PDA

View Full Version : 4E?



Pages : [1] 2

Froogleyboy
2009-10-05, 09:37 PM
I rented the 4E books today and started reading when I thought "This seems very video game-y" has this happened to anyone? Does anyone else feel like this?

Thajocoth
2009-10-05, 09:46 PM
I rented the 4E books today and started reading when I thought "This seems very video game-y" has this happened to anyone? Does anyone else feel like this?

No. I play D&D 4th ed. I play video games. I MAKE video games for a living. No, it doesn't feel at all video game-ish to me.

It does feel GAME-ish. Not VIDEO game... Just Game. And being a game, I think it's good that it feels like one.

What your seeing is the gamist philosophy over the simulationist one. I'm a gamist, as I'd rather have fun than count how much my coins weigh... But some people prefer that every minute detail, no matter how boring, be played out in the most realistic way it can be. For those people (simulationists), there are plenty of other choices for them to enjoy.

Also, gamism tends to be easier to balance, and I like having better balance.

Gralamin
2009-10-05, 10:09 PM
A lot of people of commented on this before. I think most of us that play and enjoy 4e have calmed down enough on the opinion to not start a war. What you see is it going towards a different design philosophy then 3.5. People can call it what they want, but what it is essentially, is toning down the work on simulation and increase the game related work.

This leads to a different feel, one a lot closer to classic fantasy literature (Disclaimer: This opinion comes based on what Orson Scott Card, a far more learned man in these matters then I, stated in his book "How To Write Science Fiction & Fantasy". In brief, Fantasy Stories you start with no assumptions and build up with what the author tells you, and in Science fiction you start with physics and note exceptions). In addition, they focused on making the heroes, well, HEROIC, and above what others can do. The PCs are special.

This is definitely not the system for everyone, but its a good fun system if you're into the style.

Zeful
2009-10-05, 10:26 PM
I rented the 4E books today and started reading when I thought "This seems very video game-y" has this happened to anyone? Does anyone else feel like this?

I don't, there is no difference in tone or feel of the game for me, either on paper or in play.

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-05, 10:35 PM
To me, it's a little video gamish but it depends on how you want to see it.

The main reason I like it is because it's similar to another system I play (Star Wars Saga, and for rather obvious reasons) so there's not that much to learn.

I have the impression there's quite a lot of stuff streamlined though.

Starscream
2009-10-05, 10:43 PM
I rented the 4E books today and started reading when I thought "This seems very video game-y" has this happened to anyone? Does anyone else feel like this?

I have felt this, but I want to stress that I Do Not consider it to be a bad thing. I like video games. 4E does what it does very well, and has successfully tried something that no other tabletop system has done before. If it feels like a video game, fine, but it also feels like the most open ended, customizable and freedom-granting video game ever. Nothing wrong with that.

And 3.5 feels like the most open-ended, customizable and freedom-granting fantasy role-playing game ever. And Mutants and Masterminds is the most blah-blah superhero game ever. And GURPS is the most yadda yadda kitchen drawer marked "miscellaneous" ever.

And World of Darkness gave me an excuse to listen to Bahaus when I was in middle school. As long as you have fun, who cares what system you use. We are all still engaging in a slightly more adult version of playing cops and robbers, only with dice to avoid the whole "Bang! You're Dead", "Nuh-UH!" issue.

Dyllan
2009-10-05, 10:44 PM
It feels a little MMORPG-ish to me, not just video-gamish. But that's really only a superficial similarity that you tend to forget about (mostly) after a while.

However, the game still doesn't feel like D&D to me. I do enjoy it, but what I think of as D&D is drastically different... and is based on 3rd and 3.5. It's a different game. It's a good game, but if you want it to be like 3.5, just play 3.5. I still prefer 3.5, overall... but I play in both.

Hal
2009-10-05, 11:08 PM
I've never really understood the comparison myself. All I know is that my group (avid video gamers and RPG players) have unanimously agreed that we prefer 4E to previous D&D iterations. For what it's worth.

infinitypanda
2009-10-05, 11:35 PM
I've played a lot of MMOs, and 4e really doesn't feel like one to me. To me it feels more like Descent, but with role playing. Which is a beautiful thing.

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-05, 11:38 PM
There is a lot of reliance on minis, to the point where among some people there's a little snobbery. I only have counters as I save my money for books rather than booster packs

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-06, 12:19 AM
4e just happens to use elements commonly found in some videogames, such as character roles. It's not "video-gamey" because it shares these traits in common any more than Greek gyros are "burrito-y" because they're both basically stuff wrapped in bread.

D&D started off as a tabletop wargame (Chainmail), then became a minor extension to a tabletop wargame (0e), then a competitive exploration game with combat rules (1e), then a storytelling game with combat rules (2e), then a world-building system with combat rules (3e), then a board game with combat rules (4e). Alternatively, it started as a Chainmail ripoff, then became a Choose Your Own Adventure book ripoff, then a Diablo ripoff, then a WoW ripoff, if you'd prefer to think of it that way. These are of course stereotypes, as any one-sentence description of a game must be; you can't really sum up an edition in a few adjectives.

My take on which edition I prefer? I learned with 1e, then switched to 2e (which changed a ton of fluff but was basically the same mechanics cleaned up a bit), then switched to 3e (which drastically changed the core gameplay mechanics but kept the flavor pretty much the same), and now basically play 3e with a bunch of minor rules to 2e-ify it. 4e changed both the core mechanics and the fluff at once, which is one mark against it in my book. The second mark against it is its overreliance on miniatures and detailed movement--3e can be taken back to its predecessor's mostly-gridless roots basically by messing with AoOs, but you'd have to do a ton of work to be able to play 4e with a ruler and a few marks on a whiteboard.

Finally, I play D&D because of the things that make it unique in my view: take out Vancian casting, alignment, the Planescape cosmology/Greyhawk fluff, the various subsystems, etc. and you just have a generic fantasy game, and if I wanted that I'd play that, I'd look for a generic fantasy game--simply put, if 4e wasn't meant to be a new edition of D&D, I'd probably play it in a heartbeat, but it doesn't give me what I want out of D&D. Third strike and it's out.

So, summary: Any edition of D&D is what you make of it. Many people like 4e, many people don't; I happen to fall into the latter category, but when I criticize 4e I only bring up valid criticisms, and "4e = vidjagame!" is one that's been brought up and refuted before.

Zeta Kai
2009-10-06, 12:20 AM
Also, gamism tends to be easier to balance, and I like having better balance.

That's because to a simulationist or a narrativist, balance doesn't matter one whit. It's like saying that simulationism tends to be easier to emulate reality, or narrativism tends to tell better stories. That's the point. A balanced game is a fun game, while an unbalanced game is less so. Some people like unbalanced games, but that's not the ideal.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-06, 12:24 AM
A balanced game is a fun game, while an unbalanced game is less so.

I'd revise that to specify that a balanced game is a fun game for players whose criteria for "fun" include balance. Some people place balance as the primary criterion to determine whether a game is fun, and some don't care about balance as long as they can hit stuff with pointy bits of metal; more balance usually makes for a more fun game than less balance does, but it's not an absolute.

Thajocoth
2009-10-06, 12:49 AM
There is a lot of reliance on minis, to the point where among some people there's a little snobbery. I only have counters as I save my money for books rather than booster packs

I use the pieces from Monopoly, Sorry & Clue. I have some pieces of foamcore board for large, huge & gargantuan minis.


That's because to a simulationist or a narrativist, balance doesn't matter one whit. It's like saying that simulationism tends to be easier to emulate reality, or narrativism tends to tell better stories. That's the point. A balanced game is a fun game, while an unbalanced game is less so. Some people like unbalanced games, but that's not the ideal.
Aren't all systems narrativist? Well, in the hands of a good DM, at least...

toasty
2009-10-06, 01:09 AM
As someone who's sole view of previous DnD editions is Neverwinter Nights, Neverwinter Nights 2 and the SRD I do think that 4E kinda feels like a video game. But not in a bad way. For what DnD 4E does, I think its a great game. If I wanted a game focused on story and adventure I'd choose a different system. If I want a generic fantasy setting with powerful magic and big explosions, then I'll take DnD 4E.

The Battlemaps aren't that big a deal. I mean, I play via PbP so its not that big a deal (I use use some basic programs to create battlemaps; it takes a bit of time but I can get it done fast enough), really, but graph paper or a dry-erase board can act as a battlemap as easily as a real one with plastic minis.

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-06, 01:27 AM
Using minis and the map does tend to slow things down a bit though.

Nothing kills the excitement of a battle like starting one (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1010)

potatocubed
2009-10-06, 01:30 AM
D&D 4e takes its design inspiration from many different sources, at least some of which include video games. I think the primary two reasons why it can often feel like a video game are a) the explicit tank/healer/DPS/crowd control class setup, which has been looted from fantasy MMOs, and b) the attempt to completely divorce the game mechanics from the game world.

We accept this kind of limitation in video games because we understand that there's only so much code you can have, and so many frames of animation. The same invisible walls exist in 4e for similar reasons (game balance, and there's only so much a GM can cope with) but much less effort (read: none) is made to justify them with game-world explanations than in earlier editions of D&D.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-10-06, 01:40 AM
I don't think 4e is terribly like a video game, but I do think some stuff was thrown in as deliberate WoW homages just to mess with people who were complaining about this very thing during the pre-release phase (like the Eladrin art).

Zeful
2009-10-06, 01:40 AM
There is a lot of reliance on minis, to the point where among some people there's a little snobbery. I only have counters as I save my money for books rather than booster packs

There's no more reliance on mini's in 4e than in any other edition of D&D ever. I can still plan and execute battles entirely in my head, assuming the DM is concise about how far away everything is from each other, which is a GM competency issue rather than a limitation of the system.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-06, 03:41 AM
There's no more reliance on mini's in 4e than in any other edition of D&D ever.
Huh? This is the first edition that assumes minis as the default in the core rulebooks, and has literally hundreds of powers that explicitly work on a battlegrid. Furthermore, WOTC has tried hard to make it more about minis because that's a major source of revenue for them. Of course 4E is more reliant on minis than earlier versions.

Thajocoth
2009-10-06, 03:56 AM
There's no more reliance on mini's in 4e than in any other edition of D&D ever. I can still plan and execute battles entirely in my head, assuming the DM is concise about how far away everything is from each other, which is a GM competency issue rather than a limitation of the system.

I don't think I could play anything without minis, really. In a 3.5 game online vs 2 identical enemies in a hallway, I needed to ask the DM enough questions to draw the board myself to be able to take my turn. My turn being, essentially "I Charge." Having an actual layout just helps so much with knowing one's options, and I'm not gonna hold enough numbers in my head at once to fake that without a grid.

Dairun Cates
2009-10-06, 04:00 AM
Aren't all systems narrativist? Well, in the hands of a good DM, at least...

They're actually referencing a design philosophy instead of just the concept of someone who likes narratives in games. Any role-playing game can have a story, but some systems are built more for story than others.

For instance, In Nomine (a system where you play Angels and Demons in the real world) is very light on game crunch and set up to have lots of conflict in between characters. It's VERY heavy on the story, and the plot of a campaign is a very heavy factor in whether the game goes well.

On the other hand, D&D can usually get away with "There's a wizard. He's evil. Kill him." You can have a deeper plot, but it's not necessary. D&D also relies HEAVILY on combat while narrative-based systems generally rely on the player's interaction with NPCs and the words they choose.

I'll cut it off here, because otherwise, you're getting an hour lecture from me on the difference here. I'll just leave it at this. The answer is no. Not all systems are narrativist. If you're curious about the difference, try looking up the words Ludology and Narratology. It's a fascinating bit of study.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-06, 04:02 AM
4E, to me, seems simplified. It's marketed towards a younger audience. So it's easy to pick up and just get to work. Movement in "squares", may seem reminiscent of Turn based strategy games, but it's what we were doing before. A rose by any other name, and all.

And whether turn based strategy is Chainmail or Shining Force, it's still good stuff.

PinkysBrain
2009-10-06, 04:11 AM
It feels a little MMORPG-ish to me
This ... mainly in balancing. The rules for combat flow are purely gamist and really more board gaming than video gaming, they make it hard to narrate but this is a completely orthogonal issue to why people call it MMORPG inspired.

The way the game is balanced is pure MMORPG philosophy, this has less to do with all the shifting and minor combat advantages and everything to do with things like not having real illusions.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-06, 04:16 AM
An obvious similarity between 4E and a MMORPG is that in both, unlike in other RPGs, people care heavily about balance, and complain strongly whenever they perceive something as unbalanced.

An obvious difference between 4E and a MMORPG is that in the latter, the developers will check if complaints of unbalance are founded, and frequently release patches to fix mistakes and patch balance; whereas in 4E this doesn't happen much.

Another difference is that 4E mechanics are heavily turn-based, whereas MMORPGs run on real-time mechanics.

Myrmex
2009-10-06, 04:22 AM
This ... mainly in balancing. The rules for combat flow are purely gamist and really more board gaming than video gaming, they make it hard to narrate but this is a completely orthogonal issue to why people call it MMORPG inspired.

The way the game is balanced is pure MMORPG philosophy, this has less to do with all the shifting and minor combat advantages and everything to do with things like not having real illusions.

Yeah. The approach to 4E feels very much like the new approach to videogames.

I wish I could like 4E. It's a neat system. But it just doesn't sparkle.

Killer Angel
2009-10-06, 04:23 AM
I rented the 4E books today and started reading when I thought "This seems very video game-y" has this happened to anyone? Does anyone else feel like this?

mmm... 4E is not my cup, but if you really want to have a discussion on it, you should support this assertion with some evidence or with a little more explanation of why you have this feeling...

THEN, i will explain why I don't like it... (which is not related to this supposed MMORPG feeling) :smallamused:

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-06, 04:41 AM
A simplified ruleset, square based movement, and defined roles are generally what guide people towards that feel.

However, the same, or similar, exists in board games. Axis and Allies. Warhammer 40k. Etc. Heck, even chess.

Most people have more experience with these in a video game capacity, but that doesn't change the fact that they were on the tabletop before they were on the desktop.

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-06, 04:42 AM
An obvious similarity between 4E and a MMORPG is that in both, unlike in other RPGs, people care heavily about balance, and complain strongly whenever they perceive something as unbalanced.

An obvious difference between 4E and a MMORPG is that in the latter, the developers will check if complaints of unbalance are founded, and frequently release patches to fix mistakes and patch balance; whereas in 4E this doesn't happen much.

Another difference is that 4E mechanics are heavily turn-based, whereas MMORPGs run on real-time mechanics.

Haven't you heard of errata or even house rules?

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-06, 04:46 AM
Haven't you heard of errata or even house rules?

Errata doesn't happen nearly as often as patch updates. WoW gets updated monthly typically, and sometimes more often.

DDO gets updated weekly, and sometimes more often.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-06, 04:49 AM
Haven't you heard of errata or even house rules?

Haven't you heard of the many instances of inconsistent, unclear, or unbalanced rules in 4E that haven't been updated for a year now?

Eldan
2009-10-06, 05:17 AM
These days, one of the main reason for me to buy a book seems to be "Can I write a world with this, or use the world as written in an interesting way?" It's even the case with novels sometimes.
So I look at excerpts of the 4E fluff and I think "Well, that's not really interesting." A lot of it seems to be a kind of garbled Great Wheel with some new mythological elements thrown in.
Then I look at the rules. Are they better at representing what I want them to represent? Versatile powers (with the word powers used in it's widest possible sense. A full attack is a power, as in something the player can do), a lot of room for player and GM creativity, crunch that represents the world's fluff well?
And, same as with the fluff: I don't actually know the rules, but every excerpt and discussion of the subject I've seen makes me think that I'm not actually interested in investing the time to learn it.

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-06, 05:19 AM
Haven't you heard of the many instances of inconsistent, unclear, or unbalanced rules in 4E that haven't been updated for a year now?

House rules are there for a reason too.

Killer Angel
2009-10-06, 05:42 AM
House rules are there for a reason too.

House rules aren't "released" and have no merit in the balance of a system, nor in any of his aspects.

