do can get some XP.

Just to show that my math gives the same results:

Complexity 1 succeeds with 4 successes and fails with 3 failures. So with my math, if the party barely succeeds, that's ((4-2)/2) = (2/2) = 1 standard monster of the party's level, which is the same as the complexity.

Complexity 5 succeeds with 12 successes and fails with 3 failures. So with my math, if the party barely succeeds, that's ((12-2)/2) = (10/2) = 5 standard monsters of the party's level, which is the same as the complexity.

It also rewards the party extra for not failing at all and lets me end it when it feels right instead of after X rolls.

jseah

2009-09-19, 02:20 AM

My gripe with 4e is that I can't run the game I want to with that system.
It could just be my lack of experience with the system but I find that 4E only runs well with the "big damn heroes" concept of PCs and class-leveled enemies.
Go out there, kill the "thing", haul the head back, save the village. Cookie cutter plot.

Can't run a intrigue game without "must have" final battle. There's no way to build a spellcaster using the character creation rules that can't fight. Anyone who's powerful in magic only knows how to blow things up... and... that's it.
I can't have the corrupted court mage who's slowly mind controlling everyone in the castle, but who dies to a young brat of a prince who sticks a sword in him.

I mean, it's literally impossible to build a paragon-tier character who is pathetic in combat. Anything low heroic can't hit you due to your level bonus.

... Put it another way, you can't trade tactical ability (combat bonuses and powers) for a strategic advantage. (charm person? shapeshifting? or plain diplomacy bonuses)

I'm sure I don't need to explain how this is done in 3.5.

################################
Furthermore, magic as a force, should have some impact on the world. You can't really expect the world to stay the same if you add something like magic in. And yet, everything needs a character to do anything.
A wizard's powers are super short duration and magic items have arbitrary daily limits per person. (which IMO doesn't make sense one bit) The entire magic system too character-centric and doesn't do anything apart from allowing a class called wizards to blow things up.

3.5 is much more transparent in that respect. A magical city wall can be explained in 3.5 by permanent walls of force, for example, with specific and known ways to counter or otherwise pierce it.
In 4E, you have to handwave it in and it falls down when the plot says it does. Characters can't do a thing about it.

################################
I also hate the way they use a "level" bonus to practically anything that matters.

It's too much like saying, "I hit you because I'm just that much more awesome".

Chrono22

2009-09-19, 02:30 AM

My biggest problems with the current edition doesn't stem from the rules themselves, but from how WotC has mishandled the brand and the good faith of its customers.
Other problems I have with the system aren't edition specific. Most of them come down to the actual rules of the system interfering with its purpose, for whatever reason. Reliance on levels as a way of facilitating character growth, for example.
So, on the merits of 4e vs. 3.5: 4e is obviously made for more casual players. I am not a casual player. I'd wager most p&p gamers aren't either, otherwise we wouldn't be p&p. So, yeah. I like extreme experiences when I am playing a character. I like to be very attached to them, I like them to be incredibly different, diverse, and unique. I like them to be able to contribute to the group dynamic in ways that are both memorable and significant. I also like clever tactics and combats that challenge me both intellectually and mechanically. And while 4e's combat rules are extensive enough, the assumptions that are made about the narrative of the game basically makes my preferred play style impossible. I view my character as an actor in a world, not a movie star playing a role.

Tiki Snakes

2009-09-19, 04:19 AM

My gripe with 4e is that I can't run the game I want to with that system.
It could just be my lack of experience with the system but I find that 4E only runs well with the "big damn heroes" concept of PCs and class-leveled enemies.
Go out there, kill the "thing", haul the head back, save the village. Cookie cutter plot.

Can't run a intrigue game without "must have" final battle. There's no way to build a spellcaster using the character creation rules that can't fight. Anyone who's powerful in magic only knows how to blow things up... and... that's it.
I can't have the corrupted court mage who's slowly mind controlling everyone in the castle, but who dies to a young brat of a prince who sticks a sword in him.

I mean, it's literally impossible to build a paragon-tier character who is pathetic in combat. Anything low heroic can't hit you due to your level bonus.

I'm not entirely sure why you'd need to be able to build a character who is incapable of fighting back, via the PC character creation.
Creating such as an npc is pretty trivial, really. I take it you are of the thoughts that everything must be created using EXACTLY the same system?

Hell, from what you described of the theoretical court-mage, he doesn't even need statting up. Everything he is doing is basically story-related. If he's intended to die if stabbed, he dies if stabbed. You only really need to have things written down for him if he's going to interact with the players in such a way that includes the possibility of failure.

Make a superminion with a couple of mind affecting powers or something and you've got him bang on for that potential pseudo-combat. Takes 5 minutes, and there are tools to speed it up further.

jseah

2009-09-19, 05:05 AM

Yes, you can say make a minion with mind-affecting powers (perhaps not with 1hp, but low enough that a crit drops him)

It is true I assumed that everything should follow the same creation rules. So...

What happens if a player wants to play someone with that kind of power?

As I said earlier, the tactical <-> strategic tradeoff is non-existent.

Zipding

2009-09-19, 10:54 AM

I have played a 3.5e game and a 4e game, and I actually prefer 3.5 to 4e. I like the custimization of 3.5 over the "samey" feel that 4e generates. I like how they have broken that template with the psion, but that is one class in 5 different power sources, while all of the classes in 3.5 are different with different builds available for all.
I also like the spell system in 3.5 more in 4e, that wizard, can run out of spells and be forced to actually fight in combat, that cleric might run out of healing in the middle of a fight.
I also like that there are more options for low-level PCs in 3.5 than in 4e, 4e has the kobald, the goblin, the fell taint and not much more. In 3.5, you can make an opponent of any race so that it is equal to the party level, there are weaker demons and devils, if you're playing an evil campain, there is the Aasimar and other weaker angels along with the kobald and goblin.
I personally like the race system more in 3.5 than in 4e, having a race that is stronger than others(half-orc), but also is very gruff and not quite as intelligent as others(grey elf). The classes all have very different abilities going for them like the dwarves' stonecunning or the halfling's bonus on all saving throws.
One more thing I like in 3.5 more than 4e is the combat system. I don't like how saving throws are now 10 or higher and you succeed, I like how there are some classes that are better with one part of their body than they are with their reflexes. Also, with 4e, everything is an attack roll and overall, deals more damage. I also like in 3.5 that spells like fireball has everyone make a reflex save for half, so they actually do get hit by the fireball, but they succeed in avoiding the bulk of the blast.
Honestly, the big thing that I prefer in 3.5 over 4e is custimizations. You can make a fighter either with 2-handed weapon, one-handed/shield, two-weapon fighter, archer, spiked chain/tripper, attack of opportunity beast, just one-handed weapon, reach weapon with other reach feats(lunging strike, short haft) dungeoncrasher fighter or charge leap stormtrooper 2-handed weapon deal 1000 damage. You can't get that custimization from the fighter class in 4e.

Conjurer

2009-09-19, 11:04 AM

Here's a trick I use: I count their successes and failures and give them ((Successes - Failures) / 2) monsters of the party's level XP. It works out to the same math and lets me just decide mid-game that something interesting the players decide to do can get some XP.

...

It also rewards the party extra for not failing at all and lets me end it when it feels right instead of after X rolls.

Thanks for the idea, I'll certainly give it a shot.

----------------

As for non-combat magic, that's what Rituals are for. For the Courtesan mage NPC, give him a High Int & Wis, Training & Skill Focus in Arcana, Religion, Heal & Nature. Ritual Casting feat. Basic attack is a Dagger & Magic Missile. Treat him like a minion.

Indon

2009-09-19, 11:10 AM

If you're suggesting that 4e characters are highly mechanically similar, this is a frequently made but erroneous statement.

Within the scope of the game, indeed, there's appreciable diversity.

Within the scope of the metagame, however, there's very little. Everyone is a car - nobody can pilot a jet, ride a bike, or even walk anywhere in 4E. Your options for experiencing different forms of mechanics are severely limited, and always crunching your numbers the same way through the game can become uninteresting.

The metagame is an important feature for many players, and I daresay they don't even always realize it.

theTroll

2009-09-19, 11:15 AM

{Scrubbed}

jseah

2009-09-19, 11:29 AM

As for non-combat magic, that's what Rituals are for. For the Courtesan mage NPC, give him a High Int & Wis, Training & Skill Focus in Arcana, Religion, Heal & Nature. Ritual Casting feat. Basic attack is a Dagger & Magic Missile. Treat him like a minion.

Yes, but you see, where's the trade-off?

You can say that he has no combat feats and spent alot of money of ritual components and rituals and so has no magic items. (I'll pretend there's a houserule for a charm person ritual that can be casted undetectably at a social event)

Oh whoops, if he's level 8, then he has to have X number of powers. (assuming he's a PC. )

Or if he's an NPC (and thus doesn't follow the PC creation rules), the game can break if the players snitch his ritual book. They might not succeed with the charm ritual all the time while the NPC will due to his feat investment but they get full combat ability while still being able to use this ritual to strategic advantage.

I can't use the ritual system as it's both modular and plug-and-play. Anyone can learn anything. The party wizard/cleric can pick up the guy's book and go to town after spending 1/10th his wealth. I can't have that happening without some sort of trade-off on the player's part.

The problem is that charm person and diplomacy-type effects give a large amount of control over the environment and NPCs. Having this AND combat ability is too much of a good thing. Rituals don't have enough cost for this to be viable.

Artanis

2009-09-19, 11:50 AM

*stuff about out-of-combat vs. combat*

This is one of the things I meant in my last post. 4e knows it's a game, admits it's a game, and presents itself as a game. Some people like that. Some people, including you, don't like that. Both sides are legitimate viewpoints, and both sides' reasoning for being on their particular side boils down to the same thing :smallcool:

Orzel

2009-09-19, 11:52 AM

One thing I really don't get is the lack of customization argument I hear.

4e is almost a DM's dream when it comes to making a monster. It's easy to turn a goblin into a kobold because all you really have to do is change speed, racial powers, and melee weapons. The lack of pre-existing spells and features allow you to make up anything without worrying about unexpected interactions. The hard part is getting the damage, HP, and defenses right. That part is a pain.

As for characters, 3.5e and 4e have about the same customization. Between races, feats, class builds, skills, paths, and destinies, you can make tons of different characters. The difference (the part I hate) is your customiztion starts early and you get railroaded after a few choices if you want a viable PC. But there's tons of customization. In a very violent game, our party went through 7 completely different fighters.

jseah

2009-09-19, 12:02 PM

This is one of the things I meant in my last post. 4e knows it's a game, admits it's a game, and presents itself as a game. Some people like that. Some people, including you, don't like that. Both sides are legitimate viewpoints, and both sides' reasoning for being on their particular side boils down to the same thing :smallcool:
XD I see. Let me clarify your statement. 4E admits it's a tactical combat game and not much more.

After all, strategy can also be a game. Need to make that distinction.

I won't pretend there's nothing more to 4E than tactical combat. There's out of combat stuff. I've been through one session where there was no combat. Not much of our character's abilities were used and the combat next session wasn't affected in the least.
Tactical combat is what 4E was made for, and I think it does a reasonable job at it. But it isn't enough to make a believable game. There's only so much you can do with one tool.

4E is like a war where both sides only develop bigger and badder guns, screw the strategic aspects. Any non-combat advancements, is by chance and not considered important.

Thajocoth

2009-09-19, 12:15 PM

Actually, you CAN trade combat ability for out of combat ability. Utility powers. Some work great in combat, some work great outside of combat.

Arcana Level 2 Utility - Arcane Mutterings - Roll an Arcana check instead of a Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate check.

Rogue Level 2 Utility - Master of Deceit - Re-roll a Bluff check

If you want the flavor of the Wizard doing less things themselves, take summoning powers for dailies.

As for the idea of a caster that controls minds and that's really all they do... Take a look at the Psion. You can always reflavor it. They have less powers and all their combat stuff dazes, dominates, causes enemies to attack one another, ect...

Eldan

2009-09-19, 03:16 PM

Zipding

2009-09-19, 03:35 PM

I agree with Eldan, you can't make a unique character in 4e without wasting a feat for multiclassing instead of just taking levels in there, and with that feat, you get 1 maybe 2 of their abilities. With 3.5, you can multiclass so you can get better abilities, there are prestige classes that you can get pretty early on and there are a different variety of prestige classes. In each complete - book, there are about 30 different prestige classes that open up even more variety for every character. In my 3.5 game, I was going to be a Barbarian14/Ranger1/Bear Warrior 5. That gave me rage abilities, transforming into a bear, favoured enemy, track as a bonus feat, uncanny dodge, trap sense, and some other abilities. I was also thinking in taking levels in warshaper to have even more fun with their abilities. In 4e, the only "prestige" classes available are the paragon paths or the epic destinies, which I do not think there is enough destinies. I also like the more variety of skills in 3.5 than 4e, grouping skills is good, but I like the more variety, meaning that you're character has a better chance of hiding than sneaking because of their armour. I'll admit it, it is easier to make a gimped character in 3.5, but if you choose the right race, you can optimize that character, even if it is a fighter or monk.

Nightson

2009-09-19, 05:25 PM

Can I build this character in 4E? I have only looked at the player's handbook, I must admit, but it seems to me that he wouldn't work.

Without any difficulty. Hybrid Wizard/Rogue. There isn't a penalty for dealing nonlethal damage in 4e, you simply decide whether to kill or knock out an opponent when you reduce him to 0 hit points. You can reflavor the attack description as being incapable of nonlethal damage.

Sir Homeslice

2009-09-19, 05:40 PM

Honestly, the big thing that I prefer in 3.5 over 4e is custimizations. You can make a fighter either with 2-handed weapon, one-handed/shield, two-weapon fighter, archer, spiked chain/tripper, attack of opportunity beast, just one-handed weapon, reach weapon with other reach feats(lunging strike, short haft) dungeoncrasher fighter or charge leap stormtrooper 2-handed weapon deal 1000 damage. You can't get that custimization from the fighter class in 4e.

2-handed weapon
Completely doable in 4e.

one-handed/shield
Completely doable in 4e, and powers/feats can let you do your job really great.

two-weapon fighter
Martial Power has an option for two-weapon fighters.

archer
They're called Rangers (and before you say it, Rangers aren't automatically woodsmen. You have a choice of Dungeoneering or Nature).

spiked chain/tripper
You can do this in 4e actually, though you'll have to use a polearm of some sort, and a dragon feat. (Also Martial Power really makes this better)

attack of opportunity beast
4e fighters are this by default, though the ability to make OAs against nonadjacent are rare and off the top of my head only come in at Paragon from the Polearm Master (Level 12 stance) and the Goliath's Racial Paragon Path (Level 12 utility, till end of your next turn).

just one-handed weapon
Still doable and effective.

reach weapon with other reach feats(lunging strike, short haft)
Still doable in 4e.

dungeoncrasher fighter or charge leap stormtrooper 2-handed weapon deal 1000 damage.
No, and no.

Kurald Galain

2009-09-19, 06:17 PM

Can I build this character in 4E? I have only looked at the player's handbook, I must admit, but it seems to me that he wouldn't work.
The common answer would be "technically, but not really".

Can you be a rogue/wizard? Yes, but only to some extent. The first problem is that all rogue powers require dexterity, whereas all wizard powers work on intelligence instead. The second problem is that rogue powers require a weapon, whereas wizard powers require a wand, staff, orb or tome. You can make this work by casting your spells through a dagger, though that requires yet another feat. If you do this via multi-classing, you can pick up only very few powers of your secondary class, at the cost of (yet) more precious feats. If you use hybrid-classing, you lose most of the rogue's (or wizard's) abilities, and must take a specific number of powers from each side. Note that a heroic character has, at most, eight powers that work more than once per day, probably less than that. And, of course, rogue accuracy doesn't work on spells, and neither do wizard boosts work on rogue attacks.

Also, you can't use magic to stop fights (other than the Sleep spell, once per day, which gives everyone in a 5x5 area about a 25% chance of dropping unconscious for approx ten seconds), can't use hold person (because it doesn't exist), and no amount of immobilize powers or walls (and you won't be getting many of either) will prevent bloodshed.

So technically, but not really: technically you've got a rogue/wizard, which is what you asked, but it does not really sound like what you described. At all.

On the other hand, you can opt to deal "non-lethal" damage with anything and everything, up to and including the disintegrate spell.

Mando Knight

2009-09-19, 07:35 PM

Well, an Eladrin Wizard/Rogue can use a longsword for everything with a pair of feats...

Conjurer

2009-09-19, 08:01 PM

Can I build this character in 4E? I have only looked at the player's handbook, I must admit, but it seems to me that he wouldn't work.

You could play as a Wand Wizard multiclassed into Rogue. Pick up powers that cause status effects like Slow, Immobilize, Prone & Daze. Maybe even a few forced movement powers. Deal Nonlethal damage. Any Rogue powers you pick will have a lower attack bonus, but you make up by using the blade's proficiency and picking powers that don't target AC.

@1: Illusory Ambush, Phantom Bolt, Thunderwave.
E 1: Chill Strike, Ray of Enfeeblement // Postioning Strike, King's Castle
D 1: Sleep, Grease, Horrid Whispers
U 2: Daunting Presence, Phantasmal Terrain
E 3: Color Spray, Icy Ray, Hypnotic Pattern. // Bait & Switch
D 5: Web, Visions of Avarice
U 6: Wall of Fog, Disguise Self, Emerald Eye
E 7: Twist of Space // Sand in the Eyes
D 9: Face of Death, Visions of Ruin, Wall of Fire
U 10: Illusory Wall, Arcane Gate, Blur

jseah

2009-09-20, 12:53 AM

Actually, you CAN trade combat ability for out of combat ability. Utility powers. Some work great in combat, some work great outside of combat.
But I can't trade dailies for utility. Nor encounter powers... I must have some sort of attack power... MUST. >.>

As for the idea of a caster that controls minds and that's really all they do... Take a look at the Psion. You can always reflavor it. They have less powers and all their combat stuff dazes, dominates, causes enemies to attack one another, ect...
I'm not familiar with the Psion but I can speculate.

Daze - it's save ends or 1 round
Dominate - it's going to be 1 round duration (save ends at most)
enemies attacking one another - 1 round duration

That's way too short to be any use out of combat.
Plus, I'm sure they deal psychic damage and the target is aware of the attack.

I don't think any of these help me convince people to support my election. I'm trying to build a court mage who bends minds his way. Think of Theoden in LotR. That's what I want my victims to be like, making bad decisions and completely befuddled.

Mando Knight

2009-09-20, 01:04 AM

I don't think any of these help me convince people to support my election. I'm trying to build a court mage who bends minds his way. Think of Theoden in LotR. That's what I want my victims to be like, making bad decisions and completely befuddled.

That's the focus of things like rituals, skill challenges, and plot-type things. The main focus of 4e's stat system is to provide an idea as to what a character can do in combat...

Kylarra

2009-09-20, 01:04 AM

I don't think any of these help me convince people to support my election. I'm trying to build a court mage who bends minds his way. Think of Theoden in LotR. That's what I want my victims to be like, making bad decisions and completely befuddled.4e is not designed for a character to be a pacifist manipulator in the way you describe. There are the pacifist-esque cleric builds, but those are more supporting your allies and debuffs than the sort you mention.

As far as 4e is concerned, mechanically you'd not need to even stat out those powers because they have no combat relevance. Keep in mind that monsters are built differently than players, so in theory as an antagonist you could simply give him wall and dominate esque powers on a controller frame, as well as a decent CHA + trained in bluff.

jseah

2009-09-20, 01:48 AM

AllisterH

2009-09-20, 04:00 AM

You know what? A post in the tippy-verse thread highlights the inherent problems in my assumptions.

4E isn't anything like 3E. 3E expects the world to be consistent, magic works one way, and that's it. 4E is not so much, leaving much much more to the players and GM to work out.

It's almost as if 4E is a "guideline on how to balance your game for combat" plus a few extras. Everything else can be changed, and that's about it.

So yeah, that's why I don't like it. I guess.

*Chuckle*

That's kind of what actually makes me like 4e. IT makes it closer to 1e/2e in feel than 3e is, even though 3e's rules are "closer" to 1e/2e, the simple fact that in 4e, the rules are not designed to model the world harkens back to 1e/2e.

If I wanted a monster that did X in the background, by golly, I just said it did X and no player would get on my case. In 3e, it feels like I have to justify everything so that I'm not breaking the rules.

(for example, your self same example of Theoden in 1e/2e would be built the same way in 4e. A.k.a "Why are you building it as a PC, that's all plot/DM-handwaving")

Orzel

2009-09-20, 04:18 AM

That's mostly the point of 4e. Every character is given the tools to complete in combat and non-combat. Competence is another thing.

In 4e, each aspect (combat, skills, HP, defense, ultilty) has their own system for PCs and NPCs. All PCs use the same PC systems. All NPCs use the same NPC systems.

In 3.5, aspects of the game (combat, skills, HP, defense, ultilty) might share systems or have their own system. Not everyone has access to all the systems.

Bikes, buggies, cars, and trucks (4th) VS Cars, planes, flying cars, and boats(3rd)

Killer Angel

2009-09-20, 04:56 AM

Sheriff of Moddingham: Okay, we've reached page four and this thread has been admirably free of flames, which is much as I expected from Playgrounders. In fact, the only scrubbing I've had to do was one person suggesting the OP a troll and several people saying "here come the flames" or the like.

I don't think it really matter if the poster is a troll, a lurker, someone else, or nothing at all.
Even starting with a troll's worst intention, a thread can bring interesting arguments, worth of discussion. So, until the debate remains civil, who cares?

'bout the difference between the 2 editions, all I can say is: yes, you can roleplay with every system, but a system can be built to be focused mainly on some things.
4.0 is more combat-oriented than 3.5, the battle-grid has more importance.
And some aspects are fading...
The ecology/society/typical behaviour of monsters, has constantly diminished: in 2nd edition, they were an important part of the monsters' entry. In 3.x they diminished drastically, but they're still there. In 4.0 they're almost vanished.
For auto-produced campaign, the risk (imo) is that you can give less depth to your creations. You have less starting ideas, unless you refere to old material for the fluff.

AllisterH

2009-09-20, 05:52 AM

Keep in mind that even in pre 3e, a 20th level wizard would have a THACO of a 7th level fighter.

AD&D has ALWAYS assumed that being high level just makes you plain awesome at buttkicking....

Indon

2009-09-20, 09:25 AM

Keep in mind that even in pre 3e, a 20th level wizard would have a THACO of a 7th level fighter.

AD&D has ALWAYS assumed that being high level just makes you plain awesome at buttkicking....

But only Fighters and Rangers ever got additional attacks.

Edit: And Paladins? Don't remember. I'm sure there were a couple others, not to mention the kits, but nonetheless.

Eldan

2009-09-20, 09:34 AM

*Chuckle*

That's kind of what actually makes me like 4e. IT makes it closer to 1e/2e in feel than 3e is, even though 3e's rules are "closer" to 1e/2e, the simple fact that in 4e, the rules are not designed to model the world harkens back to 1e/2e.

If I wanted a monster that did X in the background, by golly, I just said it did X and no player would get on my case. In 3e, it feels like I have to justify everything so that I'm not breaking the rules.

(for example, your self same example of Theoden in 1e/2e would be built the same way in 4e. A.k.a "Why are you building it as a PC, that's all plot/DM-handwaving")

The problem is, my players see a monster do "cool thing X" and three minutes later, at most, one of them will be asking "how can I do that?"

Kylarra

2009-09-20, 10:28 AM

Eldan

2009-09-20, 10:32 AM

Actually, I make a point of making everything available to my players, if they don't fear the investment it's gonna take.

AllisterH

2009-09-20, 11:12 AM

That sort of thing doesn't even hold water necessarily in third, beyond use of the polymorph line/wildshape, though. So it's a player issue, not an edition issue.

Some things are just not meant for players to have, because they'd abuse it absurdly.

Which I think is the difference between the feel of 1e/2e (and now 4e) when compared to 3e.

Previous editions had a divide. There was THIS for players and THAT was for anything else. WOTC in 3e decided to make everything available to players (at a cost) without realizing many of the monsters/spells.items were designed in pre 3e under the assumption players WOULDN'T have access to their ability on-demand

re: Additional attacks
Yeah, only the warrior class, (2e) and barbarians, paladins, cavaliers, rangers and fighters (1e) got additional attacks. Of course, this still meant that a 20th level wizard could outfight low level thieves and clerics with ease.

re: Theoden
I just realized how mechanically it would be done in 1e/2e. Best method might be a court mage with the "Ring of Human Influence" (it made your CHA an 18 for purposes of reaction and you got also suggestion and charm powers. Of course, forget about creating such an item. 1e/2e's magic item system was LITERALLY an adventure in of itself.)

Gralamin

2009-09-20, 12:02 PM

Let me elaborate on one of my all-time favourite characters to state my opinion on 4E.