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-06, 05:45 AM
Well, stop complaining about not having things "fixed" if you're not willing to make do and see if you can do something yourself with the consent of your players.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-06, 05:50 AM
House rules are there for a reason too.

aka the Oberoni fallacy.

Killer Angel
2009-10-06, 05:54 AM
Well, stop complaining about not having things "fixed" if you're not willing to make do and see if you can do something yourself with the consent of your players.

err..? :smallconfused:
I'm not complaining. But we can't discuss on a system considering "house rules".
Otherwise, 3.x druid is balanced because I can house rules that natural spells don't exist.
Yes, I can house rule it; still, it's unrelated to the druid's unbalance.

aka the Oberoni fallacy.
here it is.

Katana, I really don't understand your point, sorry.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-06, 06:13 AM
House rules are there for a reason too.

A system's balance cannot be determined by nonstandard rules.

In fact, the need for house rules shows that the system is not balanced.

If you need to implement a patch or a fix, then there was a leak.

This is the heart of the Oberoni Fallacy.

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-10-06, 06:28 AM
A system's balance cannot be determined by nonstandard rules.

In fact, the need for house rules shows that the system is not balanced.

If you need to implement a patch or a fix, then there was a leak.

This is the heart of the Oberoni Fallacy.

I'm not really familiar with this Oberoni Fallacy, but isn't the ease with which a leak can be fixed indicative of balance? No system is going to be perfectly balanced to everyone's eyes, but how easy to get it balanced to your eyes would indicate how close it is to being perfectly balanced.

Yora
2009-10-06, 06:37 AM
I rented the 4E books today and started reading when I thought "This seems very video game-y" has this happened to anyone? Does anyone else feel like this?

The books seem to actively remind me on every page "You know, this is not supposed to simulate a fictional world. This game is only supposed to be about dice roling and character optimization."
And neither WoW or LotRO do that nearly that much. The books feel like "diablo without graphics".

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-06, 06:55 AM
I'm not really familiar with this Oberoni Fallacy, but isn't the ease with which a leak can be fixed indicative of balance? No system is going to be perfectly balanced to everyone's eyes, but how easy to get it balanced to your eyes would indicate how close it is to being perfectly balanced.

No. The need for a fix at all is what shows imbalance.

Oberoni fallacy is when you claim that it's not broken because you can fix it.

If it needs fixing, that's proof that it's broken.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 07:21 AM
The books seem to actively remind me on every page "You know, this is not supposed to simulate a fictional world. This game is only supposed to be about dice roling and character optimization."
And neither WoW or LotRO do that nearly that much. The books feel like "diablo without graphics".

Im with you on this. My biggest problem with 4th ed is that for me, it ruins the immersion. This might not be true for everyone...some people might love the minis and squares and such.

Now, I have no problems with mini's per se...I play 40k extensively, after all. However, when instead of describing things in feet, we use squares, and everyone has ridiculously similar power systems, with a very well defined role for each...it loses that feeling of being realistic and yes, feels explicitly like a game.

greenknight
2009-10-06, 07:23 AM
In fact, the need for house rules shows that the system is not balanced.

Well, there are other reasons to use house rules, such as the default rules not fully matching the ideas of the DM. For example, I could say that in my game world, there are no Elves, not because I think Elves are unbalanced, but because their fluff doesn't match my ideas for that gameworld.


An obvious difference between 4E and a MMORPG is that in the latter, the developers will check if complaints of unbalance are founded, and frequently release patches to fix mistakes and patch balance; whereas in 4E this doesn't happen much.

There are some (usually less successful) MMORPGs where the developers don't really care about game balance, and don't do a whole lot about releasing patches either. But there is a key difference here. With nearly all MMORPGs, it's difficult to practically impossible for the users of the system to implement their own patches/hacks. With any PnP game, it's generally not that difficult to do. That doesn't excuse WotC for not releasing their own fixes to the problems in 4e, but it does make the issues easier to deal with, for those who care about them.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 07:44 AM
I would say that modifiability is an advantage that pen and paper games hold over computer games in general, yes.

It's more an inherent advantage of the type of game than of any particular game, though, so it doesn't really affect the comparison of different pnp games so far as balance is concerned.

Optimystik
2009-10-06, 08:00 AM
err..? :smallconfused:
I'm not complaining. But we can't discuss on a system considering "house rules".
Otherwise, 3.x druid is balanced because I can house rules that natural spells don't exist.
Yes, I can house rule it; still, it's unrelated to the druid's unbalance.

Am I the only one who chuckled at the druid's lack of balance? Irony :smallwink:


As long as you have fun, who cares what system you use. We are all still engaging in a slightly more adult version of playing cops and robbers, only with dice to avoid the whole "Bang! You're Dead", "Nuh-UH!" issue.

I'm debating whether to sig this. You don't mind, do you?

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-06, 08:43 AM
OP, at the risk of rise the flames, I've to admit that 4th edition seems similar to a videogame in my eyes. Not to a generic videogame, but to a particular videogame, World of Warcraft.

Please note that this is not necessarily a bad thing - quite the opposite. As an example, I wish that my favourite edition of D&D, 3.x, had a system of crafting magic weapons for non spellcaster as good as the one in World of Warcraft.

At my eyes (and at those of every person in my gaming group and of other friends that both played WoW and play D&D) there are a lot of things that "remember us something" both from the aesthetic standpoint (the example Eladrin ---> Blood Elves is very good) and from the mechanics standpoint (At-will / Encounter / Daily ----> 1s Cooldown / 3-5 min Cooldown / 15-20-30 min cooldown).

Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing (even if those analogies kept most of my friends away from 4th edition) and in WoW there are things that are completely missing in 4th edition (example: my druid had a mass buff that needed a material component).

I'm sure that most times, both for art and for crunch, designers invented something similar because the archetypes behind a class lead you to reach a certain mechanic. Other times, I guess they wanted to attact MMORPG player.

The result of be inspired by a videogame is not bad per se. Simply, speaking for myself, this time I do better with previous editions (and , I repeat, there are things in Wow that are more similar to 3.x). Other people liked the changes.

Nevertheless, in my experience, a lot of people noted the analogies with WoW. I remember in a sort of convention I went, here in Italy, an RPG book seller were in difficulty explaining "new" roles and mechanics of 4th edition to a potential customer, and used Wow as an example.

Indon
2009-10-06, 08:45 AM
4E is far better balanced than many video game RPG's, frankly.

Though, 4E would probably require less tinkering to make a video game with than 3.5 has. DDO is pretty heavily houseruled - with some rules that made it into 4E, even (such as high HPs for level 1 chars).

The abilities in 4E are also more MMO-appropriate than in 3.5 - there'd be a lot more WoW-esque knockback effects, which I know from playing WoW are really fun. Short-range teleportation, a variety of short-duration and 'soft' CC abilities (which, if you have MMO experience, are much more 'fun' than long-duration mezzes and the like), proliferation of AoE attacks, all things 4E has over 3.5 in terms of making an engaging MMO experience. Also, way better PvP balance.

Meanwhile, 3.5 has kitchen sink abilities that have to be painstakingly transferred into MMO form.

I guess what I'm saying is that 4E is not a video game, but it would make a good video game (particularly an MMO) with minimal work, because it has a lot of the features we expect from video games.

Theodoric
2009-10-06, 08:48 AM
Meh. I tried playing it with an Xbox controller, but that didn't really work out.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 08:53 AM
I guess what I'm saying is that 4E is not a video game, but it would make a good video game (particularly an MMO) with minimal work, because it has a lot of the features we expect from video games.

I'm not actually sure this is true. Yes, 3.5 has more total material, but it fits into a very well defined framework with a pretty solid mathmatical base. In contrast, 4th ed relies heavily on powers and such that, while they may feel game-like, are not necessarily easy to translate into a game.

I think it'd be easier(though certainly not terribly easy) to make a 3.5 based game than a 4.0 based one.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-06, 09:03 AM
4all things 4E has over 3.5 in terms of making an engaging MMO experience. Also, way better PvP balance.
Balance is one thing, but PvP balance, really? Certain roles (e.g. striker) are much more suited to PvP than others (e.g. leaders). Also, compared to monsters, PCs do a lot more damage and have a lot less hitpoints; it seems that PvP in 4E mainly comes down to "whomever wins initiative, wins the battle".


Meh. I tried playing it with an Xbox controller, but that didn't really work out.
You're Doing It Wrong. You're supposed to put it on the battlemap as a boss monster, with a few Wiimotes as minions.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-06, 09:08 AM
it seems that PvP in 4E mainly comes down to "whomever wins initiative, wins the battle".


:smallconfused: Well.. barring the infamous well buffed Wizard + Celerity, and few nonevident immuites, this is true of most 3.5 PvP too, IMHO.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-06, 09:14 AM
:smallconfused: Well.. barring the infamous well buffed Wizard + Celerity, and few nonevident immuites, this is true of most 3.5 PvP too, IMHO.

This thread suggests otherwise (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124216).

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 09:18 AM
The arena also isn't usually a "win init to win the game". It helps, sure, but it's by no means the endgame unless starting positions have los/loe and you can one shot the opponent.

Sipex
2009-10-06, 09:31 AM
I'm just happy all my PCs can make characters in 4e and they all feel like they're contributing, even if they screw up their builds.

Renchard
2009-10-06, 09:32 AM
Haven't you heard of the many instances of inconsistent, unclear, or unbalanced rules in 4E that haven't been updated for a year now?

To be fair, 4e is the first mass market RPG to make those update any sort of priority, and has the digital distribution means to do so (primarily via DDI and the Character Builder). It's not like 3e ever got around to fixing Shapechange or Gate.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-06, 09:33 AM
This thread suggests otherwise (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124216).

There are a lot of bans.. can be considered a viable example? Maybe, paradoxically, less than in an actual game, but..

nightwyrm
2009-10-06, 09:40 AM
People keep comparing 4e to WoW, but to me, a much more apt comparison (at least from a design goal and marketing standpoint) is the Wii. A lot of complaints about both systems are very similar:

They aimed at "casual" gamers or non-gamers instead of the "hardcore" and a certain percentage of the "core" players feels betrayed or neglected by the company.

They both focus on "fun" gameplay instead of deep immersive/simulationist gameplay. Many feels both systems has gone backwards instead of forward.

A lot of sacred cows got slaughtered when both systems emerged. 4e got rid of vancian spellcasting etc. Wii makes ppl stand up and move etc. Instead of a simple continuation of the systems that came before them, both companies re-examined their values and built a new system that is quite different from their predecessor.

They both take a technology that's already out but not widely used (at least for their respective markets) and deeply imbedded it into their new system. Wii uses motion sensing. 4e has DDI (yes, the internet is ubiquitious but I don't think there's been another PnP RPG that uses electronic tools so extensively).

3rd party products don't do very well on either system.




These comparisons came to me when I stumbled on the a series of articles about disruption by a Sean Malstrom. He writes about the Wii, but a lot of the ideas he had about the Blue Ocean strategy and Disruptive business strategy seems applicable to 4e. The site, if anyone is interested, is here: http://malstrom.50webs.com/disruptionchronicles.htm His writing style takes a bit of getting used to and he seems to be a big Nintendo fanboy but I think he got some interesting ideas.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-06, 09:44 AM
To be fair, 4e is the first mass market RPG to make those update any sort of priority, and has the digital distribution means to do so
That's all the more reason to blame them for not doing them. See, just because a problem exists in some random other game doesn't excuse 4E from having that very same problem.


There are a lot of bans.. can be considered a viable example?
That is an interesting question, but looking over the list I would say that pretty much all bans are sufficiently obscure that they wouldn't come up in "normal" examples to begin with.

I believe that PVP in 3E consists of countering measures with counter-measures which are being countered by counter-countermeasure-measures. A major part of this takes place during character generation. Luck still has a factor in the resulting match, but it's mainly a matter of out-measuring your opponent. If you win initiative, you still have to (1) find and (2) hit your opponent, in a way that (3) he cannot negate.

Whereas 4E, by nature, has very little actual countermeasures to anything, which means that most builds, if they win initiative, can just go Daily + Action Point + Other Daily, and this has good odds of taking out any one opposing PC (and when it doesn't, it's mostly a matter of luck).

Renchard
2009-10-06, 09:51 AM
That's all the more reason to blame them for not doing them. See, just because a problem exists in some random other game doesn't excuse 4E from having that very same problem.


But they have done it to an extent. Veteran's Armor, BRV fighter, dual strike, and RRoT are all examples. Admittedly, they need to fix some other offenders like Orbizards and Reckless/Bloodclaw.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-06, 09:52 AM
I believe that PVP in 3E consists of countering measures with counter-measures which are being countered by counter-countermeasure-measures. A major part of this takes place during character generation. Luck still has a factor in the resulting match, but it's mainly a matter of out-measuring your opponent. If you win initiative, you still have to (1) find and (2) hit your opponent, in a way that (3) he cannot negate.


Pretty much. This is why I hate Mordenkainen Disjunction for my "DM vs PCs" (friendly) game session.

Anyway, 3.x has a lot of more way to one-shot people, by raw damage or y save-or-suffer.

Kylarra
2009-10-06, 09:57 AM
I'm not actually sure this is true. Yes, 3.5 has more total material, but it fits into a very well defined framework with a pretty solid mathmatical base. In contrast, 4th ed relies heavily on powers and such that, while they may feel game-like, are not necessarily easy to translate into a game.

I think it'd be easier(though certainly not terribly easy) to make a 3.5 based game than a 4.0 based one.Well not an MMORPG, but you could easily make it into a grid-based tactical game ala Disgaea/FFTactics with minimal alterations.

Of course that just brings us full circle to 4e being a grid-based game.

Yakk
2009-10-06, 10:00 AM
No. The need for a fix at all is what shows imbalance.

Oberoni fallacy is when you claim that it's not broken because you can fix it.

If it needs fixing, that's proof that it's broken.
Then what do you call the fallacy of "there exists a game that doesn't need to be fixed"? Or "all systems that need fixing are equal"?

Part of what makes 4e look strange to people used to 3e because they have internalised the 3e ruleset.

Part of what makes 4e look strange to people used to 3e-style RPGs is that 3e-style RPGs attempt to be world simulators. 4e design consciously isn't a world simulator, because they found that a DM can simulate a world better and easier without world simulator rules generally. (Yes, rules can get in the way, even though in theory you can ignore them).

4e draws much of its inspiration from how people "played 3e wrong". The wizard who doesn't do damage or directly defeat opponents in 3e is something that emerged from play -- it also emerged in other RPG worlds (such as online MMORPGs), but the fun, power and pattern of behaviour of this 'controller' style of play wasn't isolated to RPGs. Take a glance at the Batman Wizard in 3e.

3e attempted to codify the "melee", "thief", "blaster" and "healer" roles. It was designed presuming you'd have a big beefy fighter-type, a trap-smith rogue type, a wizard who was a reserve glass cannon of destruction, and a healer who kept everyone else up, and also had some fun spells to use sparingly.

The emergent behaviour from the players often didn't match that.

In 4e, they took 4 different roles, and made them explicit in the design, instead of implicit. Then they did what they could to allow a character from one role or another to fulfil that role. The roles differed -- there was the guy who protects the group (the defender), the guy who takes down individual targets quick (striker), the guy who supports and boosts the rest of the group (leader), and the guy who messes with the opponents (controller) -- from 3es implied roles. They decided that just healing was boring for role -- so the leader does both healing and boosting (while still attacking). They decided that combat takes enough time out of D&D playtime that nobody should be poor at combat -- so the roles as described are combat roles. They poached the batman wizard and turned it into the controller role, then brought it into line with the other roles (it was, as many have noted, the single most powerful role in 3e and in most games where it was discovered emergently).

They also tacked on a bunch of narrative design and made it explicit. HP becomes a "defeat-o-meter" -- players get to narrate how they defeat opponents when they are reduced to 0 HP. Non-magical healing can recover healing, making it clear it isn't actual physical damage.

In short, if your opinion of the design of 4e is "it is like a videogame", and it ends there, you don't understand 4e.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 10:00 AM
It would probably translate well to a grid based battle game(albeit with simplified abilities) rather well, yeah. Just not to an RPG-styled game.