Eldan is a rogue/wizard. He would have been an arcane trickster if, at that time, I had known how prestige classes work, I guess. He's also a pacifist. Grew up as an orphan and member of a race that was treated pretty much as slaves by humans. He learned magic to stop fights, because he couldn't stand the brutality. I think in his entire career, he never dealt lethal damage to anyone or, and this is important, allowed anyone else to harm each other. He used walls and hold person if necessary,even on his own allies, if necessary to prevent bloodshed.

Can I build this character in 4E? I have only looked at the player's handbook, I must admit, but it seems to me that he wouldn't work.
The Hybrid rules, which will be released in PHB3, actually will allow you to play this character from level 1 - Something Impossible in 3.5.
Hybrid Rogue / Wizard, focusing on wall spells. Pump Int, Dex, and Cha or Str. Always choose to knock out your opponents.
Or
Hybrid <Mundane Class with Skills you want> / <Caster Class with Walls> - No reason they have to be mechanically a rogue and Wizard to fit in - a 3.5 binder, for example, can be replicated relatively closely with a 4e warlock.

---

As for the comments about being unable to build a unique character, your just not trying enough. A huge thing in 4e is refluffing abilities (DMG2 Actually explicitly mentions doing so is a good idea at times) - Something already common in quite a few other systems (BESM, M&M, etc.). Want to play a gigantic bat that flies around and protects someone? Dragonborn (Or Revenant (Dragonborn)) Warden (Or Fighter, or Paladin, or Swordmage, depending on what you want) going into Scion of Arkhosia to get easy flight. Refluff into a gigantic bat, claim you only understand the languages you know, and take feats and run with it. In addition, this is a perfectly playable build. Sure, you can't really fly until Paragon, but that is a limitation with the system as is. You could easily get around that with homebrew (By, for example, stealing the idea of Raptorians and Dragonborn in 3.5 - limited gliding time in heroic, flying while moving in paragon, flying constantly in epic. Maybe requiring a feat or paragon path or Epic destiny to advance the flight step). Grab weapons, reflavor as claws/bite. See if your DM will allow you to have a thunder dragon breath instead - Acting as the beating of your wings, or making a really loud sound. To get it closer to a bat (Blindsight, Blind, etc.) You need to either wait until feats that let you replicate it are available, or homebrew.

--
Now, I do have a pet peeve with 4e. In 4e, Homebrewing Classes is -HARD-. Making a class that works well with other classes, has a substantial amount of powers, has feats, has Paragon paths, has epic destinies, and has a Hybrid class to make it compatible with hybrid rules is very difficult.
Building classes outside the power system is also hard, for a variety of similar reasons. The systems made so far, all compound on the unified mechanic. So to get a class that doesn't use the power system to work with multiclassing / Hybrid classing / Paragon paths / Epic destinies is no easy task.

Kurald Galain

2009-09-20, 12:09 PM

Want to play a gigantic bat that flies around and protects someone? ... Sure, you can't really fly until Paragon ... See if your DM will allow you to have a thunder dragon breath instead ... To get it closer to a bat (Blindsight, Blind, etc.) You need to either wait until feats that let you replicate it are available, or homebrew.
In other words, your post makes it clear that you really can't play a gigantic bat that flies around and protects someone.

Eldan

2009-09-20, 12:23 PM

Actually, I don't see "we can homebrew it" as an argument reinforcing why someone should use the existing rules of the game. It comes, for me, down to "it doesn't exist in the rules, but as soon as we change the rules the publisher sent us, we can do it".
What I mean is this: I buy the books to have a rule system that allows me as much of what I want to do as possible. I love good homebrew, but with enough homebrew you can do anything in pretty much every system. A good homebrewer can make a variant of, I don't know, Exalted, where we all play gritty noir detectives in world war one, without magic. Of course, he would have to change all the rules ever written, but it can be done.

Gralamin

2009-09-20, 12:24 PM

In other words, your post makes it clear that you really can't play a gigantic bat that flies around and protects someone.

...Except for the part where you can. Your missing some abilities until certain tiers (You can get blindsense with a... Paragon feat, I think), and a few other things. I just labelled somethings that are off about it, and easy to "fix" with little effect on balance, and you'll have to wait to certain tiers before it really can do what its meant to do. Which, really, is no different then DOZENS of 3.5 builds that don't come into their own until high levels.

Actually, I don't see "we can homebrew it" as an argument reinforcing why someone should use the existing rules of the game. It comes, for me, down to "it doesn't exist in the rules, but as soon as we change the rules the publisher sent us, we can do it".
Refluffing isn't homebrewing, really, though I did list a few things that were in that post.

What I mean is this: I buy the books to have a rule system that allows me as much of what I want to do as possible. I love good homebrew, but with enough homebrew you can do anything in pretty much every system. A good homebrewer can make a variant of, I don't know, Exalted, where we all play gritty noir detectives in world war one, without magic. Of course, he would have to change all the rules ever written, but it can be done.
"As much of what I want to do as possible" - Very few games actually are designed in this way. Universal systems have dozens of design problems. The majority of games (Check out some of the indie games, for instance) are built towards one style of play, or even one type of character.

Mando Knight

2009-09-20, 12:29 PM

In other words, your post makes it clear that you really can't play a gigantic bat that flies around and protects someone.

Not in the rules as written, simply because the dev team didn't think of everything. Maybe there'll be rules for anthropomorphic bats in 4e in a couple of years. In the meantime, there's refluffing things, and Scribblenauts.

Kurald Galain

2009-09-20, 12:33 PM

Actually, I don't see "we can homebrew it" as an argument reinforcing why someone should use the existing rules of the game. It comes, for me, down to "it doesn't exist in the rules, but as soon as we change the rules the publisher sent us, we can do it".
That's a good point - also known as the Oberoni Fallacy.

...Except for the part where you can. Your missing some abilities until certain tiers (You can get blindsense with a... Paragon feat, I think), and a few other things.
You're missing the key abilities that make you a giant bat in the first place. That's like saying you can have a bowl of strawberry ice cream, except that it comes in a cardboard box instead, and doesn't contain any strawberries, and we're out of ice cream.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Strawberry_sorbet.jpg/250px-Strawberry_sorbet.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Box.agr.jpg/180px-Box.agr.jpg

There's a bit of a difference between the two...

Gralamin

2009-09-20, 12:35 PM

That's a good point - also known as the Oberoni Fallacy.

You're missing the key abilities that make you a giant bat in the first place. That's like saying you can have a bowl of strawberry ice cream, except that it comes in a cardboard box instead, and doesn't contain any strawberries, and we're out of ice cream.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Strawberry_sorbet.jpg/250px-Strawberry_sorbet.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Box.agr.jpg/180px-Box.agr.jpg

There's a bit of a difference between the two...

So, according to you, what are the key abilities needed? The only thing that actually seems all that key to me is flight, everything else is just gravy.

Indon

2009-09-20, 12:47 PM

A good homebrewer can make a variant of, I don't know, Exalted, where we all play gritty noir detectives in world war one, without magic. Of course, he would have to change all the rules ever written, but it can be done.

This actually wouldn't be too hard, mostly consisting of setting changes (everyone's playing mortals, and you'll need to write in guns).

You might want to tweak the Athletics rules, though.

Eldan

2009-09-20, 12:48 PM

It's not about having flight alone, really. When I say "Bat" I expect "a nocturnal furry, flying mammal orienting itself with echolotion". Not "a flying thing, described as looking how I want it to look."

Nightson

2009-09-20, 12:50 PM

In other words, your post makes it clear that you really can't play a gigantic bat that flies around and protects someone.

And in 3.5 the bat monster race comes with 2 racial hit dice and LA +4 and you're never as effective as a regular human who has six more class levels.

I mean that was my experience with 3.5, sure there were a ton of options, but 95% of them were horrible or even meant to be traps. There are less total options in 4e, but you can play every build of every class with any race and not lack for effectiveness. And 4e is going to keep expanding, more races and more classes, all of which should be of equal power with the rest, all of which can be played side by side without worry.

Kurald Galain

2009-09-20, 12:52 PM

So, according to you, what are the key abilities needed? The only thing that actually seems all that key to me is flight, everything else is just gravy.
For a giant bat? I suppose flight, blindsense, and a natural attack. The latter should be easy.

Note that flying for one move action per encounter doesn't count; that's what's usually known as "jumping".

And in 3.5 the bat monster race comes with 2 racial hit dice and LA +4 and you're never as effective as a regular human who has six more class levels.
We weren't discussing balance, but options. That a bat isn't the most powerful option in existence is irrelevant; that you can play a bat in 3E but not 4E, is.

And 4e is going to keep expanding, more races and more classes, all of which should be of equal power with the rest,
They should be, but they're not. Even the PHB literally spells out "play a <race X> if you want to be a member of a race that favors <class Y>" numerous times. 4E is going to keep expanding, and is going to become more and more unbalanced as it does so.

AllisterH

2009-09-20, 12:55 PM

In other words, your post makes it clear that you really can't play a gigantic bat that flies around and protects someone.

There's an interesting bit of advice in the DMG2 about this. There's an exceprt talking about "My son wants to play a fire archon".

The DMG2 explicitly says "reskin, refluff and have at it" and I think this is what 4e tries for. So, I'm not sure if this isn't supported by the rules since they actually give an example of how to do something esoteric.

Mando Knight

2009-09-20, 01:01 PM

There's an interesting bit of advice in the DMG2 about this. There's an exceprt talking about "My son wants to play a fire archon".

...That one's easy. Firesoul Genasi, probably a Swordmage or Dragon Magic Sorcerer. Pick powers with fire, and you're pretty much done.

Indon

2009-09-20, 01:02 PM

...That one's easy. Firesoul Genasi, probably a Swordmage or Dragon Magic Sorcerer. Pick powers with fire, and you're pretty much done.

Until there's a Fire Archon in your game and all the players notice it's nothing like that PC.

Gralamin

2009-09-20, 01:04 PM

For a giant bat? I suppose flight, blindsense, and a natural attack. The latter should be easy.

Note that flying for one move action per encounter doesn't count; that's what's usually known as "jumping".

Level 16 Scion gives Overland Flight (Constant flight, but only a move action each turn while using it, which must be used to fly).
The Storm Sovereign Epic Destiny (Dragon 372) gives Constant flight at level 30, as Does Avatar of the Storm from Divine Power.

Blindsight, is apparently, more limited then I thought, but still do able:
Grimlock Helm (Level 17 item from AV) will give you Blindsight 5. as a daily
Dragon 155 has a Dreamstone Amulet that will also give you Blindsight as a daily.
Dragon 165 has Eyes of the Dragon which also gives you Blindsight as a daily.
There is a Barbarian and Ranger Utility which can get you Blindsight (Multiclass) in Epic, again daily.

Natural attack, you can either grab an item that gives you one, or reflavor a weapon into them

Thajocoth

2009-09-20, 01:05 PM

Until there's a Fire Archon in your game and all the players notice it's nothing like that PC.

Yeah, because the Human enemies are so similar to Human PCs...

Mando Knight

2009-09-20, 01:08 PM

Until there's a Fire Archon in your game and all the players notice it's nothing like that PC.

Actually, it kinda is. The Fire Archons usually have a power like the Firesoul Genasi's Fireburst, and usually wield heavy blades if they've got melee weapons.

Indon

2009-09-20, 01:12 PM

Yeah, because the Human enemies are so similar to Human PCs...

My bad, I recalled Archons as being larger than Medium for some reason.

Size makes for a quick and obvious break of immersion - Last I checked, all PC races were still medium, and if Wizards keeps its' discipline, things will likely stay that way.

It'd be overpowered to be Large - so, you can never play something Large. Or something that flies, as mentioned earlier. Or that has an aura, like some Fire Archons do (an always-on attack ability for a player? Hoo, I don't imagine Wizards will ever do that).

Edit:

Level 16 Scion gives Overland Flight (Constant flight, but only a move action each turn while using it, which must be used to fly).
The Storm Sovereign Epic Destiny (Dragon 372) gives Constant flight at level 30, as Does Avatar of the Storm from Divine Power.

"Now that I have perfected my epic powers, I can fly... like a bat!"

Gralamin

2009-09-20, 01:20 PM

My bad, I recalled Archons as being larger than Medium for some reason.

Size makes for a quick and obvious break of immersion - Last I checked, all PC races were still medium, and if Wizards keeps its' discipline, things will likely stay that way.

It'd be overpowered to be Large - so, you can never play something Large. Or something that flies, as mentioned earlier. Or that has an aura, like some Fire Archons do (an always-on attack ability for a player? Hoo, I don't imagine Wizards will ever do that).

Edit:

"Now that I have perfected my epic powers, I can fly... like a bat!"

:smallbiggrin: I will admit that Flying is way overvalued in 4e.

AllisterH

2009-09-20, 01:27 PM

That is one thing 4e has been so far consistent about.