That said, Im currently making a grid based battle game, and if I opted to make a fantasy variant, I'd probably just make my own, or go off 3.5. Vastly more open-ended.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-06, 10:05 AM
Then what do you call the fallacy of "there exists a game that doesn't need to be fixed"? Or "all systems that need fixing are equal"?

I don't believe I've ever seen anyone claim that there is a flawless game out there, or that all degrees of brokenness are equal--saying "Doing X to Y makes Y less broken/more balanced" is a perfectly valid statement. However, people do quite often claim "Well, X isn't broken, because I can fix/ban/houserule X," and that's where this particular fallacy comes in.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-06, 10:09 AM
I don't believe I've ever seen anyone claim that there is a flawless game out there, or that all degrees of brokenness are equal--saying "Doing X to Y makes Y less broken/more balanced" is a perfectly valid statement. However, people do quite often claim "Well, X isn't broken, because I can fix/ban/houserule X," and that's where this particular fallacy comes in.

Don't get me wrong - I wholeheartly agree.

I just wondered, for a moment, if the "goodnes" of a PnP system could be measured, too (but only in an extent), from the perspective of "how well you can houserule it changing little, meaningful things without depriving main rules of significance, or break it".

Indon
2009-10-06, 10:15 AM
I'm not actually sure this is true. Yes, 3.5 has more total material, but it fits into a very well defined framework with a pretty solid mathmatical base. In contrast, 4th ed relies heavily on powers and such that, while they may feel game-like, are not necessarily easy to translate into a game.
Wait a second.

You're asserting that 3.5, with spellcasting/psionics/binding/incarnum/feat-maneuvers/vancian-maneuvers/skill tricks is based on a more uniform framework than the 4.0 power framework?

Okay.

Powers aren't exceedingly complex. They all possess a type (normal/utility/skill/item), range, refresh rate (at-will/encounter/daily), power source, and effect. Most have an attack vs. defense, and deal damage in addition to the effect. Most make use of one or more keywords.

All powers are acquired and used according to the same overall system. More importantly, almost everything a player does in combat is a power. The system is not universally inclusive, because of skill usage, which interacts awkwardly in the 4th edition system partially because of that.

Compare with two subsystems from 3rd edition: Magic and Psionics. here is a set of conversion rules usable to give the Magic system the same metasystem as the Psionics system (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm). Magic and Psionics are actually extremely similar by 3rd edition standards. Other ability systems grow further and further apart from each other.

Compare with the differences between arcane, divine, and psionic (and primal and marshal and ki and whatever) powers in 4th edition, which is generally the name of the power source, effectively a type of keyword.


I think it'd be easier(though certainly not terribly easy) to make a 3.5 based game than a 4.0 based one.

Having played DDO, I disagree. The game is heavily houseruled.


This thread suggests otherwise (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124216).

The thread you cite here supports my assertation about PvP balance quite well.

The power of initiative leading to victory in PvP frequently exists in 3rd edition - for characters at the same tier. Third edition further damages PvP balance by having entire tiers of character power that describe sweeping differences in fundamental capability, which do not exist in 4th edition (for now).

Eorran
2009-10-06, 10:19 AM
Huh? This is the first edition that assumes minis as the default in the core rulebooks, and has literally hundreds of powers that explicitly work on a battlegrid. Furthermore, WOTC has tried hard to make it more about minis because that's a major source of revenue for them. Of course 4E is more reliant on minis than earlier versions.

I'd like to challenge this statement - weren't the earliest editions of the game also heavily mini-dependant? I started with 2e (actually with the Black Box set, but whatever), but I seem to remember older editions listing movement in inches for battlemat purposes.
I'll occasionally use a battlemat, but my group's normal style hasn't changed since we started - spare dice on a piece of paper.

Kylarra
2009-10-06, 10:19 AM
It would probably translate well to a grid based battle game(albeit with simplified abilities) rather well, yeah. Just not to an RPG-styled game.

That said, Im currently making a grid based battle game, and if I opted to make a fantasy variant, I'd probably just make my own, or go off 3.5. Vastly more open-ended.Eh, it could easily be an RPG-esque game with grid-based battles. Much like Final Fantasy or Pokemon are RPGs in that you talk to people and choose actions and such, and then the screen changes in combat.

The latter half is just personal preference, and of course any homebrew is going to be closer to a person's vision than a game written by someone else.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-06, 10:31 AM
Admittedly, they need to fix some other offenders like Orbizards and Reckless/Bloodclaw.
Yep. There was a 4E Book Of Hotly Debated Topics in progress, but I can't find it any more due to the weird forum software WOTC switched to. That reminds me why I don't post there any more :smalltongue:


Then what do you call the fallacy of "there exists a game that doesn't need to be fixed"?
Nothing. It's just that when somebody points out a problem with 4E, common reponses include "that's not a problem because it's also a problem in another game", and "that's not a problem because I can houserule it".



Part of what makes 4e look strange to people used to 3e-style RPGs is that 3e-style RPGs attempt to be world simulators. 4e design consciously isn't a world simulator, because they found that a DM can simulate a world better and easier without world simulator rules generally. (Yes, rules can get in the way, even though in theory you can ignore them).
4E is the opposite of a world simulator. While most rules-light RPGs don't attempt to simulate anything and let the DM do it, 4E has numerous rules that directly contradict how a world would work, and has numerous character abilities that simply can't be explained from a character point of view.



In 4e, they took 4 different roles, and made them explicit in the design, instead of implicit. Then they did what they could to allow a character from one role or another to fulfil that role. The roles differed
Well, not really. Except for the leader's near-monopoly on healing, the roles substantially overlap, certain classes really aren't impressive at their specified role, and pretty much everything has a secondary role. You can remove the concepts of both roles and power sources from 4E and it wouldn't make much of a difference, since the concepts are mostly meaningless to begin with.


They poached the batman wizard and turned it into the controller role,
That would be the "god" wizard. The actual batman wizard is a leader (and also, not the "single most powerful role" in whatever game it can be found in).



All powers are acquired and used according to the same overall system. More importantly, almost everything a player does in combat is a power. The system is not universally inclusive, because of skill usage, which interacts awkwardly in the 4th edition system partially because of that.
I'm actually surprised that there are so many 2E computer games, a handful of 3E computer games, and to my knowledge zero 4E computer games.

Note that earlier-edition computer games tend to ignore all psion/maneuver/meld/whatever subsystems except for cleric/wizard spells, which are mostly the same system anyway. But likewise, I expect that a 4E computer game would have to ignore e.g. choosing-where-to-push effects, as well as immediate powers. Such mechanics remind me of MtG, and work best in a round-the-table environment.


Third edition further damages PvP balance by having entire tiers of character power that describe sweeping differences in fundamental capability, which do not exist in 4th edition (for now).
Fundamental PvP capability is noticeably different between classes, though.


I'd like to challenge this statement - weren't the earliest editions of the game also heavily mini-dependant?
Neither 1E nor 2E is mini-dependent, or even does much with minis (although both have an optional extra splatbook for mini battles). Earlier than that, sure, you get to Chainmail Miniature Games and such, which obviously involve minis, but weren't D&D.

For instance, in 1E or 2E the fighter could just say he would stand between the orc and the wizard, and that would be that. It's the greater dependence on grids and turn-based mechanics that makes this strategy unworkable.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 10:41 AM
Wait a second.

You're asserting that 3.5, with spellcasting/psionics/binding/incarnum/feat-maneuvers/vancian-maneuvers/skill tricks is based on a more uniform framework than the 4.0 power framework?

Okay.

There is more pure volume of rules, yes. However, the vast majority of them act in ways that mesh nicely with existing systems. Psionics, for example, is not terribly hard to integrate if you stick with the default psionic/magic intercompatibility rules.

Yes, some things need to be defined more explicitly than they are in text(see also, ironheart surge), but the vast majority of them work by providing bonuses to existing ways of doing something, or allowing you to do an otherwise acceptable action in a different set of circumstances.


Powers aren't exceedingly complex. They all possess a type (normal/utility/skill/item), range, refresh rate (at-will/encounter/daily), power source, and effect. Most have an attack vs. defense, and deal damage in addition to the effect. Most make use of one or more keywords.

All powers are acquired and used according to the same overall system. More importantly, almost everything a player does in combat is a power. The system is not universally inclusive, because of skill usage, which interacts awkwardly in the 4th edition system partially because of that.

Skills are awkward in 4th ed...and so are nearly all non-combat things. It's a pretty rare RPG that is purely combat, and 4th ed is definitely not as well laid out from a world generation standpoint...you can do nearly all that within existing 3.5 rules.


Having played DDO, I disagree. The game is heavily houseruled.

DDO is a terrible game(my opinion, mind...I only played it for a month). Many of it's houserules are not in any way necessary for the conversion. However, if you decide you want real time instead of turn based...all sorts of changes follow from that. It's not a required change, but if you make it, it'll be a very significant change to the way 3.5....or indeed the way most PnP games are played.

Indon
2009-10-06, 10:48 AM
Nothing. It's just that when somebody points out a problem with 4E, common reponses include "that's not a problem because it's also a problem in another game", and "that's not a problem because I can houserule it".
Well, arguably, some aspects of 4E are more easily houseruled than in other games, and that is an advantage.

By the same token, some aspects of 4E are harder to houserule, or there's little point in houseruling it (due to side-effects like potentially disrupting game balance), and that's a disadvantage.


I'm actually surprised that there are so many 2E computer games, a handful of 3E computer games, and to my knowledge zero 4E computer games.
That's due probably to a mix between licencing issues (in the past, TSR/WotC were much more liberal with licencing games) and the growing amount of investment required to push out a professional-level game.

You could code an old-school 2E game in your parents' basement (and I'm sure people did). Can't do that quite so easily anymore.

As for push effects and immediate powers, those are relatively easy to code. Push effects, since a computer game would have circles be circles instead of using a grid, would only push or pull in one direction relative to the ability user. The user can maneuver to modify this direction. As for instantly usable and/or triggered powers, WoW has quite a number of those.


Fundamental PvP capability is noticeably different between classes, though.
Many MMO games don't have balance between their PvE class roles and PvP, at least at the 1v1 level.

Group PvP (and 4E is fundamentally balanced around the 4-role party as well as the individual power user) would smooth this problem out.

Yakk
2009-10-06, 11:14 AM
However, people do quite often claim "Well, X isn't broken, because I can fix/ban/houserule X," and that's where this particular fallacy comes in.That the system contains a break is not interesting, because that is true of every system -- the fact that the system is broken contains no information content.

If every system is broken, then the ease to which an instance of something being broken is useful information. Where the system contains the break, so you can be wary of the break or fix it, is useful information.

If you aren't talking to each other in order to pass information on, why are you talking to each other? (I can think of a few reasons)

Nothing. It's just that when somebody points out a problem with 4E, common reponses include "that's not a problem because it's also a problem in another game", and "that's not a problem because I can houserule it".
The fact it is a problem in another game is interesting, because you can use similar approaches to deal with the problem.

The fact that you can houserule it isn't interesting, because you can houserule anything.

The fact that the houserule proposed is elegant/simple/effective/easy is interesting, because this is either useful (in that it solves the issue), or informatives (because it informs you about how gaping a hole the problem is).


(and also, not the "single most powerful role" in whatever game it can be found in)./shrug -- shutting down opponents tends to be ridiculously powerful when it emerges from other rules. Quite often, after it emerges, effort it put into making it useless by vetoing every ability that can be used in this way.

Emergent roles tend to be better than roles pre-planned by designers, because roles don't tend to become iconic without them being effective. And if they are less effective than the ones that where planned by the designer, there is lots of inertia keeping them down (why go to all of the trouble mixing and matching all of those unintended things, when if you just follow the beaten path designed by the designer you are more effective? Well, sure, there are reasons; but it makes the concept less viral).

In a game with iterations (or informed by prior games), these emergent roles can be suppressed or brought into the fold.

valadil
2009-10-06, 11:21 AM
It's gamier than 3e. But I don't see that as video gamey.

There are elements of fourth edition that make a ton of sense for a game, but do a poor job modeling the real world. The most obvious example of that is diagonal movement.

Sipex
2009-10-06, 11:27 AM
Also, full healing in one night.

But as you said, this doesn't detract from the game unless you want simulationism...with magic. Healing all in one extended rest increases the playability of the game as...well a game but you can still have awesome RP sessions with it too.

Zombimode
2009-10-06, 11:29 AM
As for push effects and immediate powers, those are relatively easy to code. Push effects, since a computer game would have circles be circles instead of using a grid, would only push or pull in one direction relative to the ability user. The user can maneuver to modify this direction. As for instantly usable and/or triggered powers, WoW has quite a number of those.

What I dont understand is that people assume always that a 4e game has to be realtime. The system is best suited for turn based combat (you know, because it IS a turn based system) so why not just leave it at that?
4e is acutally WAY easier to translate into a computer game since it tries to put every thing in simple categories. Everthing is predefined.

The existing D&D games have all moved away from the underlying system to be playable. AD&D is NOTHING like Baldursgate, and 3e is nothing like NWN. A 4e game could be much closer to the system as every D&D game before.

Bagelz
2009-10-06, 11:33 AM
I would like to know which video games you think 4e is like, because i would like to play those. It certainly doesn't feel like an mmo (outside of roles, which by the way don't limit a fighter to "tanking" or wizard to "cc/controlling", a ranger, warlord, or barbarian can be meat sheild if there are no other melee, a paladin can be a "leader" for healing, anyone can deal damage) or RTS as its turn based and isn't all "clicky" (ie clicking faster wins). Its not like most turn based strategies as you only have one unit/character. And it doesn't feel at all like final fantasy type rpgs to me.

so I would really like know what games you all are playing.


sidenote: I really like the way 4e was pitched, but not the way it was executed. the narrow class builds, which aren't really builds but a selection of powers, don't allow the freedom that 3.x prestige classes odd feat combinations and other options provided. getting to do a 1W attack with a push once, or a 2W attack with no push once, is not a build its a choice.
there should have been less classes, with requirements on powers (ie all barbarian powers are really fighter powers that you can only use with a 2handed weapon and light armor).

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 11:38 AM
Simple categories is not, in itself, enough to make a game easy to code into a given type. Yes, abilities have been standardized in 4th in a way that would slide into a class easily, but frankly, this is not terribly different from how spells are handled in 3.5.

The more important bit is how complete the mechanics are, and how well they can be expanded on, etc. IE, how much is already covered by the mechanics, and how much needs to be invented or heavily modified to fit the game.

If it's a square based combat game only, 4th E will do fine, since it has rules for that. For a full on RPG...no.

I don't think the assumption of real time is necessary for any version. RPGs are typically turn based in Pnp, and some computer ones are too. You will have major changes swapping turn based to real time in ANY system, and that's really not a huge factor.

Jayabalard
2009-10-06, 11:42 AM
But some people prefer that every minute detail, no matter how boring, be played out in the most realistic way it can be.They generally don't find that boring...

Zombimode
2009-10-06, 12:09 PM
The more important bit is how complete the mechanics are, and how well they can be expanded on, etc. IE, how much is already covered by the mechanics, and how much needs to be invented or heavily modified to fit the game.

Exactly. And how many rules (relevant to a CRPG) in 4e need intepretation and leave open space? Hint: not terrible many, compared to previous editions.


If it's a square based combat game only, 4th E will do fine, since it has rules for that. For a full on RPG...no.

Uhm, your ARE aware that there are square based combat "full on RPGs" out there, no?
Also, what does the "rpgesness" have to do with the combat system?


I don't think the assumption of real time is necessary for any version.

Neither do I, but thats what people here tend to do.

Mando Knight
2009-10-06, 12:16 PM
If it's a square based combat game only, 4th E will do fine, since it has rules for that. For a full on RPG...no..

Just like whenever you have a game where a character's statistics are almost exclusively for combat encounters and generally abstracted for non-combat, you don't have a full RPG.

Nope, can't think of any (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon) other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy) examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights) of games like that. 4e must really be a miniatures wargame.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-06, 12:31 PM
That the system contains a break is not interesting, because that is true of every system -- the fact that the system is broken contains no information content.

If every system is broken, then the ease to which an instance of something being broken is useful information. Where the system contains the break, so you can be wary of the break or fix it, is useful information.