Flight a la superheroes is considered a high paragon/EPIC ability. Definitely a change from 3e where flight was cheap.

Which in of itself was a change from 1e/2e.

1e/2e though, I don't think even at high levels people abused the FLY spell due to the spell itself being random AND the fact that even a 20th level wizard only had 4 3rd level slots.

Blindsight and Tremorsense are paragon level abilites and as such, won't/shouldn't appear on lower level PCs

I think the biggest difference is that the 4e designers purposely said

"We want PCs to have ability X at level Y to denote a changeover in tone".

(It's why all the drow and underdark monsters in the MMs first appearance are at high heroic /early paragon-level)

EDIT: Just how common should flight BE? And when should it first appear?

Mando Knight

2009-09-20, 01:30 PM

:smallbiggrin: I will admit that Flying is way overvalued in 4e.

Especially since everyone and their mother can teleport...

AllisterH

2009-09-20, 01:33 PM

Especially since everyone and their mother can teleport...

I thought Teleport though was easy to stop in 4e? IIRC, Teleport requires Line of Sight and Line of Effect which means that a simple hole in the ground can stop an eladrin COLD.

You actually need RITUAL magic to get the globe-spanning effect of previous editions.

Teleport != Portalling in 4e.

Mando Knight

2009-09-20, 01:36 PM

I thought Teleport though was easy to stop in 4e? IIRC, Teleport requires Line of Sight and Line of Effect which means that a simple hole in the ground can stop an eladrin COLD.

Line of sight only. Some teleportation powers remove even that restriction. (Armor of Breaching, for example) Having a magic mirror that can show you the opposite side of a wall would be enough to teleport through the wall so long as you're within 5 squares of the target point.

Kurald Galain

2009-09-20, 01:43 PM

Especially since everyone and their mother can teleport...
This leads to some interesting ramifications. On the one hand, an Eladrin basketball game would be fun to watch. On the other hand, their door-to-door salesmen can just teleport in instead of putting their foot in the door - and for that matter, how on earth are you supposed to keep Shadar-Kai in jail?

But yeah, it's weird that at-will teleportation is actually (much) easier to obtain than at-will flight.

Kylarra

2009-09-20, 02:18 PM

Eldan

2009-09-20, 02:38 PM

Kizara

2009-09-20, 02:49 PM

Sounds like you should just play GURPS or some other universal point-buy based system really.

To be honest, everyone should be playing GURPS. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123145)

But yes, it might appeal to you as well.

Kylarra

2009-09-20, 02:52 PM

I have tried Gurps, M&M and a few other point buy systems. Now, I might sound nitpicky, but I don't really love these either. If you hand players a long list of abilities their points can buy and a handful of points, they tend to get lost. Basically, I like the rough flavour guidelines that classes and races offer, but still want some customisation. It's difficult to explain. But out of a dozen* or so systems I tried, I still like 3.5 the best, at least for the fantasy games I like. Many other games are good for a certain kind of game, especially since 3rd Ed DND often isn't all that great in the fluff deparment, but for fluff I made myself, I tend to go with 3.5.

*Let's count... Exalted 2ed, M&M 2ed, some edition of Gamma World, GURPS, Vampire: the Requiem, Fudge, D&D 3.5, 4th (well, only read the books, never played), D20 modern (which I really dislike)... that's not all I've played, I'm certain, but all I can remember right now.The point was that level based systems (as opposed to pointbuys) aren't good for the "being able to play whatever I can visualize", some are better than others, but that's not what they're designed for. It's hardly a fault of the system that you're trying to do something that the system wasn't designed for. I don't get mad at my computer for failing to toast bread (unless I have that USB attachment in which case I'm justified).

To be honest, everyone should be playing GURPS. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123145)

But yes, it might appeal to you as well.
Ha I knew that was going to happen.

Kizara

2009-09-20, 03:02 PM

Ha I knew that was going to happen.

:amused:

Hey, believe it or not, since I started that thread and poked people towards it a bit, I've had at least 5 people in the thread get into the system, and 3 more approach me via PM about it.

So really, it worked pretty well. ;)

Anyways....

4e is the anti-thesis of what every simulationist wants, and embodies much of what they loathe. Since simulationists tend to be some of the more hardcore RPGers, 4e is often seen as a casual game.

Also, yes GURPS is intimidating at first, but once you've made a few characters with it (like say, 5), you really get the idea that its a toolkit for what you want to make, not 200 options that you have to optimize (although there is a BIT of that, I admit).

Kylarra

2009-09-20, 03:06 PM

Oh I never doubted that statistically you'd get people into the game. It's not really my cup of tea for a number of reasons, a few of which I outlined in your thread previously, but we shouldn't sidetrack this thread either. :smallamused:

Eldan

2009-09-20, 03:24 PM

I admit that GURPS probably could be a good system for me if I invested enough time in it. However, there is one big problem:
I know two potential players. I have a game, on average, every few weeks (3-4), and probably no game at all anymore, since one of my two players moved to england.
Now, they both said that they aren't really interested in learning a new system, unless the fluff of that system was so different they couldn't use 3.5 to it. One of the players got the entire group to try Gamma World for a fun one-shot game, but GURPS? They just look at me and say "Why can't we use D20 for this?"
So, while it's partially dislike for other systems I've tried, it's also that I have to work with the players I know.

Indon

2009-09-20, 03:30 PM

This leads to some interesting ramifications. On the one hand, an Eladrin basketball game would be fun to watch.

If you're marked, do you get a -2 to pass to anyone but the individual who marked you?

Hmm... 4E basketball rules...

Kylarra

2009-09-20, 03:33 PM

If you're marked, do you get a -2 to pass to anyone but the individual who marked you?

Hmm... 4E basketball rules...
If you're marked by a paladin and you pass the ball, do the heavens smite you? :smallamused:

Indon

2009-09-20, 03:36 PM

If you're marked by a paladin and you pass the ball, do the heavens smite you? :smallamused:

Yes, but the paladin gets called on a defensive foul.

Kylarra

2009-09-20, 03:38 PM

Yes, but the paladin gets called on a defensive foul.Paladins never get a break. :(

AllisterH

2009-09-20, 04:23 PM

But yeah, it's weird that at-will teleportation is actually (much) easier to obtain than at-will flight.

Well, there _ARE_ serious limitations to teleportation compared to flight.

One, it generally doesn't allow you to bypass terrain features. An eladrin slogging through the thick undergrowth STILL suffers movement penalties whereas a flier just ignores it (unless you remember wind conditions).

Teleportation is still mostly an encounter ability (is there a PC feat/paragon class/epic destiny that makes teleportation at-will?)

I ca see why teleportation isn't as troublesome as flying...

warrl

2009-09-20, 04:51 PM

Please post a fighter ability and a wizard ability that you feel are similar enough that the differences are "miniscule".

I don't think that's the most appropriate comparison. The wizard has area attacks, while the fighter has (at most) close-burst attacks.

But that isn't because the wizard has magic and the fighter doesn't. It's because the wizard is a controller class and the fighter is a defender class.

Sorcerer and Ranger are both striker classes. The sorcerer uses arcane magic; he has ranged single-target attacks, melee single-target attacks, and close burst attacks. Oh, and he can get some assistance from this animal-thing (his familiar) if he takes the appropriate feat. The ranger is a purely martial class. He has ranged single-target attacks, melee single-target attacks, and close burst attacks. Oh, and he can get some assistance from this animal-thing (his Animal Companion) if he's that specific sort of ranger.

Cleric, Warlord, and Bard are leader classes. The cleric uses divine magic to buff up his allies, to heal allies, and occasionally to debuff or smite enemies. As a standard thing without carefully chosen feats and spells, the healing is limited to twice an encounter. The warlord uses the mundane skills of martial leadership and weaponry to buff up his allies, to heal allies, and occasionally to debuff or smite enemies. As a standard thing without carefully chosen feats and martial powers, the healing is limited to twice an encounter. A bard uses arcane magic and his special bardic training to buff up his allies, to heal allies, and occasionally to debuff or smite enemies. As a standard thing without carefully chosen feats and martial powers, the healing is limited to twice an encounter.

If I had the books handy I could finish this: there are currently five power sources (arcane, divine, martial, primal, psionic) that define how characters do whatever they do - except that in game-mechanic terms all are the same except psionic - and four roles that define what sort of things characters do. Where a role exists in two power sources, though, what they do is pretty much the same regardless of how they do it.

But with five power sources and four roles, that's 20 supposedly distinct classes. There are 18 classes in the two current volumes of Player's Handbook (which do not include any psionic classes), and presumably 9 more in the third volume due next year. There are several more classes in the books for the two or three current "official" settings, and some more that are allegedly going to become core in the future but aren't in any of the above.

Fortunately, some classes have mixed roles. A Druid, for example, is a controller (locks down or minorly damages enemies in groups with area attacks), except when he shifts to animal form and is more of a striker. A Shaman is a leader, except the various spirits he summons can go into combat and act somewhat like strikers. Paladins are defenders with a small amount of leader-ish ability including some healing - which they are most likely to use on themselves, since defenders typically need the most healing.

Mando Knight

2009-09-20, 04:51 PM

One, it generally doesn't allow you to bypass terrain features. An eladrin slogging through the thick undergrowth STILL suffers movement penalties whereas a flier just ignores it (unless you remember wind conditions).Not when teleporting. It ignores all terrain conditions between the original and target squares.

Teleportation is still mostly an encounter ability (is there a PC feat/paragon class/epic destiny that makes teleportation at-will?)Aegis of Assault allows teleportation as an immediate reaction, and the Assassin has a teleport 3 at-will as a class feature. Misty Step allows teleport 3 (or 5 with a feat) whenever a Cursed foe is dropped. Combined with the numerous encounter, daily, and item powers that allow teleportation, a player can easily replace shifting with teleportation by Paragon tier at the latest.

AllisterH

2009-09-20, 05:00 PM

Not when teleporting. It ignores all terrain conditions between the original and target squares.

Well yeah I know that, but I assumed that since the eladrin's power takes 5 minutes to recharge, he's not just going to stand there and do nothing while he waits for it.

Ergo, the teleportation doesn't ignore terrain features. Contrast with FLY...If my calculations are right, you can fly for about 1.2 km before needing to land. THAT's ignoring significant terrain features.

Aegis of Assault allows teleportation as an immediate reaction, and the Assassin has a teleport 3 at-will as a class feature. Misty Step allows teleport 3 (or 5 with a feat) whenever a Cursed foe is dropped. Combined with the numerous encounter, daily, and item powers that allow teleportation, a player can easily replace shifting with teleportation by Paragon tier at the latest.

Which still is not as abusive as FLIGHT all the time, everytime. You're still dealing in a 2d environment with teleportation and many of the teleportation tricks require you to be in combat whereas at will flight just doesn't have that limtation.

Honestly, maybe it's my players but we've never found teleportation as presented in 4e to be game-breaking in either plot or combat. FLY though in 3.x was a headache for our group as I think many an adventure writer never really considered just how annoying it could be...

Mando Knight

2009-09-20, 05:16 PM

The problem for the PCs comes in when there are many foes in even the first Monster Manual that have hovering flight in 4e, several even in Heroic tier. The worst offenders are Dragons, since they have Reach and flight, and can use that to stay away from the melee characters and melee the squishier ranged characters.

greenknight

2009-09-20, 06:34 PM

But that isn't because the wizard has magic and the fighter doesn't. It's because the wizard is a controller class and the fighter is a defender class.

Sorcerer and Ranger are both striker classes. The sorcerer uses arcane magic; he has ranged single-target attacks, melee single-target attacks, and close burst attacks. Oh, and he can get some assistance from this animal-thing (his familiar) if he takes the appropriate feat. The ranger is a purely martial class. He has ranged single-target attacks, melee single-target attacks, and close burst attacks. Oh, and he can get some assistance from this animal-thing (his Animal Companion) if he's that specific sort of ranger.

This is similar to 3e's Fighter and Barbarian, or Wizard and Sorcerer. Both fill fairly similar roles and broadly speaking they are much the same as one another, but there's still some significant specific differences between the two classes.

Yes, classes which are intended to fill the same role will often have a number of things in common, regardless of what power source the class uses. But when you look at each class in detail, you will find that each one is a bit different in both mechanical and fluff terms.

Ozymandias9

2009-09-20, 07:34 PM

The Hybrid rules, which will be released in PHB3, actually will allow you to play this character from level 1 - Something Impossible in 3.5.

True, but you could always crib the 1st level apprentice multi-class rules from the 3.0 DMG. They were plenty interoperable.

Aron Times

2009-09-20, 07:50 PM

Flying monsters are much easier to deal with in 4E because any attack that causes the target to fall prone causes a flying target to crash. With creative power usage, you can keep a flying monster earthbound for most of the encounter.

Besides, if you're in the heroic tier, you can always use flying mounts to take to the skies. Hippogriffs are available at level 5, and you don't need Mounted Combat to use them in combat.

ashmanonar

2009-09-20, 08:19 PM

Conjurer

2009-09-20, 10:26 PM

Another way to obtain flight during heroic tier: just play a Storm Sorcerer and pick the right powers. Sorcerous Sirocco, Thunder Gust, Energetic Flight and Winds of change all grant a limited Flight capability, as does one of the storm Sorcerer's class features, although this one's really limited, triggering off a critical.

If you play in Eberron, House Lyrandar's Mark and Paragon Path continue this theme.

Kurald Galain

2009-09-21, 02:27 AM

Another way to obtain flight during heroic tier: just play a Storm Sorcerer and pick the right powers. Sorcerous Sirocco, Thunder Gust, Energetic Flight and Winds of change all grant a limited Flight capability, as does one of the storm Sorcerer's class features, although this one's really limited, triggering off a critical.
Flying for one move action (approx two seconds) only is what most people would call "jumping", not actually "flying".

Kizara

2009-09-21, 04:09 AM

As for as the Anthromatic Bat thing, its mindbogglingly easy to do this in GURPS. And by "do this" I mean completely accurately represent the concept, not some half-arsed 1/day abilities or crippling LA.

Assuming a medium-sized bat with approximately human strength (if you want something else that's no problem either):

First, flight. Well that's easy, as flight via large wings is a 30pt advantage. Refer to the advantage entry for maneuverability rules.

Second, echolocation. There's an advantage for this too, in that you can buy extra sensory types (thermal vision, echolocation, etc). I don't remember the point cost off hand, but its not that high.

Third, natural attack. This couldn't be simpler, as you can simply buy up your bite attack for a bit. You can even have a vampiric, life-draining attack, although this will be a little expensive.

Now, here is where GURPS really shines, as there are disadvantages for Nocturnal (-20 pts), Disturbing Voice (-10 pts), Social Stigma (monster) (-15 pts), Bad Grip (-5 pts or more, depending on how bad your grip is), and Stress Atavism (you act bestial under stress if you lose your composure) (-15 pts).

So, the negative aspects of being a big bat, which let's face it are numerous, actually outweigh the benefits, giving you a net greater amount of points to spend on other things because being a bat is more trouble then its wroth, points-wise.

So, yeah... GURPS = awesome. :smallsmile:

Renchard

2009-09-21, 08:35 AM

As for as the Anthromatic Bat thing, its mindbogglingly easy to do this in GURPS. And by "do this" I mean completely accurately represent the concept, not some half-arsed 1/day abilities or crippling LA.
<snip rules>
So, yeah... GURPS = awesome. :smallsmile:
Yea, but there's a large downside. You're making it easy for the players to do idiotic things like PLAYING A GIANT BAT.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-21, 08:38 AM

My gripe with 4e is that I can't run the game I want to with that system.

[snippage]

Can't run a intrigue game without "must have" final battle. There's no way to build a spellcaster using the character creation rules that can't fight. Anyone who's powerful in magic only knows how to blow things up... and... that's it.
I can't have the corrupted court mage who's slowly mind controlling everyone in the castle, but who dies to a young brat of a prince who sticks a sword in him.

I mean, it's literally impossible to build a paragon-tier character who is pathetic in combat. Anything low heroic can't hit you due to your level bonus.

... Put it another way, you can't trade tactical ability (combat bonuses and powers) for a strategic advantage. (charm person? shapeshifting? or plain diplomacy bonuses)

I'm sure I don't need to explain how this is done in 3.5.Yes, you do. Because I'm not seeing anything in your description which even begins to look like reality. Anything 5 levels below you can't hit you due to your level bonus in 4e? This is exactly replicated in 3.5, just without using the level bonus. Any character with in 3.5 5 levels of WBL and additional class features, feats, etc is nigh untouchable by a character 5 levels below them. If the character is question is a full casting class this becomes an exponential difference rather than a linear one.

In 3.5 you don't "trade" tactical ability for "strategic advantage." Instead you have both in spades.

Yes, broken features of 3.5 were reduced or removed from 4e. This is a good thing, even if you lament the lack of their presence in 4e. Charm Person? A classic 1st level "Save or Lose" spell. Shapeshifting? I'll refer you to the many "how can I change polymorph to make it not break my game" threads. Diplomacy bonuses? Surely you jest! In 3.5 with a trivial amount of effort and playing Diplomacy by the rules as written you win D&D forever.

Kylarra

2009-09-21, 09:25 AM

As for as the Anthromatic Bat thing, its mindbogglingly easy to do this in GURPS. And by "do this" I mean completely accurately represent the concept, not some half-arsed 1/day abilities or crippling LA.

So, yeah... GURPS = awesome. :smallsmile:

I am utterly shocked and amazed that the system that totes itself as a universal system can be used like building blocks to create character concepts. :smalltongue:

Random aside, anthropomorphic bats have no LA in 3.X either, although they're cheesy as hell.

I think we really need to get off the "can I play everything my heart desires?" mentality, because, frankly, level based systems aren't made for that. You can jerry-rig whatever, but you'll always get people complaining that it doesn't perfectly match the concept. Sure, in some cases it can be done, but it's hardly a flaw of the system itself that you can't play Superman [right out of the box in a "normal game"*].

*First person to say "pun-pun" gets smacked with a reality check

Kizara

2009-09-21, 09:39 AM

Yea, but there's a large downside. You're making it easy for the players to do idiotic things like PLAYING A GIANT BAT.

Heh, well there are two ways to deal with this. The first is the obvious: if you think its inappropriate or too stupid for your game, you ban it.

The second is that GURPS has an advantage called Unusual Background. Its a surcharge generally used for things where your character is a bit out of bounds for the standard setting, but still doable. It also can be a surcharge for a silly idea to have to pay for all the nonsense the GM will have to go through to make it work. The default is 10 pts, but you can always make it more.

Kaiyanwang

2009-09-21, 09:43 AM

Heh, well there are two ways to deal with this. The first is the obvious: if you think its inappropriate or too stupid for your game, you ban it.

Thank you. It seems that the above is considered an obscure and devious measure by most...

Kurald Galain

2009-09-21, 09:49 AM

I think we really need to get off the "can I play everything my heart desires?" mentality, because, frankly, level based systems aren't made for that.

Being level-based really has nothing to do with it.

There are two concepts being conflated here under "everything your heart desires". The first is, can you play something excessively powerful as compared to the rest of the group? The answer to this, in both level-based and point-based systems, is a firm "no". Of course, systems aren't perfect, so overpowered options can and do exist in any system (obviously including 4E) but they aren't intended.

The second concept is, can you play something different than the standard, or than the rest of the group. The answer to this, again in both level-based and point-based systems, is "yes": you can gain additional powers in one area, and as a tradeoff become weaker in other areas (such as LA in 3E, or Stigma in GURPS).

The point is that 4E does not allow this tradeoff. That is why several fantasy-based RPGs, whether level-based or not, allow you to play e.g. a bat (which is a silly example, but the principle easily applies to a dozen other examples) but 4E does not. It's not even allowed to make a less combat-focused character by improving your skills instead of taking a daily.

jseah

2009-09-21, 11:17 AM

Yes, you do. Because I'm not seeing anything in your description which even begins to look like reality. Anything 5 levels below you can't hit you due to your level bonus in 4e? This is exactly replicated in 3.5, just without using the level bonus. Any character with in 3.5 5 levels of WBL and additional class features, feats, etc is nigh untouchable by a character 5 levels below them. If the character is question is a full casting class this becomes an exponential difference rather than a linear one.

In 3.5 you don't "trade" tactical ability for "strategic advantage." Instead you have both in spades.
Depends on what you play and how much you optimize. I made a villian in 3.5 with the whole "fragile trickster" thing before.

Spent rather alot of his money on a scrying ball with telepathy. Plus was a diviner with basically divination/enchantment spells only.

I was mucking around with his contingencies and various tactics. Turns out, he (level 13) can't do much even against a level 7 cleric (will save too high) in a battle. Every battle plan turned into "if it gets to this, I've screwed up so bad I deserve to die".

Of course, I had to scrap him because my pre-planning of his actions gave me no way to reasonably introduce him to the characters as they had about no chance of finding him short of a god putting a big glowy sign on his head. Divination and lots of charms makes for one holy terror of a villian.

Ended up using a more toned down version with a bit more tactical options. At least she's findable now, even if she's harder to fight.

Yes, broken features of 3.5 were reduced or removed from 4e. This is a good thing, even if you lament the lack of their presence in 4e.
Most of these are only broken if you have the mentality that a "fair and challenging" combat is needed.

While I will not contest the brokenness that is the diplomacy system, the way you use the strategic skills (and spells) is to make fights EASIER.

If bandits are ambushing the players in a valley ahead, and the cleric casts Divination that morning and manages to anticipate the ambush, the players deserve an easier fight. They prepared for it and used character resources to gain an advantage, and thus should have a commensurate effect.

Or if the players recruit an airship pirate crew to fly them there with charm person and the promise of safe harbour (with more charm person), they deserve to bypass the fight completely for efficient application of resources.

## For shapeshifting, I was thinking more of being someone's doppelganger and impersonating him. Not for tactical applications. ##

Artanis

2009-09-21, 11:24 AM

If bandits are ambushing the players in a valley ahead, and the cleric casts Divination that morning and manages to anticipate the ambush, the players deserve an easier fight. They prepared for it and used character resources to gain an advantage, and thus should have a commensurate effect.

Or if the players recruit an airship pirate crew to fly them there with charm person and the promise of safe harbour (with more charm person), they deserve to bypass the fight completely for efficient application of resources.

What about skills, rituals, the multitude of skill-boosting powers, and good ol' RP?

Mando Knight

2009-09-21, 11:36 AM

## For shapeshifting, I was thinking more of being someone's doppelganger and impersonating him. Not for tactical applications. ##

Because there's no way you can play as a Doppelganger in 4e. Nope, that Monster Manual entry doesn't exist. Nor does its update in the Eberron Player's Guide. And the hat of disguise and impostor armor don't count, either. Nor does Bluff.

Orzel

2009-09-21, 11:43 AM

Being level-based really has nothing to do with it.

There are two concepts being conflated here under "everything your heart desires". The first is, can you play something excessively powerful as compared to the rest of the group? The answer to this, in both level-based and point-based systems, is a firm "no". Of course, systems aren't perfect, so overpowered options can and do exist in any system (obviously including 4E) but they aren't intended.

The second concept is, can you play something different than the standard, or than the rest of the group. The answer to this, again in both level-based and point-based systems, is "yes": you can gain additional powers in one area, and as a tradeoff become weaker in other areas (such as LA in 3E, or Stigma in GURPS).

The point is that 4E does not allow this tradeoff. That is why several fantasy-based RPGs, whether level-based or not, allow you to play e.g. a bat (which is a silly example, but the principle easily applies to a dozen other examples) but 4E does not. It's not even allowed to make a less combat-focused character by improving your skills instead of taking a daily.

That was one of the design goals. No sit in the corner PCs. A lot of players hated sitting in the corner during combat or noncombat.

jseah

2009-09-21, 11:44 AM

What about skills, rituals, the multitude of skill-boosting powers, and good ol' RP?
Ah, RP. Solution to all your strategic problems?

Nah.

I want a way to trade my combat ability for an easier time with the RPing for a strategic advantage.

Trading a daily for a pseudo-ability ("I'll promise to treat you better with NPCs") doesn't cut it. It needs to be a quantifiable ability with limits that normal people can't do without this power. That's why we have rules, for these things.

EDIT: about "no sitting in a corner" PCs,

I'll be perfectly happy to "sit in a corner" with my shield up knowing that we have a surprise round and traps on our side because I did my job.

Kurald Galain

2009-09-21, 11:50 AM

That was one of the design goals. No sit in the corner PCs. A lot of players hated sitting in the corner during combat or noncombat.
Not exactly. What players "hate" is not sitting in the corner, what they hate is getting something from their own character that they don't expect. If they build a character and expect it to be feasible in combat, they'll be disappointed if it's not. If they build a character and expect it to flee from combat, they won't be disappointed if it's not a good combatant.

But, any sufficiently complex system allows you to unintentionally build a character that's not good at what you want him to be good at. And that includes 4E. It's the job of a competent DM to inform players when they're building a character weak in one area.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-09-21, 12:34 PM

Depends on what you play and how much you optimize. I made a villian in 3.5 with the whole "fragile trickster" thing before.

Spent rather alot of his money on a scrying ball with telepathy. Plus was a diviner with basically divination/enchantment spells only.