If you aren't talking to each other in order to pass information on, why are you talking to each other? (I can think of a few reasons)

The X in my example was a particular class, feat, skill, or other rules item, not the system as a whole. The whole point is that that X is where the system contains the break, and people will say that X isn't where the break is because they can fix it to no longer be a break.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 12:34 PM
If it consists solely of combat, and lacks interaction with NPCs, quests, reputation, and all the various other typical RPG-like elements, it's not really an RPG.

If a combat system is all that's required, then battlefield 2 or COD4 would be RPGs.

Mando Knight
2009-10-06, 01:00 PM
If it consists solely of combat, and lacks interaction with NPCs, quests, reputation, and all the various other typical RPG-like elements, it's not really an RPG.

And I do not see where 4e necessarily fails in this regard as compared to any other RPG. It certainly does not fail any more so than Final Fantasy, Pokémon, or NWN.

Indon
2009-10-06, 01:15 PM
There is more pure volume of rules, yes. However, the vast majority of them act in ways that mesh nicely with existing systems. Psionics, for example, is not terribly hard to integrate if you stick with the default psionic/magic intercompatibility rules.

Sure, they 'mesh nicely' in terms of interaction in a PnP environment.

But they do poorly in terms of a computer game's environment, because they follow so many distinct subsystems.

Not that video games can't handle distinct subsystems. WoW, for instance, has not only mana but innovative Rage-based and Energy-based ability use systems as well. But as I imagine a developer would tell you, such systems are more difficult to code precisely because of that distinction.

The fact that many of these systems lead to the same result does not help the matter, because it is the internal system that a designer/developer is concerned with, not the external result.


DDO is a terrible game(my opinion, mind...I only played it for a month). Many of it's houserules are not in any way necessary for the conversion. However, if you decide you want real time instead of turn based...all sorts of changes follow from that. It's not a required change, but if you make it, it'll be a very significant change to the way 3.5....or indeed the way most PnP games are played.

I've had a good bit of fun with it for the brief time I've played.


What I dont understand is that people assume always that a 4e game has to be realtime.
Because MMORPG's tend to be realtime, and as a PvE-oriented group game it slots easily into that mold. I daresay, more easily than into any other RPG genre, save perhaps the single-player JRPG.


It certainly doesn't feel like an mmo (outside of roles, which by the way don't limit a fighter to "tanking" or wizard to "cc/controlling", a ranger, warlord, or barbarian can be meat sheild if there are no other melee, a paladin can be a "leader" for healing, anyone can deal damage)
You underestimate the flexibility of roles in World of Warcraft.

A Protection Warrior would be, in 4E terms, a Defender/Controller, for instance, most of the game's 'striker' classes also have controller abilities, and since WoW is designed to support soloing, 'everyone can deal damage' is much more true in the system than it is in 4E.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 02:50 PM
Sure, they 'mesh nicely' in terms of interaction in a PnP environment.

But they do poorly in terms of a computer game's environment, because they follow so many distinct subsystems.

Not that video games can't handle distinct subsystems. WoW, for instance, has not only mana but innovative Rage-based and Energy-based ability use systems as well. But as I imagine a developer would tell you, such systems are more difficult to code precisely because of that distinction.

They're all part of a related system. They are all charge based, have varying rates and usages of charge. If not for the druid, which uses multiples of them, you could literally build them as one. Instead, you merely instantiate three differently named instances with different properties.

In terms of game design, that's actually one of the easier changes. Systems such as incarnum are more significantly different from vanican casting, but hey, incarnum isn't core anyhow.

The more difficult parts of game design are how everything fits together. If you have generated stats and/or items, how do you generate them, and how do you ensure that this is roughly balanced by class and level? How exactly do different ability usages intersect? What's the order of importance of rules for resolving conflicts?

The reason 3.5 is better because it already has existing rules for a wild range of these sorts of things, and even if they are not completely perfect, they're decent, and save you a lot of time in initial setup. 4.0 has specified rules rather well for in-combat stuff, but it doesn't deal with the behind the scenes details in nearly them same level of depth.


The fact that many of these systems lead to the same result does not help the matter, because it is the internal system that a designer/developer is concerned with, not the external result.

Not really. If the effect is the same, you most certainly re-use those assets you can. Sure, you have triggers available in multiple different circumstances, but the entire ability need not be redone.


Because MMORPG's tend to be realtime, and as a PvE-oriented group game it slots easily into that mold. I daresay, more easily than into any other RPG genre, save perhaps the single-player JRPG.

We were discussing the ability of 3.5 and 4e to work as a Crpg, not a specific subset of CRPGs. Sure, some versions tend strongly torwards certain styles, but those changes say very little about the overall adaptability of systems to CRPGs in general, especially when those changes are equally problematic for both systems.

And swapping from turn to time based is going to broadly affect either system...just as it would any other turn based RPG. It's going to require a ton of widespread re-evalutation of rules...just look at how frequently rounds or actions are referenced in either system. This is not an argument for or against either side.


You underestimate the flexibility of roles in World of Warcraft.

A Protection Warrior would be, in 4E terms, a Defender/Controller, for instance, most of the game's 'striker' classes also have controller abilities, and since WoW is designed to support soloing, 'everyone can deal damage' is much more true in the system than it is in 4E.

It feels like a wow raid environment, in which people tend to be slotted into exactly one role, barring one or two exceptional encounters.

ashmanonar
2009-10-06, 03:03 PM
I have felt this, but I want to stress that I Do Not consider it to be a bad thing. I like video games. 4E does what it does very well, and has successfully tried something that no other tabletop system has done before. If it feels like a video game, fine, but it also feels like the most open ended, customizable and freedom-granting video game ever. Nothing wrong with that.


This.

Video Game is not a dirty word. I enjoy video games. I also enjoy tabletop games. There's nothing that prevents me from enjoying them both.

AllisterH
2009-10-06, 05:04 PM
What I dont understand is that people assume always that a 4e game has to be realtime. The system is best suited for turn based combat (you know, because it IS a turn based system) so why not just leave it at that?
4e is acutally WAY easier to translate into a computer game since it tries to put every thing in simple categories. Everthing is predefined.

The existing D&D games have all moved away from the underlying system to be playable. AD&D is NOTHING like Baldursgate, and 3e is nothing like NWN. A 4e game could be much closer to the system as every D&D game before.

The closest videogame analogue to 4e is the japanese tactical RPGs like Disgaea.

Still 4e is perhaps one of the worst versions to try and translate due to Interface issues. What makes a game hard to code nowadays isn't a question of "how easy is it to write the game", but "how easy is it for a player to interact with the game"

Real-time is straight out as an option since 4e is so highly grid and turn based. However, turn-based still has a problem.

Interrupts are a big part of 4e D&D and they play merry havoc with any interface since you basically will have to have the computer constantly bringing up a window asking "Do you wish to interrupt this monster's action"

What makes 4e seem like a videogame is simply how the powers are presented. The fluff behind the powers is distinctly separated from the crunch and thus, it reads like your typical cRPG guide.

Contrasted with earlier editions where the fluff was written intertwined with the crunch description and it gives off the videgame vibe. However, you could always rewrite the pre 4e spell descriptions into a 4e format and you would get the same videogame vibe.

I mean, it's not exactly hard to write most 2e spells as computer code (the free ranging illusions and charm spells would be a pain to write)

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 05:16 PM
It'd likely end up similar to the MTGO system of stacking and stops. Doable, but I wouldn't describe it as simple.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-06, 05:25 PM
I would like to know which video games you think 4e is like,
Shining Force comes to mind.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-06, 05:33 PM
Then what do you call the fallacy of "there exists a game that doesn't need to be fixed"? Or "all systems that need fixing are equal"?

Part of what makes 4e look strange to people used to 3e because they have internalised the 3e ruleset.

Part of what makes 4e look strange to people used to 3e-style RPGs is that 3e-style RPGs attempt to be world simulators. 4e design consciously isn't a world simulator, because they found that a DM can simulate a world better and easier without world simulator rules generally. (Yes, rules can get in the way, even though in theory you can ignore them).

4e draws much of its inspiration from how people "played 3e wrong". The wizard who doesn't do damage or directly defeat opponents in 3e is something that emerged from play -- it also emerged in other RPG worlds (such as online MMORPGs), but the fun, power and pattern of behaviour of this 'controller' style of play wasn't isolated to RPGs. Take a glance at the Batman Wizard in 3e.

3e attempted to codify the "melee", "thief", "blaster" and "healer" roles. It was designed presuming you'd have a big beefy fighter-type, a trap-smith rogue type, a wizard who was a reserve glass cannon of destruction, and a healer who kept everyone else up, and also had some fun spells to use sparingly.

The emergent behaviour from the players often didn't match that.

In 4e, they took 4 different roles, and made them explicit in the design, instead of implicit. Then they did what they could to allow a character from one role or another to fulfil that role. The roles differed -- there was the guy who protects the group (the defender), the guy who takes down individual targets quick (striker), the guy who supports and boosts the rest of the group (leader), and the guy who messes with the opponents (controller) -- from 3es implied roles. They decided that just healing was boring for role -- so the leader does both healing and boosting (while still attacking). They decided that combat takes enough time out of D&D playtime that nobody should be poor at combat -- so the roles as described are combat roles. They poached the batman wizard and turned it into the controller role, then brought it into line with the other roles (it was, as many have noted, the single most powerful role in 3e and in most games where it was discovered emergently).

They also tacked on a bunch of narrative design and made it explicit. HP becomes a "defeat-o-meter" -- players get to narrate how they defeat opponents when they are reduced to 0 HP. Non-magical healing can recover healing, making it clear it isn't actual physical damage.

In short, if your opinion of the design of 4e is "it is like a videogame", and it ends there, you don't understand 4e.
The stinger at the end aside, this is a very good explanation of 4E's design principles. I'll also second the "rules get in the way" comment - I'm glad I'm not going to have to worry about Profession skills ever again.

As for the mini's deal - yes, old editions of D&D were mini-heavy because D&D was derived from tabletop wargames. This is another reason why there are so many "dungeons" - they're easier to set up and walk through than trying to do a "crawl" in a town or on a field. Personally, I don't see why this matters - it's like complaining that D&D is dice-heavy; Shadowrun and White Wolf only need one die type for example.

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that video games have mechanics as well.
Many of the innovations in 4E, if they can be considered "video gamey" at all, are part of the changing world of gaming mechanics.

Anyone who plays a lot of boardgames is well aware that different ways of running things have different effects on play. Sometimes rules are too awkward to use - Twilight Imperium comes to mind - and sometimes people discover better ways of accomplishing the same result. Video games do these as well - how is damage tracked (refillable HP, regenerating shields, one-shot kills), how are "levels" structured, and how are challenges presented to the player. Techniques from one genre of games can be adopted by other genre too.

For example, consider the class system. Originated (IIRC) by Dungeons and Dragons, it is a mechanic that is widespread in the broader world of "RPGs." These, usually in combination with Experience Levels (to track progress) are now so common in video games that one barely thinks of them. Perhaps the "Functional Role" system created (IIRC) by MMOs will one day be as widespread.

Jayabalard
2009-10-06, 05:37 PM
Then what do you call the fallacy of "there exists a game that doesn't need to be fixed"? Or "all systems that need fixing are equal"?I wouldn't call them fallacies, since they're not.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-06, 05:57 PM
I wouldn't call them fallacies, since they're not.
Teaching Moment!


Fallacy: any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

For a further discussion, look at the Wikipedia page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy)

N.B. Jayabalard is correct in his statement. I add this beneficial note to preemptively clarify this post.

fusilier
2009-10-06, 06:01 PM
Although I wouldn't call myself an avid gamer, I do have an interest in video-games and I'm a programmer. I've also never been a very big D&D fan.

D&D 4e is more constrained than previous versions. It has more specific rules (i.e. constraints), and the world (fluff) seems to be more strongly defined or interconnected with the rules. In this sense it is more like a video-game. Obviously, it's not nearly as constrained as a real video-game, but the constraints appear greater than in other games.

As for balance, I know I've said this before, but balance is really only an issue in these constrained systems. In a more open one, the system merely needs to not be overtly imbalanced, then a good a GM should be able to handle the balance. [Games like GURPS come to mind -- I don't want to get into the differences between the systems. Basically the approach is different, and as I come from that different background, arguments over balance in rpg's always seem strange to me]. But D&D has always been more constrained (ultimately being derived from a wargame, it's not surprising). I believe that the latest version is more akin to an RPG computer game, than to an old fashioned wargame.

Minis. I love using miniatures in all my roleplaying games. It's not necessary, but it's fun. I also like to paint minis. I'm not impressed with the pre-painted plastic minis from WOTC. My older brother has some of the old Ral Partha D&D miniatures, and although they are bit dated now, I still like them.

Lately, I've been finding myself pining to play in 2e AD&D. I'm not terribly sure why. But I think it might just have to do with the fluff in 4e just isn't to my liking. Maybe it doesn't remind me of the old Sword & Sorcery fiction that inspired the original D&D?

Indon
2009-10-06, 06:12 PM
They're all part of a related system. They are all charge based, have varying rates and usages of charge. If not for the druid, which uses multiples of them, you could literally build them as one. Instead, you merely instantiate three differently named instances with different properties.
Yes, all vancian casting systems are fairly similar. So long as you don't use any non-core material, yes, 3rd edition is as simple as 4th edition is in that respect.

4th edition also has more material than 3rd edition core for the same level of complexity - so it still has the advantage.


The reason 3.5 is better because it already has existing rules for a wild range of these sorts of things, and even if they are not completely perfect, they're decent, and save you a lot of time in initial setup. 4.0 has specified rules rather well for in-combat stuff, but it doesn't deal with the behind the scenes details in nearly them same level of depth.
Again, I disagree. 4th edition has a vague universal system behind it - this system is merely game-oriented rather than simulationist, so it treats everything in its' simplistic, admittedly immersion-breaking, mold.

But video games aren't necessarily big on immersion to begin with, so that's not necessarily a problem.


Not really. If the effect is the same, you most certainly re-use those assets you can. Sure, you have triggers available in multiple different circumstances, but the entire ability need not be redone.
Again, true only for 3rd edition Core. Beyond core, 3rd edition's mechanics become too diverse.


We were discussing the ability of 3.5 and 4e to work as a Crpg, not a specific subset of CRPGs. Sure, some versions tend strongly torwards certain styles, but those changes say very little about the overall adaptability of systems to CRPGs in general, especially when those changes are equally problematic for both systems.
But it'd be best as an MMO, thanks to the built-in role system.


And swapping from turn to time based is going to broadly affect either system...just as it would any other turn based RPG. It's going to require a ton of widespread re-evalutation of rules...just look at how frequently rounds or actions are referenced in either system. This is not an argument for or against either side.
I don't think that's necessarily a problem. Icewind Dale, for instance, clearly operated on 3rd edition's rounds, despite also working in real-time.


It feels like a wow raid environment, in which people tend to be slotted into exactly one role, barring one or two exceptional encounters.

WoW raids slot players more restrictively because they are much more difficult.

If 4th edition were designed to be more difficult, I daresay groups would all need one of each role, and each would need to specialize in their roles.

But 4th edition isn't that difficult. It's more equivalent to WoW small-group questing or non-heroic instances.



Still 4e is perhaps one of the worst versions to try and translate due to Interface issues. What makes a game hard to code nowadays isn't a question of "how easy is it to write the game", but "how easy is it for a player to interact with the game"

Real-time is straight out as an option since 4e is so highly grid and turn based.
I disagree. Squares can still be converted into distance measurements, and 4th edition has no power effects which are not seen in one or more MMO games - to include triggered interrupt abilities (you would toggle them to function passively).

Tackyhillbillu
2009-10-06, 06:28 PM
I really fail to see how people claim that 4e "requires" minatures anymore then 3e. First, minatures are not required. A coin works just as well, or some Monopoly pieces, or whatever.

Second, if you want to claim 3e didn't require a map and 4e does, you are wrong. 4e gives distances in Squares, because it believes that combat is more fun, and easier to play with something to visualize the battle with. Converting all the distances in 4e back to normal calculations isn't a big chore.

Frankly, I think 3e requires a Map just as much as 4e, maybe even more.

Athan Allgood
2009-10-06, 06:30 PM
Obviously with the new emphasis on party 'role', the system has received many comparisons to MMOs (eg: World of Warcraft), which, for reasons of forcing player cooperation, have clearly defined class archetypes and purposes.

However, these class roles existed in pen and paper RPGs long before being embraced by any manner of video game. D&D has had tank, damage, and support classes since its inception.

Because D&D is a game of the mind no previous edition has felt the need to so clearly state character role, with the unwritten and assumed belief that, if a party should not meet the 'classic' makeup of tank/damage/support the GM would adjust for it.

However, certainly the 'easiest' party to design a well rounded encounter for includes all three general archetypes. My assumption is that, realizing this, the designers made it a core part of the game system.

The claim that this has made the game more video game like, or 'dumbed down' is a reaction to this tactic of telling the player what they need to make a well rounded party. I disagree, as I believe the general scope of the game, as well as the possibilities it allows, hasn't changed.

They've just reduced the learning curve a little bit.

SmartAlec
2009-10-06, 06:30 PM
But it'd be best as an MMO, thanks to the built-in role system.

***

If 4th edition were designed to be more difficult, I daresay groups would all need one of each role, and each would need to specialize in their roles.

But 4th edition isn't that difficult. It's more equivalent to WoW small-group questing or non-heroic instances.

If the role system isn't needed that much when playing 4th Ed, perhaps it wouldn't be 'best' as an MMO after all.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-06, 06:34 PM
D&D 4e is more constrained than previous versions. It has more specific rules (i.e. constraints), and the world (fluff) seems to be more strongly defined or interconnected with the rules. In this sense it is more like a video-game. Obviously, it's not nearly as constrained as a real video-game, but the constraints appear greater than in other games.
Have you considered what isn't covered by specific rules? Or by fluff? Basically 4E says "if it doesn't affect the mechanics, go right ahead!"

For example, spellcasting style is no longer system-determined, nor are Paladins (or anyone) constrained by a single Code of Conduct. Rule-wise, things like forging and singing are just adjudicated by the DM.

I am actually just curious if you considered this point.


Lately, I've been finding myself pining to play in 2e AD&D. I'm not terribly sure why. But I think it might just have to do with the fluff in 4e just isn't to my liking. Maybe it doesn't remind me of the old Sword & Sorcery fiction that inspired the original D&D?
It's about game design.

Even in 3E your character was expected to survive through really, really high levels - building your character was a good part of the game. This made rules and systems far more important, since there needed to be a lot of choices to be made when building a character to keep that side of the game interesting.

In TSR D&D, characters could fit on a notecard. Your character wasn't expected to survive to see next level, let alone level 20. The game was entirely about the story - characters were actors in a play, instead of things to be min/maxed.

Which is not to say that you couldn't min/max in AD&D - but why really bother?

Also: All Hail Ral Partha! (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081203) :smallbiggrin:

LurkerInPlayground
2009-10-06, 08:13 PM
What gets me is the vagueness of statements about gamism/simulationism/narrativism whenever people start comparing editions.

Oracle_Hunter might well be supporting the notion that 2e is more narrativist.

People seem to generally agree that 3e is "simulationist," although I don't see it. It had a skill system and tactical combat, but it didn't have a morale system. And then it kept the leveling scheme in spite of itself. For every "realistic" rule simulation, there are a dozen fictions. Surprise. Surprise. We're playing a fantasy game.

Nor does specifying these rules make something more "simulationist." Ad-hoc rulings by the DM is often seen as a method of preserving suspension of disbelief in older editions. And this is where "narrativism" and "simulationism" inevitably overlap. As long as the idea of Vancian magic is plausible within a setting, it's irrelevant what the rules for it are.

4e was called "gamist" at least once in this thread, but I've seen grognards call older editions more "gamist." The former position being that the play is in the rules. The latter will hold that the play shouldn't be compromised by the rules.

In other words, the labels strike me as contradictory and unnecessary.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-06, 08:21 PM
In other words, the labels strike me as contradictory and unnecessary.
I'll agree there.

I mean, a narrativist game for me is something like Mountain Witch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain_Witch). And a simulationist game wouldn't have HP - it'd be more like Shadowrun.

I still have no idea what a "gamist" game is. I mean, any game you play is designed to be a game, isn't it? If it isn't, then how can you call it a game?

LurkerInPlayground
2009-10-06, 08:27 PM
I mean, a narrativist game for me is something like Mountain Witch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain_Witch). And a simulationist game wouldn't have HP - it'd be more like Shadowrun.
Well okay. But D&D was supposedly inspired by swords and sorcery. It has a preset story that implies your objectives. You're a freelancer looking to make your fortune. Maybe he eventually gets to settle down. Like Conan.

So yeah. It's "narrativist." Joe-bob falling into a pit and dying is as much a story as anything else.

It may be less epic than a story about ronin setting out to kill a witch with a side order of sordid betrayal, but it's a story nonetheless.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-06, 08:37 PM
Well okay. But D&D was supposedly inspired by swords and sorcery. It has a preset story that implies your objectives. You're a freelancer looking to make your fortune. Maybe he eventually gets to settle down. Like Conan.

So yeah. It's "narrativist." Joe-bob falling into a pit and dying is as much a story as anything else.

It may be less epic than a story about ronin setting out to kill a witch with a side order of sordid betrayal, but it's a story nonetheless.
It's not the "epic-ness" that is the point, it's the focus on rules.

In Mountain Witch you roll one d6 to resolve any and all conflicts. It's a degree-of-success game, so depending on how much you win by, the greater you narrative ability in describing the resolution of the conflict. Oh, and there's the Trust system, but that is just a pot of points adjusted by player choice; it only has three functions - help (add +1d6 to an ally's success), hinder (subtract -N from an ally's roll to betray), and steal narrative control (you narrate the results of a test, but the objective of the winner still needs to be obtained). That's it for game mechanics. Honest.

In even early D&D you had things like Critical Hit locations, advancement tables, experience points, saving throws - tons of rules by comparison. And they weren't easy to use, either. You need to devote real study before you run a game of D&D.

Both can tell a good story, but one is clearly focused just on telling that story, rather than attempting to model the world via rules.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-10-06, 08:45 PM
It's not the "epic-ness" that is the point, it's the focus on rules.

In Mountain Witch you roll one d6 to resolve any and all conflicts. It's a degree-of-success game, so depending on how much you win by, the greater you narrative ability in describing the resolution of the conflict. Oh, and there's the Trust system, but that is just a pot of points adjusted by player choice; it only has three functions - help (add +1d6 to an ally's success), hinder (subtract -N from an ally's roll to betray), and steal narrative control (you narrate the results of a test, but the objective of the winner still needs to be obtained). That's it for game mechanics. Honest.

In even early D&D you had things like Critical Hit locations, advancement tables, experience points, saving throws - tons of rules by comparison. And they weren't easy to use, either. You need to devote real study before you run a game of D&D.

Both can tell a good story, but one is clearly focused just on telling that story, rather than attempting to model the world via rules.
Hmm.

But then you're just talking a matter of degree. The rules only need to exist in resolution places where somebody needs authoritative fiat. "I cast magic missile because it says so here in the book."

What you portray here is just something that's rules-light and has a slightly more universalizeable system - the way d20 is supposed to be.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 08:57 PM
Yes, all vancian casting systems are fairly similar. So long as you don't use any non-core material, yes, 3rd edition is as simple as 4th edition is in that respect.

4th edition also has more material than 3rd edition core for the same level of complexity - so it still has the advantage.

You can add a great deal of 3.x material while still using vancian casting and equivalent. The sheer amount of source material using standard stuff is vast, and certainly outstrips the material available in total for 4th ed. It's not as if anyone is going to miss the truenamer and the material printed for that system.


Again, I disagree. 4th edition has a vague universal system behind it - this system is merely game-oriented rather than simulationist, so it treats everything in its' simplistic, admittedly immersion-breaking, mold.

But video games aren't necessarily big on immersion to begin with, so that's not necessarily a problem.

This is mostly a preference thing with regards to the value of the system as a PnP game. 4th ed has a universal system yes, but as you say, it's vague. That's not of much help for coding.

And yes, immersion is still important for computer games.


Again, true only for 3rd edition Core. Beyond core, 3rd edition's mechanics become too diverse.

The vast majority of non-core classes, spells, etc are designed to work within the core system, and require no systemic changes. It's simply adding more content to the existing system.


I don't think that's necessarily a problem. Icewind Dale, for instance, clearly operated on 3rd edition's rounds, despite also working in real-time.

It's not a problem, per se, but it does involve massive changes. Those who were arguing that games such as DDO required massive changes from 3.x, and that this showed that 3.x was not suited to video games are who I was arguing against here. It's going to involve massive changes, sure, but that's not at all system related.


I disagree. Squares can still be converted into distance measurements, and 4th edition has no power effects which are not seen in one or more MMO games - to include triggered interrupt abilities (you would toggle them to function passively).

Anything *can* be converted, yes. It's the question of difficulty. The more stuff you need to convert, the more difficult the system is to convert to a CRPG.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-06, 08:59 PM
Hmm.

But then you're just talking a matter of degree. The rules only need to exist in resolution places where somebody needs authoritative fiat. "I cast magic missile because it says so here in the book."
Not particularly - or not if you want the terms to be at all meaningful.

Why? Because every RPG has some narrative going on - and it can almost always be argued that the narrative is important to the game.

Besides, every game needs some way of resolving narrative fiat; some just have a more complicated way of doing it than others.

Example: "I hit that guy!"
Mountain Witch: *roll* OK, I rolled a 3. You only got a 1? Well well, looks like I have a Partial Success... Alright, I swing at you with my Katana but only manage to make a small cut on your cheek - but you are driven back by the attack!

AD&D: *roll* Alright, I'm a 3rd level Fighter, so I have a 17 THAC0. I'm using a Longsword against Chain, so that's a -2... but his back is towards me, so +2. I have a Sword +1/+3 vs. Lycanthropes - oh, he's a Lycanthrope? Great! So that's a 13, +3 for my sword - what's his AC? What? He has a Small Shield strapped to his back? Gah! Wait... I hit him anyways? Woo! Oh.. I have to wait until my Initiative comes up? Well, I rolled a 3 and my Longsword is Speed 4 so... segment 7, I guess?

3.5E D&D: *roll* OK, my BaB is +8, but it's a melee weapon so I add my Strength Bonus... and my Enchantment Bonus on the sword... I don't have Combat Advantage but I do have High Ground! So that's a... 22. I missed? Shoot - wait, I have that Morale Bonus from Bless and aren't I still Hasted? Oh, Haste wore off last round? Man...

4E D&D: *roll* Alright, I'm gonna hit him. With what? Um... oh yeah, Tide of Iron sounds good! Lemme see... alright my usual modifiers come up to a +8. The Cleric dazed him, so I have CA - oh, and his AC is dropped thanks to that Debuff! That makes for a 22. I hit? Great! I'll roll for damage *roll* ...what? Oh, I push him 1 - over there.

EDIT:
Oh yeah, and some games create more conflicts than others. If I want to weave a basket in Mountain Witch, I just do. In 3.5, I make a Craft (Basket) check (and make sure I have enough GP, roll for how much time it takes, etc.). The way I see it, a Narrativist Game only presses a conflict when it is against another Player's narrative or its important for the story. A simulationist game should have conflicts for pretty much any uncertain situation.

That's where the degrees lie; rule focus is more cut-and-dry, IMHO

LurkerInPlayground
2009-10-06, 09:02 PM
Not particularly - or not if you want the terms to be at all meaningful.

Why? Because every RPG has some narrative going on - and it can almost always be argued that the narrative is important to the game.

Besides, every game needs some way of resolving narrative fiat; some just have a more complicated way of doing it than others.

Example: "I hit that guy!"
Mountain Witch: *roll* OK, I rolled a 3. You only got a 1? Well well, looks like I have a Partial Success... Alright, I swing at you with my Katana but only manage to make a small cut on your cheek - but you are driven back by the attack!

AD&D: *roll* Alright, I'm a 3rd level Fighter, so I have a 17 THAC0. I'm using a Longsword against Chain, so that's a -2... but his back is towards me, so +2. I have a Sword +1/+3 vs. Lycanthropes - oh, he's a Lycanthrope? Great! So that's a 13, +3 for my sword - what's his AC? What? He has a Small Shield strapped to his back? Gah! Wait... I hit him anyways? Woo! Oh.. I have to wait until my Initiative comes up? Well, I rolled a 3 and my Longsword is Speed 4 so... segment 7, I guess?

3.5E D&D: *roll* OK, my BaB is +8, but it's a melee weapon so I add my Strength Bonus... and my Enchantment Bonus on the sword... I don't have Combat Advantage but I do have High Ground! So that's a... 22. I missed? Shoot - wait, I have that Morale Bonus from Bless and aren't I still Hasted? Oh, Haste wore off last round? Man...

4E D&D: *roll* Alright, I'm gonna hit him. With what? Um... oh yeah, Tide of Iron sounds good! Lemme see... alright my usual modifiers come up to a +8. The Cleric dazed him, so I have CA - oh, and his AC is dropped thanks to that Debuff! That makes for a 22. I hit? Great! I'll roll for damage *roll* ...what? Oh, I push him 1 - over there.
Umm. Yeah.

Not to oversell my point, but I am trying to say that resolution mechanisms are narrative fiat. Some more complicated than others.

Witch Mountain sounds like it just has lighter and more universalizeable resolution mechanisms.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-06, 09:05 PM
Not to oversell my point, but I am trying to say that resolution mechanisms are narrative fiat. Some more complicated than others.
Ah. Well yes then.

And like I added, rule (or game) -focus should be the guide for a "narrativist" or a "simultionist" game - and then, it should be pretty clear which end it falls on.

If you want to use it comparatively, you certainly can. I, for one, will not argue the point that 3.5E is more "simulationist" than 4E - but 3.5E is only weakly simulationist in the grand scheme of things.

jamminjelly
2009-10-06, 09:32 PM
It would be silly to say that 4E wasn't at least inspired by video games. I don't play WoW but I still know why it's the best as far as MMOs are concerned. That being said I'm sure at one point in 4E's development, WotC looked at WoW to learn what kind of things work in a game.

And while miniatures may just be cool toys that create revenue for WotC, I really like the fact that D&D is grid based. So many powers move characters around to keep the game from becoming too static. Squares make more sense to me seeing as the second you hear feet you usually start converting it to squares. Gridless gaming is still perfectly legitimate and respectable but just make for a different kind of game.

Thajocoth
2009-10-07, 01:13 AM
It would be silly to say that 4E wasn't at least inspired by video games. I don't play WoW but I still know why it's the best as far as MMOs are concerned. That being said I'm sure at one point in 4E's development, WotC looked at WoW to learn what kind of things work in a game.

And while miniatures may just be cool toys that create revenue for WotC, I really like the fact that D&D is grid based. So many powers move characters around to keep the game from becoming too static. Squares make more sense to me seeing as the second you hear feet you usually start converting it to squares. Gridless gaming is still perfectly legitimate and respectable but just make for a different kind of game.

I've played plenty of WoW. WoW is very very different from D&D 4e. WoW is great and all, but not nearly as flexible. Probably because it's a video game.

The reason WoW is the best, most addictive MMO, is because you can log on to play anywhere from 30 seconds (check your mail or the auctions) to many hours (quests, raids, ect...), they taunt you with better loot being constantly delivered, but always having something better just out of reach to try to get, and almost every quest leads to another quest... Often, many quests lead to the same quest, which is essentially railroading. Try to play a character up to max level without getting a quest to go to Uldaman, for example... Pretty hard to do. Then you look up all the other quests for the same area, since you'll be there for a few hours and might as well get extra quest XP for every 3rd room you go to in the dungeon... It's all in the design, not the engine. They make it addictive, by making you always be "almost there", but never "done".

Also, as you level up in WoW, you don't really get a lot of NEW spells. Frostbolt 1, Frostbolt 2, Frostbolt 3... You get the idea... You do get a truly new spell every few levels, which from then on you need to by the later copies of... It's almost all repeats of spells you already have. In D&D 4e, you have a constant supply of new abilities. New things you can do with new flavor. And if you have a good DM, there's no lack of good story, narrative, NPCs, ect... WoW NPCs aren't likable. I can't think of one likable NPC in WoW. None really that hatable either. A DM can add a lot more depth to a character than an MMO can. Yes, some video games have some awesomely made NPCs, plot, story and environment, but I don't think MMOs ever it well enough.