I was mucking around with his contingencies and various tactics. Turns out, he (level 13) can't do much even against a level 7 cleric (will save too high) in a battle. Every battle plan turned into "if it gets to this, I've screwed up so bad I deserve to die".

Of course, I had to scrap him because my pre-planning of his actions gave me no way to reasonably introduce him to the characters as they had about no chance of finding him short of a god putting a big glowy sign on his head. Divination and lots of charms makes for one holy terror of a villian.

Ended up using a more toned down version with a bit more tactical options. At least she's findable now, even if she's harder to fight.I'm afraid that you've managed to run logical circles around yourself. One the one hand you claim that your level 13th NPC is not the match of a 7th level cleric in a spell casting exchange, which is patently ridiculous upon even a cursory examination of the spell lists and DCs involved* ; and then on the other hand you allow that despite this (nonexistent) weakness of your NPC that it is a virtual god due to all the other advantages 13 levels of spell casting brings to the table.

*(DC = 10 + <spell level> + <stat mod> + <other stuff>) Let's say your Wizard is an Enchanting specialist, which fits better with his modus operandi than Diviner. So spell focus and greater spell focus give another +2 "other stuff" (both of which can be bought as an Enchanter, in case you're really fixated on that specialization). Without any magic items being considered, and the level 13 has a huge advantage if we drag this into the mix, we've got a base DC of 20 for a 4th level spell (say, Lesser Geas, or Crushing Despair, or Confusion) against a Will Save of +9 (this assumes an 18 stat for both NPC and PC, a fair assumption which costs the NPC the 1 point stat boost advantage he has for a 6 level advantage. And, our NPC has spells up to 7th level for up to a 23 DC. Not a lockdown or a first spell win for the NPC, but in this comparison we've given the player every possible advantage and removed many advantages from the NPC. And it's still quite possible to be a single spell win for the NPC.

Most of these are only broken if you have the mentality that a "fair and challenging" combat is needed.Why wouldn't it be needed? Should one player at the table be at a disadvantage simply because they wrote "Fighter" or "Monk" on their character sheet, rather than "Wizard" or "Druid?"

While I will not contest the brokenness that is the diplomacy system, the way you use the strategic skills (and spells) is to make fights EASIER.

If bandits are ambushing the players in a valley ahead, and the cleric casts Divination that morning and manages to anticipate the ambush, the players deserve an easier fight. They prepared for it and used character resources to gain an advantage, and thus should have a commensurate effect.

Or if the players recruit an airship pirate crew to fly them there with charm person and the promise of safe harbour (with more charm person), they deserve to bypass the fight completely for efficient application of resources.Ok. How does the party of Fighters handle this same bandit attack? Or the group without a Cleric to cast Divination? Or a group whose good-guy alignment precludes them from Charming every NPC they might be able to wrest an unpaid service out of?

Face it, the advantages you want simply do not apply equally to all players in a D&D 3.5 game. All of them, once you've agreed to throw out the horror that is 3.5 Diplomacy, are for casters only, and this only scratches the surface of the imbalance. This is why they have been removed from D&D 4e. Maybe you're happy always playing a caster and being more powerful than the other players. But some people enjoy a balanced game when they are playing with a group of their peers.

For every person who declares "I sure wish 4e would let me play my favored character concept, but it simply does not have that flexibility" there is another person who declares "I love to play Monks, but they are just so gimped in 3.5 that there is simply no point." Both of these people want the same thing: To play a character concept of their choosing. And both are failed by the game system they are playing in.

Artanis

2009-09-21, 12:35 PM

Ah, RP. Solution to all your strategic problems?

Nah.

I want a way to trade my combat ability for an easier time with the RPing for a strategic advantage.

Trading a daily for a pseudo-ability ("I'll promise to treat you better with NPCs") doesn't cut it. It needs to be a quantifiable ability with limits that normal people can't do without this power. That's why we have rules, for these things.

EDIT: about "no sitting in a corner" PCs,

I'll be perfectly happy to "sit in a corner" with my shield up knowing that we have a surprise round and traps on our side because I did my job.

RP is only one of four things I mentioned.

Thajocoth

2009-09-21, 12:37 PM

I tried a universal point buy system once... DC Heroes. Made a giant floating eyeball with mind control powers. Honestly, I REALLY prefer the concreteness of level systems. It was fun, it just took forever to look through ALL my choices. (Yes, this is a necessary thing for me. I never make decisions without all the information to do so with.) 4e is as flexible as it can be without crippling itself from being too flexible for me.

Wings of Peace

2009-09-21, 01:16 PM

I've tried a few 4e games at a game shop near my house. It's reasonably quick to pick up but I picked up 3.5 pretty quick too so I'm a poor example there for either side. My only real complaint is that while mages seem more reasonably balanced now the new system of doing things just makes magic feel... less magical to me. But there may be others who disagree or agree with this statement.

Mando Knight

2009-09-21, 02:07 PM

My only real complaint is that while mages seem more reasonably balanced now the new system of doing things just makes magic feel... less magical to me. But there may be others who disagree or agree with this statement.

It kinda does, but it's only because they leave the fluff a lot more undefined in 4e. Do magic circles of runes circle your body when you cast a spell? Do you chant fake Latin before a fireball appears out of nowhere? It's all up to you, and if you don't put the effort into it, it'll be pretty boring. Thus my solution: When in doubt, ham it up.

Blackfang108

2009-09-21, 02:44 PM

Thus my solution: When in doubt, ham it up.

Kamina is a GREAT person to emulate.

Especially for my 1/2-Ling Bravura Warlord. He's a blast to play with.

Especially when he charges Large or bigger monsters with Flattening Charge.

"Who the hell do you think I am?!?!?"

Mando Knight

2009-09-21, 03:24 PM

Kamina is a GREAT person to emulate.

Especially for my 1/2-Ling Bravura Warlord. He's a blast to play with.

Especially when he charges Large or bigger monsters with Flattening Charge.

"Who the hell do you think I am?!?!?"

Inspiring Word: "Don't believe in yourself! Believe in me, who believes in you!"

Blue Ghost

2009-09-21, 04:40 PM

Yakk

2009-09-21, 04:47 PM

Ghost, try mixing up terrain and opponents.

A battle with 30+ minions, a battle with 5 swarms, and a battle with an elite[leader] and a solo[brute], and a battle with 7 lurkers, are going to have very different feels. And that is before you start throwing terrain at the problem.

If you always fight 2 soldiers, 2 artillery and 1 controller, with the same mix repeated 10 times per level, then yes, things will get very repetitive. ;)

ashmanonar

2009-09-21, 08:19 PM

Thajocoth

2009-09-21, 08:32 PM

I prefer the 3e fluff (the alignment system, the planes, the deities, etc.) by far to 4e, but of course that's not inherent to the system.
I've tried 4e before, and I really appreciate the balance of the system, but combat tends to get tedious after a while. Most battles tend to be overlong and boil down to the same strategy over and over. Anyone else find this a problem?

I take 4e's evil to mean lawful evil and it's good to mean chaotic good. Then I allow the 4 omitted neutrals anyway.

As for the battles, no. Not at all. If done right, there should be a reason for the players to want to move to get an advantage on the enemy. Flat open plains are boring. I've used everything from conveyor belts to slippery floors to pits to phase rock... Terrain elements that can help either side of the battle depending on who uses them to their advantage better. Players are far more likely to say later "Remember that fight on the wooden debris floating down-river to the waterfall?" Than they are to say "Remember that fight with the lich and 5 goblins?" I really hate to say this, but... "Location! Location! Location!"

Indon

2009-09-21, 09:13 PM

As opposed to "Fighter full attacks, ranger full attacks, Cleric turns into avatar of god and flattens enemies while raining holy fire on them, and Wizard casts 2 spells then sits back and reads while his spells do all the work?"

How are battles any more tedious in 4th compared to 3rd?

Well, the Fighter and Ranger both finish their actions relatively quickly. The Cleric and Wizard are either casting something new, which would, well, be novel, or are casting their usual stuff, which at most would take as long as a 4E character's turn.

Meanwhile, everyone in a 4E game has a little pool of pseudo-spells that they use to effect useful-but-not-too-useful secondary effects.

They can't spam those secondary effects so they cycle through them.

So everyone takes as much time as a 3E caster, but nobody can finish the battle in 2 rounds like a 3E caster can. So the game plods on in comparison.

Not even maneuver users in 3E are as bad as 4E characters, since many 3E maneuvers are just novel ways to deal damage, and don't involve tracking secondary effects. If you had a party of maneuver users who all picked maneuvers which grant minor buffs and debuffs, and then gave them a couple free levels of factotum for limited pseudo-spellcasting, and then changed their full attacks into more maneuvers, then you'd get something close to the amount of time consumption 4E combat has.

jseah

2009-09-21, 10:00 PM

RP is only one of four things I mentioned.
The others you can take without sacrificing combat ability. And so aren't relevant to the trade-off.

I assumed RP involved some level of houseruling from the DM.

I'm afraid that you've managed to run logical circles around yourself. One the one hand you claim that your level 13th NPC is not the match of a 7th level cleric in a spell casting exchange, which is patently ridiculous upon even a cursory examination of the spell lists and DCs involved* ; and then on the other hand you allow that despite this (nonexistent) weakness of your NPC that it is a virtual god due to all the other advantages 13 levels of spell casting brings to the table.
He's a virtual god because the players don't have the spells needed to force him into a combat. He'll see them coming and get out of the way.

<...> And it's still quite possible to be a single spell win for the NPC.
And how would he handle Magic Circle, Remove Curse/Disease and various other spells that destroy his control? The combat is essentially over if the cleric gets to melee, dispel probably isn't an answer.

The best combat answer I could think of was "recruit" an army and let them the PCs. Which could work after he got enough power.

Why wouldn't it be needed? Should one player at the table be at a disadvantage simply because they wrote "Fighter" or "Monk" on their character sheet, rather than "Wizard" or "Druid?"
Ok, fine you got me. I can't pretend they aren't at a disadvantage. Because they don't have the ability to trade (much) tactical for strategic advantage.

But if combat difficulty doesn't need to push the characters to the brink each time, the power difference between a wizard and fighter in combat narrows. Especially if the wizard has to worry about running out of strategic spells but can rest easy knowing that using those spells ensures the fights are easy enough for the fighter to win.

(15 minute day doesn't apply if your enemies are using their time wisely. 1 day of no-show can make the villian gain an unstoppable lead sometimes. And Divination eats a lot of spells. )

Ok. How does the party of Fighters handle this same bandit attack? Or the group without a Cleric to cast Divination? Or a group whose good-guy alignment precludes them from Charming every NPC they might be able to wrest an unpaid service out of?
Scouting? Asking locals? Performing a flyby on a griffon cohort?
Although see below.

Face it, the advantages you want simply do not apply equally to all players in a D&D 3.5 game. <...> But some people enjoy a balanced game when they are playing with a group of their peers.
While certainly not all strategic options are caster-only, I'll concede that the most powerful are caster-only.

That simply means that the PCs specialize. Casters can handle the strategy, while some fighting strength backup ensures screwups on the world stage can be handled without risking a TPK.

For every person who declares "I sure wish 4e would let me play my favored character concept, but it simply does not have that flexibility" there is another person who declares "I love to play Monks, but they are just so gimped in 3.5 that there is simply no point."
It's not just the character concept. The game plan can't work the same way.

4E is more suited to a dungeon crawl where the heroes bust in the door and save the day.

3.5E gives you the tools to plan ahead for the trip and assess whether you even want to go there in the first place. The villian can't possibly have only one nefarious plan.

An entire section of character concepts (ie. the librarian, scryer and charmer) have been discarded from player access. And practically no rules to guide GMs in making such an NPC.

Thajocoth

2009-09-21, 10:01 PM

Well, the Fighter and Ranger both finish their actions relatively quickly. The Cleric and Wizard are either casting something new, which would, well, be novel, or are casting their usual stuff, which at most would take as long as a 4E character's turn.

Meanwhile, everyone in a 4E game has a little pool of pseudo-spells that they use to effect useful-but-not-too-useful secondary effects.

They can't spam those secondary effects so they cycle through them.

So everyone takes as much time as a 3E caster, but nobody can finish the battle in 2 rounds like a 3E caster can. So the game plods on in comparison.

Not even maneuver users in 3E are as bad as 4E characters, since many 3E maneuvers are just novel ways to deal damage, and don't involve tracking secondary effects. If you had a party of maneuver users who all picked maneuvers which grant minor buffs and debuffs, and then gave them a couple free levels of factotum for limited pseudo-spellcasting, and then changed their full attacks into more maneuvers, then you'd get something close to the amount of time consumption 4E combat has.