I think one of the biggest confusions seems to be that people seem to think that there are only fights, skill challenges & cutscenes in 4e, and that would be misreading the DMG. The skills are useful outside skill challenges, and some abilities (mostly utilities and some class features) are useful out of battle. If there's a hole to jump across somewhere, that's not a skill challenge, it's a skill check. And you can DO anything skillwise that you could do before. The only removals, really, are Wish and other things of that level of power.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-07, 03:25 AM
Example: "I hit that guy!"
Example: I throw sand at that guy's eyes!
GURPS: Okay, that's in the rulebooks. You can do that, roll this and that's the effect.
Pretty much every other RPG: The DM has to make up something.
4E: Okay, that's in the rulebooks. Unless you're a 7th level rogue, you can't throw sand at people.

Example: I take out four daggers and simultaneously throw them at the foreheads of four people standing next to me, to which they cannot react, but it automatically causes blood to flow into their eyes making them blind for 10 seconds or so!
Exalted: oh that's pretty cool and unique trick, take a few stunt dice, and incidentally you can also hit them in their eyes directly, to kill them.
Pretty much every other RPG: um, yeah, that's a pretty big penalty. But then the thing described is so utterly silly that I don't see it ever coming up like that.
4E: that's a very common trick that happens all the time, but you can do it only once per day, and you absolutely can't hit their eyes instead (for some reason), but it also works against creatures that don't have eyes, or don't have blood (for some reason).


However, these class roles existed in pen and paper RPGs long before being embraced by any manner of video game. D&D has had tank, damage, and support classes since its inception.
Ironically, "damage" used to include fighters, and "support" used to include rogues. The notion that rogues should be able to outdamage most other classes on a regular basis (DPR/DPS) comes mostly from 3E.



However, certainly the 'easiest' party to design a well rounded encounter for includes all three general archetypes.
As it turns out, this doesn't really matter in 4E. As long as you have at least one healer, the actual party makeup is not all tha trelevant.



The claim that this has made the game more video game like, or 'dumbed down' is a reaction to this tactic of telling the player what they need to make a well rounded party.
A more important part of "dumbing down" is the reduction of all bonuses and penalties, which reduces the effect of clever tactics and increases the effect of luck. On the one hand, this means the game is quite good at giving out modifiers that feel they make a difference, but really don't. On the other, it means that all negative effects are removed in a matter of minutes. The result is that people who use bad tactics can be made to feel they're actually doing great, because their tactics work almost as good as anyone else's.



People seem to generally agree that 3e is "simulationist," although I don't see it.
3E primarily tries to model reality (by which I mean verisimilitude, so please don't bring up the old chestnut of "its not real cuz its god magic hur hur"). Admittedly it doesn't always succeed at modeling reality, and it has some obvious flaws, but that's the goal. That means that if you use e.g. a spell that produces flame, the primary effect is flame, which is expected to behave like fire would in the real world. Of course, many people think modeling reality isn't important for an RPG.

4E primarily tries to be balance. Admittedly it doesn't always succeed at balancing, and it has some obvious flaws, but that's the goal. That means that if you use e.g. a spell that produces flame, the primary effect is 3d6 damage, which is expected to happen regardless of circumstances, and that it's called "flame" is pretty much irrelevant. Of course, many people think balance isn't important for an RPG.

fusilier
2009-10-07, 03:46 AM
Have you considered what isn't covered by specific rules? Or by fluff? Basically 4E says "if it doesn't affect the mechanics, go right ahead!"

For example, spellcasting style is no longer system-determined, nor are Paladins (or anyone) constrained by a single Code of Conduct. Rule-wise, things like forging and singing are just adjudicated by the DM.

I am actually just curious if you considered this point.

So, I have a tendency to use the word "constraints," to mean rules. After all rules are constraints. D&D 4e has a bunch of rules, and they tend to be very specific (one friend described D&D as lacking breadth, but having depth). Now, I should reiterate, that I've never been a big fan of any version of D&D. I can have fun playing it, but I feel that, personally, the system is lacking (and this is, after all, a personal preference). Anyhow, I don't read the rules, I play the game. As far as I'm concerned it's the DM's responsibility to clue me in as I'm playing. So my knowledge of the specifics of the rules are going to be limited, but they have the advantage of being informed by how I've seen things work out in the actual game. Which, admittedly could be biased by the adventures I've played in, and the DM running them.

Let me give you an example of my gripe with the fluff tied to the game system. Magic items. The system absolutely assumes that there's a magic sword peddler on every corner, and behind every bush. We were looking at the DMG2, and it actually has a section about playing without magic items. Basically, you limit your items, but make up for it by simply giving out extra character stuff (can't remember if it is XP, or extra powers/feats). The system assumes that as characters advance they will gain more and more (or better and better) magic items/weapons. So if you don't get those, you need to be compensated. This is probably true in other versions of D&D too, I just don't remember it being as severe. (Of course it's been years since I've played AD&D, so I probably don't remember much.)

As for levels. I don't think I've ever seen a character get to level 10, in any version. The games always seem to peter out before then. And frankly, I don't mind. I also didn't have a single 2nd AD&D character of mine die . . . I did see others go though :-)

Anyway getting back to the original question: Did 4e loosen up some constraints -- of course it did. But from my perspective, I feel that my options are on the whole more restrictive. They added a ton of stuff to combat in 4e (too much in my opinion). But being able to pick between Level 5 daily power A, and Level 5 daily power B, does very little to help me feel like my character has . . . well, character. Some people like all this detail in combat, and don't want to worry about whether or not they can make and sell baskets at a profit. Understandable. But what if I do want to make and sell baskets at a profit? Anyway this is getting silly, and that's a really bad example . . .

nveinus
2009-10-07, 06:12 AM
Let me give you an example of my gripe with the fluff tied to the game system. Magic items. The system absolutely assumes that there's a magic sword peddler on every corner, and behind every bush. We were looking at the DMG2, and it actually has a section about playing without magic items. Basically, you limit your items, but make up for it by simply giving out extra character stuff (can't remember if it is XP, or extra powers/feats). The system assumes that as characters advance they will gain more and more (or better and better) magic items/weapons. So if you don't get those, you need to be compensated. This is probably true in other versions of D&D too, I just don't remember it being as severe. (Of course it's been years since I've played AD&D, so I probably don't remember much.)

The extra stuff you are referring to is simply a bonus to hit and defenses at certain levels. You get +1 to hit and all defenses at lvl 5, 10, and so forth. WOTC designed monster's to hit and defenses on some assumptions of magic items because most players like getting something new and shiny every few levels. And since they told you what they are assuming then the DM can adjust things as he sees fit.



Anyway getting back to the original question: Did 4e loosen up some constraints -- of course it did. But from my perspective, I feel that my options are on the whole more restrictive. They added a ton of stuff to combat in 4e (too much in my opinion). But being able to pick between Level 5 daily power A, and Level 5 daily power B, does very little to help me feel like my character has . . . well, character. Some people like all this detail in combat, and don't want to worry about whether or not they can make and sell baskets at a profit. Understandable. But what if I do want to make and sell baskets at a profit? Anyway this is getting silly, and that's a really bad example . . .

Well, pages 18-24 in the phb have all sorts of goodies on how to bring character to your character: personality questions, mannerisms, etc.
For most trade skills 4e hand waves it. If you want to be a cook, roleplay it. Introduce yourself as the party's chef. Go adventure because it gives you a chance to find new and exotic herbs and spices. You don't need skills points to do this. Because having a skill points only come into play when conflict resolution is required. Now having Mr. Chef participate in a cook-off to gain entrance into the elven castle is pretty cool and you can do that with the skill challenge system(granted there are some math problems with the system but the framework is handy to have to structure non-combat conflicts). Nature checks to see if they are common herbs in the area that the judges would be used to and like more and then use insight to know if the judges would prefer a more exotic flavor. Perception to catch that cheating SOB trying to over salt your entree, etc.

Kurald
"I throw sand at that guy's eyes!
GURPS: Okay, that's in the rulebooks. You can do that, roll this and that's the effect.
Pretty much every other RPG: The DM has to make up something.
4E: Okay, that's in the rulebooks. Unless you're a 7th level rogue, you can't throw sand at people."

also 4E:Okay roll a dex check vs reflex to gain combat advantage for a round." aka its a feint without having to use bluff.

"Example: I take out four daggers and simultaneously throw them at the foreheads of four people standing next to me, to which they cannot react, but it automatically causes blood to flow into their eyes making them blind for 10 seconds or so!
Exalted: oh that's pretty cool and unique trick, take a few stunt dice, and incidentally you can also hit them in their eyes directly, to kill them.
Pretty much every other RPG: um, yeah, that's a pretty big penalty. But then the thing described is so utterly silly that I don't see it ever coming up like that.
4E: that's a very common trick that happens all the time, but you can do it only once per day, and you absolutely can't hit their eyes instead (for some reason), but it also works against creatures that don't have eyes, or don't have blood (for some reason)."

Um, you do know that the targets re-acting is what the attack roll is for right? Cause if you miss you don't blind them, since they successfully reacted to avoid a dagger in the face. Of course you complaint is solely based on the fluff text. My rogue could have specially prepared arrows that release a blinding dust on a hit. No cut above the eyes required.

On party roles.
They have always existed. At least every group I have played in has at least mentioned "walking band-aids" and "meatshields" and the desire of at least one of each. The only thing 4e did was say "Hey public, certain classes excel at different aspects of combat. A well rounded party has all their bases covered, but if you don't just be aware of the changes for different types of parties. A party with two rangers and no cleric can rip apart small groups of monsters fast but have little staying power versus a large group of them." Maybe some people didn't like seeing the wizard behind the curtain, but they have always been there.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-07, 06:46 AM
also 4E:Okay roll a dex check vs reflex to gain combat advantage for a round." aka its a feint without having to use bluff.
House rule, my dear. Also, bluff-to-gain-CA is a standard action by RAW, which means it's not worth using (if you do the math on spending two standard actions for one attack at +2, vs spending them on two attacks at +0, the latter is clearly superior).

(interesting fact: when a player suggests an action not covered by powers, most DMs respond by 1. making it too difficult to succeed on to be worth taking, or 2. making it have too little effect for the action cost to be worth taking, or 3. forbidding it entirely. I claim that this is encouraged by the system, because if improvised actions were more powerful than powers, there would be no point to having powers)



Um, you do know that the targets re-acting is what the attack roll is for right?
I meant opportunity attacks. Throwing a dagger provokes, but if you throw four simultaneously with improbable aiming skills it doesn't provoke (for some reason).


My rogue could have specially prepared arrows that release a blinding dust on a hit.
Again, houseruling.

My point is that 4E has numerous actions that would be easy in real life defined as high-level powers (e.g. sand in the eyes) and of course you can't use a power unless you have it; also, 4E has numerous (non-magical) actions that would be ludicrous in real life defined as low-level powers (e.g. blinding barrage). The result is that 4E is the only game where throwing sand at someone's face is harder than throwing up to nine daggers at a precise spot over people's eyebrows. And that's silly.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-07, 07:08 AM
Also, as you level up in WoW, you don't really get a lot of NEW spells. Frostbolt 1, Frostbolt 2, Frostbolt 3... You get the idea... You do get a truly new spell every few levels, which from then on you need to by the later copies of... It's almost all repeats of spells you already have.

the equivalent of frosbolt rank 1, 2, 3.. are things like magic missle orturn undead that automatically scale. Not a bad thing, anyway.



In D&D 4e, you have a constant supply of new abilities. New things you can do with new flavor. And if you have a good DM, there's no lack of good story, narrative, NPCs, ect... WoW NPCs aren't likable. I can't think of one likable NPC in WoW. None really that hatable either. A DM can add a lot more depth to a character than an MMO can. Yes, some video games have some awesomely made NPCs, plot, story and environment, but I don't think MMOs ever it well enough. [quote]

I think that lord Viktor Nefarius (Nefarian) and lady Katrana Prestor (Onixia) in classic were pretti well made. For sure, a videogame is a videogame, the superiority of a PnP 8any) about the things you said is clear. Nevertheless, people recognized a lot of things in 4th that remember Wow (but.. see my first post in the thread).

[quote]
I think one of the biggest confusions seems to be that people seem to think that there are only fights, skill challenges & cutscenes in 4e, and that would be misreading the DMG. The skills are useful outside skill challenges, and some abilities (mostly utilities and some class features) are useful out of battle. If there's a hole to jump across somewhere, that's not a skill challenge, it's a skill check. And you can DO anything skillwise that you could do before. The only removals, really, are Wish and other things of that level of power.

I don't think that 4th edition COULD remember to me wow because of skill challenges. I think that the power mechanic (I mean, the click-to-do mechanic) is more videogamey.

And the "removal of wish" thing remember wow, too, because for the first time balance trumped other things (of course, for many this is a good thing). Magic is not so different from a martial exploit. See, I can contradict myself: in wow magic powers have some difference, you cannot cast if silenced and Wow mage can counterspell, too. And Fighters cannot teleport. Wait, maybe 4th edition is more "videogamey" about magic than Wow..:smallbiggrin:

Theodoric
2009-10-07, 08:29 AM
Why do silly nerds always compare 4E to WoW? There are games that are much more similar to 4E that aren't Diablo-2-based. People need bigger reference pools.

Indon
2009-10-07, 08:57 AM
Second, if you want to claim 3e didn't require a map and 4e does, you are wrong. 4e gives distances in Squares, because it believes that combat is more fun, and easier to play with something to visualize the battle with. Converting all the distances in 4e back to normal calculations isn't a big chore.

Distance is not what makes 4th edition so grid-dependent.

Pushing, pulling, and other movement powers are. Without tracking those, many classes get shafted over the effectiveness of their powers.


If the role system isn't needed that much when playing 4th Ed, perhaps it wouldn't be 'best' as an MMO after all.

No, it slots in perfectly as an MMO - just not a very difficult one.

Which is perfect, since it's for less 'hardcore' players anyway.


What gets me is the vagueness of statements about gamism/simulationism/narrativism whenever people start comparing editions.

Tabletop games are not gamist or simulationist or narrativist... usually.

They are, however, more or less gamist/narrativist/simulationist. And 4th edition is more gamist and less simulationist than 3rd edition. Both editions are all three facets in varying degrees.


And Fighters cannot teleport. Wait, maybe 4th edition is more "videogamey" about magic than Wow..:smallbiggrin:

Actually, Warriors in WoW have more de facto teleport abilities than mages do.


Why do silly nerds always compare 4E to WoW? There are games that are much more similar to 4E that aren't Diablo-2-based. People need bigger reference pools.

Heaven forfend you mention any of these mysterious games, which are more 4E like than a well-balanced multiplayer fantasy game oriented around characters fulfilling specific roles (Tank, Healer, DPS, CC) and facing environmental hazards.

Well, okay, Lord of the Rings Online might be more like 4E, since everyone uses the same ability use system instead of different ones like in WoW, and it has less PvP than WoW does.


You can add a great deal of 3.x material while still using vancian casting and equivalent. The sheer amount of source material using standard stuff is vast, and certainly outstrips the material available in total for 4th ed. It's not as if anyone is going to miss the truenamer and the material printed for that system.
If you even include Complete Warrior, you have to introduce feat-maneuvers. Though, some core feats do provide a template for that system.


This is mostly a preference thing with regards to the value of the system as a PnP game. 4th ed has a universal system yes, but as you say, it's vague. That's not of much help for coding.
Of course it's of help for coding - provided you're willing to have a game that feels more like a game than an interactive environment.


And yes, immersion is still important for computer games.
I think mileage varies here. Personally, I agree, but I think immersion is important for tabletop games too.


The vast majority of non-core classes, spells, etc are designed to work within the core system, and require no systemic changes. It's simply adding more content to the existing system.
There's the additional problem that the a great deal of non-core features actually do something that doesn't exist in core - that's something you don't see much of in 4th edition.

4th edition does see entirely new features, but at a much slower pace.


It's not a problem, per se, but it does involve massive changes. Those who were arguing that games such as DDO required massive changes from 3.x, and that this showed that 3.x was not suited to video games are who I was arguing against here. It's going to involve massive changes, sure, but that's not at all system related.
Yeah, and my point was that Icewind Dale stands as an example as to why the turn-based->realtime conversion is not an excuse in and of itself for substantial rules modifications.

Some systems are better-suited to be made into video games than others.

The Big Dice
2009-10-07, 09:07 AM
Simulationist, narrativist or gamist. Who cares? All RPGs are all three of these at the same time. They seek to model the outcome of a situation using maths, with a randomised aspect to add unpredictability. Or, they simulate things. Some attempt to model reality a bit more (GURPS) while others fly round real world physics shooting it with laser beams from their eyes (Mutants and Masterminds).

And they all have narrative elements, whether that is as simple as "Bill, Ted and Rufus went into a cave to kill green people and take their stuff. Ted fell in a hole and got eaten by a giant bug. Bill and Rufus ran away." Or it could be a complex plot involving multiple betrayals and hidden agendas set against a backdrop of intergalactic war. Doesn't matter, there's a narrative there.

And finally, they all are games. Social activities with rules.

Personally, I think a lot of the accusations of 4th ed being too video game-like come from the glossy artwork. All those images of strange glowy lights and otherworldly locations do give an image of something a bit more high definition than your typical RPG artwork. Like something out of a glossy Xbox360 or PS3 ad in a magazine. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. I still remember crude pencil drawings that quite often differed from a picture of the same critter that was just a few pages away. Yay for improved production values! But it does give a certain impression.

I don't like 4th ed, though. For one thing, it's too dependent on miniatures, to the point where the scale given is the somewhat abstract "square." If it used a measure I could relate to, like feet, yards or metres, that wouldn't be such an issue. But the use of a grid as part of the core system means the player is tied to a system that involves pushing things round a table. And that's not to my taste.

And then there's the fact that the game is paced around combat. Milestones and so on make a certain style of play implicit in the game design, and that's not to my taste. I know that as a GM I can play the game in any style I choose, but abstracting injury and encouraging violent action to that extent doesn't sit well with me. To me, it's turning the RPG into something closer to a tactical minis game. Which is a step backwards in my book, not forwards.

However, what I do see with 4th ed is some very clever marketing. Sure, I feel they are making the same mistakes as they did with 3.X, in that there's a HUGE amount of material out there already and what seems like a never ending line waiting to see print. But I also see 4th ed as something of a gateway drug into the roleplaying hobby. There's a lot of very good games out there these days, and not all of them involve rolling a D20 to decide an outcome. All it takes is for a group of gamers to say "Wouldn't it be cool if we could play cowboys / samurai / space marines / superheroes / vampires / something that's not obviously derived from Lord of the Rings." Then they take a chance on a different system. And new realms of possibility that D&D doesn't touch on are opened to them.

After all, bringing new people into the hobby is important if it's not to simply fade away. If 4th ed D&D can do that, then even if I don't want to play it, I'm not going to look down on people who do.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 09:19 AM
If you even include Complete Warrior, you have to introduce feat-maneuvers. Though, some core feats do provide a template for that system.

As long as you have the template, you're good. The rest is simply data entry. 3.x has a wild array of options, yes, but mechanically, they usually follow very standardized paths. Yes, some, like the exalted vows, are different, but you can happily ignore all these options and still have more content than all of fourth


Of course it's of help for coding - provided you're willing to have a game that feels more like a game than an interactive environment.

All games feel like games to a certain degree. Systems that speed your coding allow you to spend more time finishing and polishing the product, which is *huge* for making a game feel right. Far too many games are rushed out with crappy UIs, unfixed bugs, etc.


I think mileage varies here. Personally, I agree, but I think immersion is important for tabletop games too.

Yeah...partially a preference thing, but in general, immersion is a good thing for complex, serious games, regardless of format. Light, silly games can get away without it, but those are an exception.


There's the additional problem that the a great deal of non-core features actually do something that doesn't exist in core - that's something you don't see much of in 4th edition.

4th edition does see entirely new features, but at a much slower pace.

I don't think we actually disagree much here.

The big thing is that a game based on edition x does not need to encompass *everything* from edition x. Given the breadth within any edition after it's been out a few years...most games probably wont. The biggest single hangup in game design is graphic assets, those will cap your overall game size long before coding time will.

The big advantage of 3.x is you have so much more source material to pull from. If you're doing any game with a different focus than grid-based combat, the amount of source material in 4th ed pales in comparison. You don't need to use all of 3.x, but there is vastly more stuff there to speed you up. And yeah, using premade, more or less balanced mechanics is a pretty significant boost.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-07, 09:35 AM
Actually, Warriors in WoW have more de facto teleport abilities than mages do.


I guess you are referring to Charge, Intervene and the like . But warriors don't cast portal or teleport. Mages do.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-10-07, 11:28 AM
3E primarily tries to model reality (by which I mean verisimilitude, so please don't bring up the old chestnut of "its not real cuz its god magic hur hur"). Admittedly it doesn't always succeed at modeling reality, and it has some obvious flaws, but that's the goal. That means that if you use e.g. a spell that produces flame, the primary effect is flame, which is expected to behave like fire would in the real world. Of course, many people think modeling reality isn't important for an RPG.
It's a perfectly legitimate chestnut. If your players are willing to believe that god-magic is an explanation in your setting then you've achieved "versimilitude." If a spell is designed to shoot fire and hurt things and it more or less does that, by flavor or mechanic, then you've achieved "versimilitude."

2e rules have morale rules for enemies. 3e doesn't. 2e is more lethal than 3e. Does that mean that 2e has more versimilitude?

If a DM's "making up something" is believable, does that mean the system allows for more "versimlitude"?

I'm tired of hearing the old chestnut that 3e is the "simulationist" game because it has a few rules. 3e is the fetisihization of rules as the method of "modeling reality," but this isn't supposed to be theoretical physics.

The reason 3e is "weakly simulationist" isn't that it's a poor model. It's because the idea of "simulationism," as colloquially presented, is self-defeating in a game that's primarily about using your imagination to suspend disbelief.

Yakk
2009-10-07, 01:03 PM
Example: I throw sand at that guy's eyes!
GURPS: Okay, that's in the rulebooks. You can do that, roll this and that's the effect.
After looking it up. :)

Pretty much every other RPG: The DM has to make up something.
*nod*

4E: Okay, that's in the rulebooks. Unless you're a 7th level rogue, you can't throw sand at people.
Page 42 of the DMG gives advice on what target numbers and effect sizes an improvised attack should make.

Let me give you an example of my gripe with the fluff tied to the game system. Magic items. The system absolutely assumes that there's a magic sword peddler on every corner, and behind every bush.
Naw, it just assumes players get at least the 3 core magic items every 5 levels, or enough resources to make them. At 5 party members, that comes to 15 items every 5 levels, or 3 magic items per level, or 1 magic item every 3 encounters.

It also presumes you have utility magic items, but the system works fine without it.

Note that the standard treasure system is 4 magic items every level instead of 3 -- only slightly faster than the least required for players to keep up with their magic item pluses -- plus enough treasure to buy some 'out of date' magic items if you forget to hand out enough magic cloaks.

DMG1 comes with advice on how to run a system with no magic item economy at all (just what you find from monsters). DMG2, as you have noted, includes explicit rules on how to run the entire game with no magic items at all (including alternative toys, like achievements).

House rule, my dear.
No, page 42. It should, by page 42, probably do the low damage expression and grant combat advantage.

Also, bluff-to-gain-CA is a standard action by RAW, which means it's not worth using (if you do the math on spending two standard actions for one attack at +2, vs spending them on two attacks at +0, the latter is clearly superior).
Suppose you have a daily that does 5x normal attack damage when you have combat advantage (x3 without CA), and half damage on a miss.

You can either do a standard attack, then a daily, or burn a standard to get combat advantage.

At 50% base hit rate, the attack+daily does 2.75x normal attack damage on average.
If your CA causing attack hits, it does 4x normal attack damage. If not, 2.25x normal attack damage. Total 3.125x normal attack damage.

And yes, this ends up being a corner case.

Again, houseruling.
No, the rules explicitly state you are allowed to refluff powers.

(interesting fact: when a player suggests an action not covered by powers, most DMs respond by 1. making it too difficult to succeed on to be worth taking, or 2. making it have too little effect for the action cost to be worth taking, or 3. forbidding it entirely. I claim that this is encouraged by the system, because if improvised actions were more powerful than powers, there would be no point to having powers)
Page 42 of the DMG (part of the rules of 4e) gives explicit instructions to the DM how to
1> Make improvised attacks have a reasonable chance of success,
2> Make the effect large enough that it was worth doing,
3> And instructs the DM to encourage it and permit it.

Ignoring page 42 is like saying "stunts in exalted don't work, because the DM always says that they are worth zero dice, no matter what you say". They added explicit mechanical support in 4e for improvised actions to help the DM say what happens. When you do an improvised action (like throwing sand in someones face, swinging from a chandelier, etc, the DM is supposed to use page 42 (with errata) to adjudicate what happens.

Page 42 is part of the core rules of 4e -- part of the rules as written.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-07, 01:07 PM
@Kurald Galain
Was that really necessary? The part of my post you quoted was an example of different rules systems to elaborate different ways of conflict resolution, not to jump in on an Edition War.

Anyhow, I would like point out that the knife thing would have likely worked in TSR D&D due to the number of Multi-Attack rules for ranged weapons. And the sand-in-the-eye thing continues to be silly - DMG 42 acts just like "every other RPG out there" and says "find the appropriate attack (probably Dex v. Reflex) and, if it succeeds, choose appropriate damage from the table or give a small modifier."

Oh, and GURPS having explicit "throwing sand in the eye rules" is on the same level as Shadowrun's shotgun-spread and explosion rebound rules - an example of a high complexity rules system.

@fusilier
Thanks for the clarification. I will note that few D&D players would consider magic items "fluff" in much the same way as longsword stats are not fluff. Yes the system assumes a certain level of attack bonus progression based on magical items - but if you're going to try and make a rational system for combat, isn't that a sensible thing to do?

As for basket-weaving: no game should be all things to all people - it just makes for a rules set that tries to do everything, but poorly. D&D has always been a combat-centric game; early edition had you explicitly narrate non-combat actions (hence the 10' pole) or make a straight d20 roll against a relevant stat. The failure of 3.5 to adequately model non-combatants earning a living (Profession skill, for example) is an easy example to make.

Also, the "not feeling like a character" sensation is a common complaint about 4E. Now, coming from a 2E background it has always seemed to me that this is a conflation of "numbers on a sheet" with "character definition;" in 2E you had even fewer mechanics to define your character but you were encouraged to come up with lively descriptions of their appearance, personality, and history. So the fact that I only have, say, a 1 in 4 choice of power selection per level is no different for me - character definition-wise - than having 2000 feat-backed combat maneuvers. YMMV

Anyhow: For the record, 4E generally has a "narrative freedom" perspective for all non-combat actions but if that non-combat thing is important to the story, you refer to DMG 42 (or the skill section) to make a once-off systemized check for it. IMHO, the small but broadly inclusive rules system of 4E is an excellent example of focused game design.

EDIT: God, Ninja'd by a Yak(k)! I must be getting slow :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2009-10-07, 01:17 PM
After looking it up. :)
Yes :smallbiggrin: Incidentally this is why I don't play GURPS (whereas I do play every iteration of D&D).


Page 42 of the DMG gives advice on what target numbers and effect sizes an improvised attack should make.
Yes, but throwing sand at someone's eyes happens to be an explicit power in the PHB.


Suppose you have a daily that does 5x normal attack damage when you have combat advantage (x3 without CA), and half damage on a miss.
I'm not familiar with that daily. Nevertheless, possibly barring a few highly unusual cases, the point remains that spending a standard action to get combat advantage isn't worth it statistically.

I dislike such bad options because they fool players into thinking they have a choice, when they really don't. A good example is the fighter at-will, sure strike.



Page 42 of the DMG (part of the rules of 4e) gives explicit instructions to the DM how to
Yes, I know that. But whenever actual examples are asked for e.g. on this forum, most of those examples turn out to be not worth actually using, for the reasons noted above.

Person_Man
2009-10-07, 01:20 PM
One of the things that 4E explicitly borrowed from video games is the mechanic of rapid leveling. They went from 20 to 30 levels, reduced the amount of encounters you had to go through to gain a level, and made sure that you gained (or swap up to) a new power and/or feat every level.

While I have always been opposed to dead levels, and have always supported a DMs ability to level everyone up by fiat, I think that the way they choose to go about rapid leveling was a huge design mistake. Since each and every class has a hundred different powers, each power contains (by necessity) minimal fluff, and tend to be duplicative of other powers. If they had kept things to 20 levels and made each power scale (instead of becoming useless after a few levels) it would have expanded the capacity for fluff, and made each power more interesting and useful. The same criticism extends to feats. Almost all of them provide minor, static, boring, fluffless bonuses. These were generally the least popular and interesting feats in 3.X, so I have no idea why they made them a central component of 4E. Instead, they could have eliminated the boring feat, and made each feat the equivalent of a generic/universal power that any class could access.

Oh well. I'm looking forward to 5E.

Reverent-One
2009-10-07, 01:20 PM
House rule, my dear.

Hmm, you say that like it's a bad thing. Which is funny, especially since you said that for "Pretty much every other RPG: The DM has to make up something.", which is houseruling. So you've just showed that your seperating 4e from pretty much every other RPG in that comparison was utterly pointless.


Also, bluff-to-gain-CA is a standard action by RAW, which means it's not worth using (if you do the math on spending two standard actions for one attack at +2, vs spending them on two attacks at +0, the latter is clearly superior).

So you're complaining that throwing sand in someone's eyes is less effective than stabbing them. Which assumes the DM rules it as a standard action in the first place, and that it not a given anyway since, as you said, it's house-ruling no matter what. This is no different than in 3.5 (throwing sand in someone's eyes is less effective than full attacking them/casting a spell on them) or WoD (Doing vampire-ish things to things/casting spells on them/shooting them) or, I assume, other RPGs.


My point is that 4E has numerous actions that would be easy in real life defined as high-level powers (e.g. sand in the eyes) and of course you can't use a power unless you have it; also, 4E has numerous (non-magical) actions that would be ludicrous in real life defined as low-level powers (e.g. blinding barrage). The result is that 4E is the only game where throwing sand at someone's face is harder than throwing up to nine daggers at a precise spot over people's eyebrows. And that's silly.

Except that a Dex attack vs reflex (what I think we can assume any reasonable DM would require to improvise the throwing of sand) isn't really any harder than making a bunch of Dex attacks vs AC or whatever defense Blinding Barrage uses. Because surely you're not saying that just because there is some rogue power that merely includes throwing sand in someone's face in the fluff description that the power is now the ONLY way to do so. That would be silly.

Jayabalard
2009-10-07, 01:29 PM
After looking it up. :)Why would you need to look anything up? you know you're going to roll 3d6 against your throwing skill (unless you have the throwing sand skill), with the standard penalty for hit locations (if you're using them, in which case they should be readily available, if you don't have them memorized).

Thajocoth
2009-10-07, 01:31 PM
...They went from 20 to 30 levels...
Levels 21-30 are "Epic Tier". In 3.5e, levels above 20 are "Epic". I don't see the difference.

As for rapid leveling, I'm actually going to double the XP & Loot gained in the 4e campaign I'm starting this weekend. Campaigns don't seem to last long enough usually to reach paragon tier unless you start at paragon tier. It's supposed to take roughly a real-world year to gain 10 levels, which is a very long time for more than 3 people's schedules to continue to match up. (Assuming one session per week of about 4 or 5 hours, I think... If I remember right...)

Also, I like seeing new things. I have the following houserule for that reason:
When you level up, you may retrain one feat AND one non-feat. A class feature counts as one of each and a Genasi manifestation counts as a feat-retrain. If both things you retrain are from a book/article that just came out, you can retrain a third thing from the new material.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-07, 01:34 PM
Levels 21-30 are "Epic Tier". In 3.5e, levels above 20 are "Epic". I don't see the difference.