4e battles do take longer. Good management with cards and status effect tokens helps a lot... I've found 4e battles to be a lot more fun, but the only game of 3.5 I've played had the DM just sending orcs, kobolds, ogres, kobolds, orcs and the occasional undead... All of which he used so many times that he's memorized their stats... All of which are on featureless plains and have the same tactics... So my fighter gets to full attack a few times with his sword and horns. Absolutely no changing anything up ever. Outside of battle I'm mostly standing around waiting to be useful too. I'm assuming this is the DM's fault though. He paints his picture with gray paint, and that's actually how I've come to visualize it... All in boring monotone. The 4e games I've played are full color, and one of them is in HD. The DM of that last one always makes sure to gives us interesting & dangerous terrain, put a lot at stake, and give us great details about what we see, hear, feel, smell, and even do (based on our choices of moves and the dice). It's also Paragon Tier though (we're level 18 now, I think.) Also, he's an artist... Professionally... For video games... So painting us a good picture is kinda natural for him. I don't know that 3.5 can't do this. It very well might be able to. In the 3.5e game, we're party level 6 (With LA, that's 3, 3, 6 & 5). But the two 4e games that were not Paragon Tier both started at 1 and went up to 7 & 8 so far, and were very interesting and colorful the whole way. (And run by programmers, not artists...)

BobTheDog

2009-09-21, 11:36 PM

Seems to me this thread is on the brink of war (and therefore closure), but I'll pretend I didn't read the last pages and stick to the surprisingly nice feel of "let's share our thoughts" of the first part...

So, my current thoughts on 4e vs 3.x:

I'm currently DMing my third 4e game, having been a player only once, and I think I'm playing a heavily homebrewed 3.x (not 3.5 anymore, not PF). I'm not sure if I am playing because the game hasn't been on for a couple of weeks, so I guess the campaign died (which happens quite often among my buddies)... I have played and DMed 3.5 before 4e came around.

Anyway, let's start with my DM point of view:

I'm never touching 3.x again. Period. People have already gone over most of these, but I'll list them just for verbosity's sake: :smallbiggrin:

- Ease of preparation. Since my 3.5 DM days, I have gotten a full-time job, a freelance online job, I've spent this year dealing with getting a new house and all the demands arising from there. I don't have time to spend hours or days preparing NPCs, monsters and so on. I can "wing it" much easier in 4e, and whenever I do have some extra time to prepare, I can spend less of it "doing math", and more "being creative". Also, I began to kinda feel sorry and bemused at the amount of work my 3.x DM puts in the game (to the point of single-handedly revamping a lot of subsystems he didn't like, importing some from PF, some from 4e, some from 2e etc.).

- Ease of performance. I'm a little absentminded; I used to forget monsters' "stuff" a lot (once I thought a dragon fight went off too easily on the PCs only to realize a couple hours later that I forgot to "use" its spell resistance, so the casters just mopped the floor with it). It still happens eventually, but since monsters have shorter "ability lists", it's very rare.

- Doesn't get in the way. When the players want to do stuff that's "not obvious", I don't need to look for those "not obvious" rules, since the rules aren't there. I just decide what happens or, if it should include some randomness, I "page 42" it.

I think those are the big 3 reasons I'm never going back to DMing 3.5. I also know that those points can be countered in several ways, but I'm not claiming they are universal truths. Also, there's no point in countering them with stuff like "3.5 can also be like that" because, again, it's not true for me. As I mentioned, I've DMed 3.5 before, I know how it works with me.

Now, as a player:

I prefer 4e, but I'll play 3.x if that's what the DM/group wants.

- I used to really like the 3.5 character creation process, being a powergamer at heart (in the "let's get the best combination possible for this concept" way, not in the "I'm CoDzilla! Rawr!" way). After building characters in 4e, I get find myself getting bored with 3.5. To me, it really feels like no matter what I do, it plays the same, while in 4e even if the structure is similar, the gameplay is different. That means that for the last few 3.x games I've played, I just selected a class and race, the "basic" feats and did a single classed character, opposed to the "lvl 3 this/lvl 5 that/lvl 10 prestige" fine-tuned chars I used to do (it's also devilishly funny to see the DM list all the feats that he "made useful" and say "nah, I'll just take Power Attack, but thanks" :smallamused:). I think part of it is the Character Builder's fault, for making it so darned simple to make weird 4e characters by the dozens... :smalltongue:

- I like 4e's "no matter what I want to play (within the system's limits), it works" thing. The parenthetical is to avoid the giant bat argument. The only time I wanted to play as a giant bat was in a Toon! game, and I should say that it was a breeze to both make the character and to have fun playing it. :smallwink: Jokes aside, what I mean is I don't blame the system if it doesn't "allow" my concept to work. I can't play a noncombatant character in 4e, I can't make an effective high level monk in 3.5, and I can't play a minotaur in V:tM, okay, I'll find something that works.

- When playing 3.x, I'm constantly annoyed when the DM puts the rules in the way. Granted, this is mostly the DM's fault for letting the rules stop the game, but I no longer enjoy flipping through the books to find out how many hit points my friend will heal overnight if I use Heal to tend to his wounds ("wait, I think it's double his level for having shelter, and double that for Heal" "so, does that count for the 'x2 x2 = x3' thing?" etc. etc.)... I'll also grant that I haven't been a player in 4e often enough (and with enough different DMs) to know how much this remains a problem, but at least in my games I have had a large reduction in "rules lawyering".

--

Okay, I've written a gigantic post, as usual. I'll stop now.

Mando Knight

2009-09-21, 11:57 PM

I think part of it is the Character Builder's fault, for making it so darned simple to make weird 4e characters by the dozens... :smalltongue:

DDI's Character Builder: Best gadget WotC has ever produced. Ever. (followed by the Compendium, and later the Monster Builder once it ends its Beta...)

The New Bruceski

2009-09-22, 01:31 AM

Yeah, given the trainwreck that was (maybe still is, haven't followed it) Magic Online, I think everyone was surprised at how the Chacter Builder and Compendium just work.

Kurald Galain

2009-09-22, 03:16 AM

How are battles any more tedious in 4th compared to 3rd?
Because after four rounds, everybody is most likely out of encounter powers and has used the daily (if any) they wanted to use in that fight; if you're fighting a solo, it likely has a couple hundred hit points left. This is the point where tactics tends to break down because you're out of tactical options, and instead resort to spamming your at-will over and over again.

Also, in 3E, the feat Dodge doesn't really do much, but requires bookkeeping and you have to think about it every turn. Several 4E powers have the same problem (although this depends on what powers the party has): they give bonuses that often don't actually matter but do have to be kept track of.

Thajocoth

2009-09-22, 03:29 AM

Because after four rounds, everybody is most likely out of encounter powers and has used the daily (if any) they wanted to use in that fight; if you're fighting a solo, it likely has a couple hundred hit points left. This is the point where tactics tends to break down because you're out of tactical options, and instead resort to spamming your at-will over and over again.

I haven't really actually seen this, honestly... But groups I'm in use our At-Wills while setting up to best use our Encounter powers. If it looks like a hard encounter, we might open with a Daily. (Dailies usually have effects that last all battle.) The group usually has an encounter or two left when we're done and a few dailies at the end of the day.

And when fighting solos? I remember one hydra getting flipped around like a pancake... While we were all swimming... They just seem to go down easier despite the HP. Usually for solos though, people in my groups open with all their dailies and encounters, vaporizing it in a few rounds (4-7? Less than normal encounters). Usually an enemy will get to use each of it's attacks once, some twice before it dies, so it lives for about as long as it's interesting. If we lose initiative to a solo though, we might have a round or two of damage control, but damage control rounds seem to go really fast. If we beat it's initiative, a couple players might need damage control in round 2 if we didn't neutralize the enemy well enough. We actually use solos now with other enemies instead of just a solo alone, as a single foe is pretty much worthless against a decent party.

Kurald Galain

2009-09-22, 03:39 AM

And when fighting solos? I remember one hydra getting flipped around like a pancake... While we were all swimming... They just seem to go down easier despite the HP.
Oh, they do go down easier; it just takes awhile. We've had several battles against solos where the DM declared victory in our favor when the solo had literally hundreds of HP remaining, saying that we'd obviously win it but it would take another half hour.

Similarly, in a battle against a horde of enemies, there becomes a point when the PCs have obviously won and the enemies are no longer a threat, but it would take three more rounds to actually get those enemies down to zero. This "clean up" is really not the interesting part of combat, and it is good DMing, imho, to declare the battle over at that point.

But psychologically, there's not much difference between 3E's "all I can do is shoot my crossbow" and 4E's "all I can do is use my at-wills".

We actually use solos now with other enemies instead of just a solo alone, as a single foe is pretty much worthless against a decent party.
I agree that this is good encounter design.

Conjurer

2009-09-22, 08:24 AM

Flying for one move action (approx two seconds) only is what most people would call "jumping", not actually "flying".

Curiously, only one of the four powers I mentioned (adn the class feature) allow flying as a single move action. All the others allow for flying and hoovering in between rounds. The power that limits flight to a single move allows you and a friend to fly farther and higher than you could normally jump anyways.

Be that as it may, unrestricted flight is held back until mid-parangon instead of... level 5. And that's a good thing.

Renchard

2009-09-22, 08:25 AM

Tiki Snakes

2009-09-22, 09:22 AM

But psychologically, there's not much difference between 3E's "all I can do is shoot my crossbow" and 4E's "all I can do is use my at-wills".

Just to say, while I see what you mean in some ways, in others I disagree.
in the case of my Human Sorcerer, his three at-wills each target a different defence, using a different damage type, and hitting in slightly different ways. (one requires one hit roll, but damages two opponants at range. One gets free secondary attacks depending on what I roll, one is a single target attack that pushes.

Similarly, the Halfling Barbarian I was playing on Games day had the choice between an attack that targeted two people, (auto damaging one a bit like cleave, but rolling a d6, think it might be a preview of stuff from primal power?) and a single target attack that pushed. Now, he didn't get any use out of that latter power, but that was simply because of the way combat happened to flow, but the party was making very good use of similar powers, dropping Ugglies into pits. Definately had real and engaging tactical options even without the encounter and daily powers.

Yakk

2009-09-22, 12:27 PM

Because after four rounds, everybody is most likely out of encounter powers and has used the daily (if any) they wanted to use in that fight; if you're fighting a solo, it likely has a couple hundred hit points left. This is the point where tactics tends to break down because you're out of tactical options, and instead resort to spamming your at-will over and over again.
The thing is, I don't understand the anemic damage output you are describing.

I work out the at-will damage output of a high level non-striker character, and that is enough to kill a MM1 solo in ~6 rounds on average: throwing encounter and daily damage at it cannot help but shorten the battle.

And this matches my experience. While MM1 solos aren't dangerous enough, they are also not that long lived.

Is it small parties fighting opponents who are balanced for parties of 5? An excess of leaders (who tend to do less damage)? Characters without level-appropriate magic items (which could easily add 1 or 2 rounds of damage required to drop the solo)? A lack of strikers?

Also, in 3E, the feat Dodge doesn't really do much, but requires bookkeeping and you have to think about it every turn. Several 4E powers have the same problem (although this depends on what powers the party has): they give bonuses that often don't actually matter but do have to be kept track of.
*nod*. I try to actively avoid those abilities.

Solid Sound (give yourself +2 to a NAD when you hit with a Thunder power) is good; White Lotus Enervation (target takes a -1 penalty to an NAD of choice when you hit them with an at-will power) is bad (esp. when used with an AOE power).

Kurald Galain

2009-09-22, 12:58 PM

Is it small parties fighting opponents who are balanced for parties of 5?
The opposite: a party of 6, and thus the opponent being upleveled. Also, the solo taking second wind to recover over a hundred hit points. And some evasive abilities; for instance, a flying solo reduces the effectivity of all melee-focused characters. Of course they also have bows, but they do less damage that way.

Artanis

2009-09-22, 01:00 PM

The others you can take without sacrificing combat ability. And so aren't relevant to the trade-off.

So you want to make a character with non-combat utility but that can't fight.

First, there are a lot of ways to get non-combat utility, including pretty much every non-combat utility mentioned. Between skills, utility powers, items, and rituals, you get plenty of out-of-combat usefulness.

And many of them have plenty of tradeoffs. Rituals cost money. Non-combat utility powers require the sacrifice of other, more combat-oriented powers. Knowledge and Diplomacy-type skills require the sacrifice of more combat-worthy skills like Perception. Items cost money and take up slots that could go to other, more combat-worthy items.

Second, let's look at lack of in-combat ability. You mention the Cleric casting divination. Well, the Cleric has lots of combat capability, whether you like it or not. When you sit out of combat with a Cleric, you are making an active choice to forgo using Turn Undead, the Inflict line of spells, its attack spells like Flame Strike and Slay Living, its ridiculously strong melee capability, and maybe even its heals. It doesn't matter what your build is, if you're playing a Cleric, the only thing keeping you from using this is an active choice on your part.

For using Charm spells on an airship's crew, the chance of successfully doing so is up to the DM in both editions. In 3e, the DM sets the target's Will save, in 4e, the DM sets a DC for a Diplomacy check. Either way, the chance of successfully pulling off the convincing comes down to a d20 roll against a number that the DM decides on.

Why is it acceptable to ignore abilities you have in 3e, but not acceptable to ignore abilities you have in 4e? Why is it acceptable for the DM to set a target number for a d20 roll to con an airship crew in 3e, but not acceptable for the DM to set a target number for a d20 roll to con an airship crew in 4e? You are applying a double standard, which is just plain not fair. If you're going to apply a standard to one, you must apply the same standard to the other, or else your entire argument is totally invalid.

Shisumo

2009-09-22, 01:13 PM

I like 4e more than 3.5, totally.

But, as to whether or not you will like it... I turn to my favorite President Lincoln quote:
"The people who like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing they like."

QFf'nT.

One of the things that has amused me about the Edition Wars since they first began is how very often the sorts of things that 4E partisans will say they like about 4E and hated about 3E are the exact same things that 3E partisans will say they hate about 4E and love about 3E. I can't think of any other set of net disputes that have been so thoroughly based on the question, "is it a feature or is it a bug?"

BobTheDog

2009-09-22, 01:36 PM

The opposite: a party of 6, and thus the opponent being upleveled. Also, the solo taking second wind to recover over a hundred hit points. And some evasive abilities; for instance, a flying solo reduces the effectivity of all melee-focused characters. Of course they also have bows, but they do less damage that way.

IIRC, monsters don't have second wind, unless specifically stated. :smallconfused:

jseah

2009-09-22, 02:39 PM

And many of them have plenty of tradeoffs. Rituals cost money. Non-combat utility powers require the sacrifice of other, more combat-oriented powers. Knowledge and Diplomacy-type skills require the sacrifice of more combat-worthy skills like Perception. Items cost money and take up slots that could go to other, more combat-worthy items.
Acknowledged. Yes, these things can take resources. They can't take your most obvious character resource though. Which are dailies/encounters. See 2nd last section.

Second, let's look at lack of in-combat ability. You mention the Cleric casting divination. Well, the Cleric has lots of combat capability, whether you like it or not. When you sit out of combat with a Cleric, you are making an active choice to forgo using Turn Undead, the Inflict line of spells, its attack spells like Flame Strike and Slay Living, its ridiculously strong melee capability, and maybe even its heals. It doesn't matter what your build is, if you're playing a Cleric, the only thing keeping you from using this is an active choice on your part.

<...> You are applying a double standard, which is just plain not fair. If you're going to apply a standard to one, you must apply the same standard to the other, or else your entire argument is totally invalid.
And if I need something like 4+ divinations a day? Or many many charm persons because NPCs can make saves too... I could burn more than half my spells per day just anticipating enemy strategic actions and gathering information.
Burning turning attempts on DMM Extend for better, longer lasting divinations.

And then what am I to do in a combat? Hit things with my 3/4 bab? (or worse if you're a Cloistered Cleric which does the whole non-combat cleric shtick better)
Well, they can spontaneously heal/inflict. Which are severely limited without the ways of making them 30ft touch attacks.

You can focus your entire feat, spell and PRC selection to favour a particular style of play. Yes, you can prep divine power the next day and go bash heads in. Without the appropriate feats and items, a cleric can't do very well in combat. It might even be on par with a fighter! =P

- Less jokingly, a 3.5 Cleric can substantially change his style of play in 24 hours. Can't change feats and items but you can change spells. You're still sub-par compared to a battle-cleric. The gap is obvious. (Divine Power doesn't work that well without at least DMM Rapid, needs DMM Persist to be truly useful. Your god had better help you if you didn't take power attack...)
So that's the in-combat gap between a well-played (DMM Persist + nightsticks + Power Attack) battle cleric and a cleric with mismatched (combat-wise) feats and items.
Well over +75% to hit, some ungodly % more damage, untouchable defenses (comparatively) and immense tactical options
Versus
Getting a prepared ambush, information on enemy weakpoints and ability to bypass entire encounters

What's the in-combat gap between a 4E combat cleric and a non-combat one? Both heal. Both bash heads. Both inspire allies.
Non-combat cleric spent his money on rituals and feats on... I don't know, something non-combat.
Combat cleric has items to back him up. Do they substantially change his abilities? (on the level of nightsticks or candle of invocation [non-gate abusive]?) No.
He has feats on his side. Do they substantially change his abilities? (compared to DMM or plain turning?) No.
The gap is far far smaller. 4E battle clerics have like... +40% to hit, 100% damage, 30% higher defenses + some tactical options... over their non-combat brethren
versus
better tracking, security with resting, some odd divination questions, (IIRC some of those rituals had weird restrictions on the qns you could ask) and better NPC attitudes. Maybe.

Disclaimer: All numbers used here are my estimation from the numbers that came up in the 4E/3.5E games I play(ed) in. May not be accurate.

Now tell me, which game has the larger trade-off and thus more flexibility?

For using Charm spells on an airship's crew, the chance of successfully doing so is up to the DM in both editions. In 3e, the DM sets the target's Will save, in 4e, the DM sets a DC for a Diplomacy check. Either way, the chance of successfully pulling off the convincing comes down to a d20 roll against a number that the DM decides on.
Which depends on the crew's makeup and various situational things. While the wizened veteran of a skypirate captain might not be a good idea to try diplomacy on (since he's a powerful individual), you wouldn't want to try using "charm person" on the slick negotiator and taskmaster (read: bard) on the ship.

There's too many details that can affect the DC (assuming your DM even thinks of these things) making one choice better under certain conditions. Which is why relying on Diplomacy alone isn't enough.

Why is it acceptable to ignore abilities you have in 3e, but not acceptable to ignore abilities you have in 4e? Why is it acceptable for the DM to set a target number for a d20 roll to con an airship crew in 3e, but not acceptable for the DM to set a target number for a d20 roll to con an airship crew in 4e?
Because Diplomacy can be taken by anyone? And it "enhances" something inherently unpredictable... RPing.
Charm Person -> A specific spell/power/option that presents new ways of doing old things.
Much like fireball is a new way of using magic missile. In this case, it's a new way of doing something-like-Diplomacy.

Yes, rituals exist. Anyone can take them with a feat and a skill. (that 4E has much more of and is less useful) Thus they become something that is common, not a concept that takes a good portion of character resources to keep up.

#########################################

I hope I was clearer with this post than with my last. Does this answer your questions about not treating the comparison properly?

I must qualify my rather strong statements above. I don't think a party that has all the characters in non-combat roles can navigate an adventure properly. You still need your elite strike team. It just goes easier with one or two people dedicated to making combat easier from the outside.
- And fully specializing to strategy or combat only works if you're an NPC.

<- In a wizard/artificer/druid/warblade/crusader semi-optimized party and getting killed by G. Cubes and rats at level 2. Too much strategy, not enough ass-kicking...

It could be that I generally play PbP 3.5E (and generally play with people who prefer using a map and compass than take the train/railroad) and my one 4E experience was at the table. (with a new group)

I like the sort of open-scenario games where there's an objective and a bunch of NPCs with behaviour. The ways to victory depend heavily on what your character brings to the game table and your planning of the game actions. Which is where this concept of strategy/tactical trade-off comes from.
Works for 4E too, it's just too much of a set piece battle with not enough degrees of freedom.

Mando Knight

2009-09-22, 02:52 PM

And then what am I to do in a combat? Hit things with my 3/4 bab? (or worse if you're a Cloistered Cleric which does the whole non-combat cleric shtick better)
Well, they can spontaneously heal/inflict. Which are severely limited without the ways of making them 30ft touch attacks.

Divine Power. Righteous Might. Summon Monster. Planar Ally. Mass buff. Need I go on?

jseah

2009-09-22, 02:58 PM

Divine Power. Righteous Might. Summon Monster. Planar Ally. Mass buff. Need I go on?
Non-combat spell selection, hello? I think I mentioned that just before that part. *checks*

Yeah, keeping up a divination-run spy network is pretty darn expensive in spells per day. Planar Ally is better used as a proxy party member doing something else. (it's an NPC, allowing your GM to adjudicate results faster, thus allowing you to get more things done by effectively being in more than one place at a time)

Still, planar ally is one good spell. Sit back and relax (or run around like a headless chicken trying not to get stabbed) while that thing does your share of ass-kicking or runs loot-selling errands.

BobTheDog

2009-09-22, 03:00 PM

Now tell me, which game has the larger trade-off and thus more imbalance?

Fixed it for you. :smallwink:

It seems we're kinda on the same page here, but the lens we're using is different.

You can make a character in 4e more or less effective in combat.
You have a wider gap between these types of characters in 3.5.

I see that as a good thing (when playing 4e). It means that the bard who decided to take a Utility that gives him skill bonuses instead of the one that gives the group a +1 to attacks for the encounter, and who also has a Daily that allows him to try a Diplomacy roll against the target (not sure such a Daily specifically exists, but I have seen some attack powers that give some "skill effects" here or there) instead of a pure "attack Daily" still functions in combat, whereas the Cloistered Cleric who prepared all divination spells and burned them in trying to find out what sort of creature lives in the dungeon does not.

Basically, to me: Limits = good. As a DM, it means I won't kill the group by accident, even if they're all kinda new to the game and made subpar choices (real current situation). As a player, it means I won't be useless even if I go for some exotic concept I want to try, and it means that the new players won't get me killed because they can't help (maybe because they don't know how to use their characters, but I digress...).

On the other hand, if I wanted to play as a completely non-combat character, I wouldn't play 4e. I wouldn't play 3.5 for that either, but I agree that 4e is "even worse" in that regard.

jseah

2009-09-22, 03:11 PM

Fixed it for you. :smallwink:
XD Very much true, I guess.

On the other hand, if I wanted to play as a completely non-combat character, I wouldn't play 4e. I wouldn't play 3.5 for that either, but I agree that 4e is "even worse" in that regard.
I use 3.5 for the simulationist treatment style (lots of material is a plus too). It's pretty harsh on non-combat characters who aren't willing to lie, cheat and steal (or magic) their way around. >.>

grubblybubbly

2009-09-26, 11:15 AM

this is really helpful! thanks to everyone who is posting!:smallwink:

dentrag2

2009-11-11, 12:09 AM

Sstoopidtallkid

2009-11-11, 12:10 AM

Plus, 4.x has no PC necromancers. How are we supposed to like it without necromancy?

lesser_minion

2009-11-11, 09:00 AM

4e just doesn't feel like the previous editions of D&D. Et Al.

However, in 4e's defense, it is not possible to RUN INTO ORBIT, JUMP SO FAR YOU CONVINCE PEOPLE TO BE YOUR WILLING SLAVES, OR DO 685 QUADRILLION DAMAGE.

OK. Fun fact: Every roleplaying game involves some kind of model. Modeling of any physical situation is based on working out what assumptions you can make in order to leave a simple problem that can be solved to give valid results.

In the case of jumping to make people your willing slaves, you are exploiting, IIRC, a magic item that deals double any damage you take to a willing friend, and then using the same item to double any damage your friend takes and deal it to you. You combine this with an effect that converts damage you take into a skill check bonus and another effect that stops you becoming gibbed. When the second effect wears off, you drown yourself to avoid gibbing.

These are all clearly dodgy parts of the model, yet you seem to be implying that this sort of thing is a fact of 3rd edition life. It isn't. Clearly the delayed death effect won't help you much if your character just gibbed - which he would do, after infinite damage. Living or not, quark-gluon plasmas don't make diplomacy checks.

The more things you have to ignore to leave a simple (playable) model, the more people can get out of exploiting those things - we call that metagaming, and there is a reason it's against the rules.

The Anti-Osmium bomb doesn't fly for three reasons:

The reaction would not be instantaneous. It would be pretty fast, but directly comparing the energy release to that of TNT to determine the damage wouldn't fly - it would be more of an intensely radioactive fire storm than a big explosion (eventually the air itself would ignite).
Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies wouldn't even be necessary. In decreasing order of severity, the consequence for most people on the planet will be either: Death by annihilation, death by vapouristation, death by transmutation, death by cooking, death by sunburn, death by radiation sickness, death by cancer.
From the perspective of the spell, there is no way antimatter can be considered mineral.