Difference is between [7W] damage and deflect spells with your sword.

Thajocoth
2009-10-07, 01:36 PM
Difference is between [7W] damage and deflect spells with your sword.

Instead of rolling 7 separate attacks, with each one have 5 less to-hit on the roll... I like that they've folded that into a simpler mechanic.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 01:36 PM
Hmm, you say that like it's a bad thing. Which is funny, especially since you said that for "Pretty much every other RPG: The DM has to make up something.", which is houseruling. So you've just showed that your seperating 4e from pretty much every other RPG in that comparison was utterly pointless.


Anything *can* be houseruled. Not everything requires a houserule.

Significant difference.

Reverent-One
2009-10-07, 01:44 PM
Anything *can* be houseruled. Not everything requires a houserule.

Significant difference.

In his example though, he was saying that the DM has to make up something, thus requiring said houserule.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-07, 01:45 PM
Instead of rolling 7 separate attacks, with each one have 5 less to-hit on the roll... I like that they've folded that into a simpler mechanic.

I see that we are talking about different things :smallsmile:

I was talking about sameness vs awesomeness. Iterative Attacks are different from Armed Deflection [Epic].

More.. man, a subtraction between integers is a problem :smallconfused:?

Thajocoth
2009-10-07, 01:49 PM
I see that we are talkning about different things :smallsmile:

Well, that's what the multiple-[W] attacks really come from. It used to be you attacked BAB/5 times, with different rolls to-hit. Instead of doing that, they've folded it into one attack with most of the same damage from the barrage of attacks of 3.5e.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 01:50 PM
In his example though, he was saying that the DM has to make up something, thus requiring said houserule.

No, it already has very specific rules for it. If you are not satisfied with those rules, and choose to make it available in other circumstances, you need house rules.

This is different from the case of no rules at all.

Reverent-One
2009-10-07, 01:57 PM
No, it already has very specific rules for it. If you are not satisfied with those rules, and choose to make it available in other circumstances, you need house rules.

Assuming you are referring to throwing sand in someone's face already having rules in 4e, you are incorrect, because there are not.

Aoric
2009-10-07, 01:57 PM
Levels 21-30 are "Epic Tier". In 3.5e, levels above 20 are "Epic". I don't see the difference.

As for rapid leveling, I'm actually going to double the XP & Loot gained in the 4e campaign I'm starting this weekend. Campaigns don't seem to last long enough usually to reach paragon tier unless you start at paragon tier. It's supposed to take roughly a real-world year to gain 10 levels, which is a very long time for more than 3 people's schedules to continue to match up. (Assuming one session per week of about 4 or 5 hours, I think... If I remember right...)

Also, I like seeing new things. I have the following houserule for that reason:
When you level up, you may retrain one feat AND one non-feat. A class feature counts as one of each and a Genasi manifestation counts as a feat-retrain. If both things you retrain are from a book/article that just came out, you can retrain a third thing from the new material.

my group has used the speedy leveling mechanic - usually an xp multiplier of 1.5x (or sometimes 2x). Its worked out well for us, and allowed us to level after every other session. Which works out to about once per month for us (we game 4 hours every two weeks when we're on a good stretch).

However, if we were still young and had all the free time in the world, then the leveling would be way to fast.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 02:02 PM
Assuming you are referring to throwing sand in someone's face already having rules in 4e, you are incorrect, because there are not.

So it's not a 7th level rogue ability, as previously stated?

Reverent-One
2009-10-07, 02:05 PM
So it's not a 7th level rogue ability, as previously stated?

There is a 7th level rogue attack that includes throwing sand in your enemies face in it's description, but that's it. No rules for just throwing sand in their face.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 02:10 PM
You might as well say the game doesn't include rules for "just casting a spell" because spells have requirements.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-07, 02:13 PM
There is a 7th level rogue attack that includes throwing sand in your enemies face in it's description, but that's it. No rules for just throwing sand in their face.

Sand Golem, Awaken Constructs spell, grapple build, sling ally, setting sun.
In 3.5, sand throws you!

Just joking. Ok be devious and inflamatory, but now I'm joking! Now, time to be devious and inflamatory*:

Tajocoth: what I meant was that in 3rd edition epic, even if really broken and in need of rework, meant do really, really, really special and awesome things, at least in my experience. A big smash [7W] cannot impress me like a Druid awaking a forest, a wizard dreaming a plane of existence or a fighter dropping a demon prince with a blow and deflecting an orb spell with 45 metamagic feats on. One could discuss hours about the brokeness of things above, but that is.

And 4th edition left all of this apart, without fixin. Unless you think that beheading is a remedy for headache.


* be patient the experiment is long, I'm alone at lab and I'm tired.

Reverent-One
2009-10-07, 02:18 PM
You might as well say the game doesn't include rules for "just casting a spell" because spells have requirements.

Casting a spell is not a basic physical action anyone can do. The throwing sand in the eyes in the rogue power is just a description of part of the power's effects, and since this is 4e, any given player doesn't even have to use that description in the first place. There's a fighter at-will that pushes the target in addtion to dealing your weapon damage, which is described as hitting them back with your shield. Does this mean you have to have the fighter at-will in order to push someone back with your shield? No, because that's a perfectly fine description of the bull rush action.

jmbrown
2009-10-07, 02:25 PM
Powers are completely separate from improvised attacks. A rogue has a "sand throwing" power and it's a special ability with a special effect. There's no concrete rules for tossing sand because A) it's arbitrary in a game that's about magic and heroic combat and B) it's abritrary enough to not need listing or else there'd be a 100 page addendum containing all the things you could possibly do but probably wouldn't.

One could complain about the lack of rules concerning spitting in someone's face. It's not necessary and it has a small or negligible effect on gameplay. Do you want to handle it quickly? Make an attack vs. reflex, character has -1 to his attack roll until he takes a minor action to whipe his face.

Matthew
2009-10-07, 02:28 PM
The idea that you cannot throw sand in somebody's face because there is a power that does that, ergo you need that power in D20/4e, is roughly analogous to the idea that nobody else can sneak because Thieves have a move silently skill in (A)D&D/1e/2e. It is a kind of true, but mostly false. What you likely cannot do is have the same degree of effectiveness by means of the improvised action as when using the power.

Mando Knight
2009-10-07, 02:30 PM
B) it's abritrary enough to not need listing or else there'd be a 100 page addendum containing all the things you could possibly do but probably wouldn't.

Try 100 factorial. Or just put it down as n!, since that's really how many different things you could do that they didn't think of.

Reverent-One
2009-10-07, 02:31 PM
Thanks for properly explaining what I was failing to, jmbrown and Matthew.

Jack_Banzai
2009-10-07, 02:32 PM
I don't see what the big deal is.

Pg. 42, DMG.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 03:23 PM
The idea that you cannot throw sand in somebody's face because there is a power that does that, ergo you need that power in D20/4e, is roughly analogous to the idea that nobody else can sneak because Thieves have a move silently skill in (A)D&D/1e/2e. It is a kind of true, but mostly false. What you likely cannot do is have the same degree of effectiveness by means of the improvised action as when using the power.

While true, it would still be improper to categorize those systems as "requiring house ruling to sneak". They have rules for them, under certain circumstances.

If you opt to house rule in rules for other circumstances, you will no doubt use the existing rules as a guide. This is inherently different from a system that simply doesn't mention it at all.

Matthew
2009-10-07, 03:32 PM
While true, it would still be improper to categorize those systems as "requiring house ruling to sneak". They have rules for them, under certain circumstances.

If you opt to house rule in rules for other circumstances, you will no doubt use the existing rules as a guide. This is inherently different from a system that simply doesn't mention it at all.

I am not 100% sure I understand what you are saying, but it should be borne in mind that many older systems simply did not perceive a need for rules to cover aspects of the game that could be adjudicated by the game master. Nonetheless, AD&D had a rule almost exactly the same as p. 42 of the D20/4e DMG, where the game master was given the option of deciding on a probability and rolling a die for any action not covered in the rules. An interesting thread on the subject can be found here: [D&D] Actions the Rules Don't Cover (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90695).

BritishBill
2009-10-07, 03:36 PM
I rented the 4E books today and started reading when I thought "This seems very video game-y" has this happened to anyone? Does anyone else feel like this?

It comes off as more simplified than 3.5 to me but i wouldnt call it video gameish.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 03:41 PM
I am not 100% sure I understand what you are saying, but it should be borne in mind that many older systems simply did not perceive a need for rules to cover aspects of the game that could be adjudicated by the game master. Nonetheless, AD&D had a rule almost exactly the same as p. 42 of the D20/4e DMG, where the game master was given the option of deciding on a probability and rolling a die for any action not covered in the rules. An interesting thread on the subject can be found here: [D&D] Actions the Rules Don't Cover (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90695).

This topic originated by discussing different systems, and to what extent they covered unusual attacks such as the example of throwing sand in someone's eyes.

4th ed was listed as one of those with (some brief) rules for that. Yes, you can obviously expand on those rules if you feel they are insufficient, but it's clearly different than games that simply do not address the situation whatsoever, and require a house rule to have it in game at all.

After all, if you categorize all games based on if they can be house ruled, every game ends up in the yes category, which is pretty useless.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-07, 03:42 PM
Hmm, you say that like it's a bad thing.

Not at all. It's just the standard Oberoni fallacy: houserules have no bearing on a discussion about actual game rules.

Reverent-One
2009-10-07, 03:56 PM
Not at all. It's just the standard Oberoni fallacy: houserules have no bearing on a discussion about actual game rules.

Then why do the whole comparison between GURPS/Pretty much every other RPG/4e for throwing sand in the first place? Since pg 42 of the DMG in 4e counts as house rules to you, there was no point in distinguishing between Pretty much every other RPG and 4e. As such, the only thing that comparison did was point out a difference between GURPS and pretty much every other RPG (including 4e) out there. And this isn't a thread about GURPS.

Matthew
2009-10-07, 03:57 PM
This topic originated by discussing different systems, and to what extent they covered unusual attacks such as the example of throwing sand in someone's eyes.

4th ed was listed as one of those with (some brief) rules for that. Yes, you can obviously expand on those rules if you feel they are insufficient, but it's clearly different than games that simply do not address the situation whatsoever, and require a house rule to have it in game at all.

After all, if you categorize all games based on if they can be house ruled, every game ends up in the yes category, which is pretty useless.

I am not really sure how different that is really. There are fundamentally two types of house rule. On the one hand there are the sort that adjudicate situations not described, on the other there are house rules that change the already written rules of the game in order to "fix" some perceived inadequacy. All games can be house ruled, but not all games can be house ruled with equal ease or on the same terms. Some are designed to be more flexible than others. Most games contain advice for dealing with unusual circumstances.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-07, 04:06 PM
Then why do the whole comparison between GURPS/Pretty much every other RPG/4e for throwing sand in the first place?
You can keep using page 42 as an excuse for everything, but the point is that the rules for throwing sand at somebody's face are already in the player's handbook on page 121. Would you let a level-4 wizard cast fireball by making an arcana check? That's the same thing.

Point is that there are several things that a normal person should be able to do, that characters in 4E cannot unless they possess the proper powers or feats; and conversely that there are several things that cannot even be made to make sense in the gameworld that are commonplace because they are done by low-level martial powers (e.g. blinding barrage).

Reverent-One
2009-10-07, 04:23 PM
You can keep using page 42 as an excuse for everything, but the point is that the rules for throwing sand at somebody's face are already in the player's handbook on page 121.

No, they aren't. The rules for the Rogue level 7 encounter power "Sand in the eyes" are on page 121. Granted, they sound similar, so it's easy to tell how you might be confused. But there are differences. Like do you really think one has to carry a light blade to throw sand in someone's eye?


Would you let a level-4 wizard cast fireball by making an arcana check? That's the same thing.

No, I wouldn't. But I would allow anyone to make an attack with a Molotov cocktail-type of weapon, which you would seem to not allow unless they were a level 5 wizard, since by your logic, attacking with a burst of fire that hits anything in the area requires them to have a level 5 wizard power.


Point is that there are several things that a normal person should be able to do, that characters in 4E cannot unless they possess the proper powers or feats; and conversely that there are several things that cannot even be made to make sense in the gameworld that are commonplace because they are done by low-level martial powers (e.g. blinding barrage).

Unfortunately, your conclusion is based on false premises.

fusilier
2009-10-07, 04:25 PM
@fusilier
Thanks for the clarification. I will note that few D&D players would consider magic items "fluff" in much the same way as longsword stats are not fluff.

To me "magic" is fluff, it's part of the game world. While it should be defined in the system, it shouldn't be required in a game. But this is my opinion. D&D has always tied the system and game world together pretty tightly. Previous editions seem to have allowed bit more play. Of course some people will see it as requisite, and that's clearly what the designers thought.



Yes the system assumes a certain level of attack bonus progression based on magical items - but if you're going to try and make a rational system for combat, isn't that a sensible thing to do?

Not necessarily. 1. Do superior items have to be magical? (In my opinion it's fluff). 2. Does progression have to include acquiring more magic items (the option in DMG2 addresses this, but seems a bit awkward to me)?

The "rational system for combat" makes a lot of assumptions about the party, the monsters, and levels. It's an example of a constraint. The system tells you (specifically the DM) explicitly what enemies are appropriate. Which is fine, but also more video game like. Other rpg's would simply let the GM decide (or create the opponents), which could lead to problems if the GM makes a miscalculation! It's really a different way of approaching the issue.



As for basket-weaving: no game should be all things to all people -

Exactly. People tend to argue over things that are really just personal preferences as though there's one right answer to satisfy everybody. There are different approaches that others may find interesting.



it just makes for a rules set that tries to do everything, but poorly.

Not necessarily. GURPS seems to handle most things well, once you get used to it (and realize that the GM needs to use some subset of the rules!). However, it generally lacks the detail, or depth of D&D, in areas like combat.



Also, the "not feeling like a character" sensation is a common complaint about 4E.

I think my issue here, is that there's a lot of complexity, which doesn't define the character. I mean there's a lot of feats and powers, etc., etc., that I have to choose . . . and after all that, what am I left with? I have a huge character sheet, but nobody looking at it would know that my character was, let's say, a sailor, or a farmer, or a carpenter. Or even a lord, or the captain of the guard (i.e. a leader of some sort). Other than if I simply wrote in big letters "Captain of the Guard", under the name or description field. For me, it's kind of a let down.

Also, the first RPG I played was WEG's Star Wars which was class-less, so classes always annoyed me. I always think up a character idea, then feel restricted trying to pigeon hole him into a class (or classes with multi-classing). Others seem to be perfectly fine with this. Many of my friends state that they want to play a <class>.

Kylarra
2009-10-07, 04:30 PM
To be technical, what the level 7 rogue encounter power allows you to do is to strike them and then throw sand in their eyes as a standard action. The partial act of attempting to blind someone without hitting them as well isn't covered. :smalltongue:

Person_Man
2009-10-07, 04:31 PM
Levels 21-30 are "Epic Tier". In 3.5e, levels above 20 are "Epic". I don't see the difference.

As for rapid leveling, I'm actually going to double the XP & Loot gained in the 4e campaign I'm starting this weekend. Campaigns don't seem to last long enough usually to reach paragon tier unless you start at paragon tier. It's supposed to take roughly a real-world year to gain 10 levels, which is a very long time for more than 3 people's schedules to continue to match up. (Assuming one session per week of about 4 or 5 hours, I think... If I remember right...)

Also, I like seeing new things. I have the following houserule for that reason:
When you level up, you may retrain one feat AND one non-feat. A class feature counts as one of each and a Genasi manifestation counts as a feat-retrain. If both things you retrain are from a book/article that just came out, you can retrain a third thing from the new material.

I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't articulate what I meant correctly. And if so, I apologize. I have no problem with rapid leveling or with swapping out feats or powers. I have a problem with how they chose to implement it.

Each class has a huge number of powers. This is a function of the fact that there are 30 levels in core, and powers do not scale. So there tends to be a great deal of overlap between powers. Most of them are X[W] + attribute damage, plus a minor effect.

I would prefer a smaller number of interesting, more unique, scaled powers and feats. If a power isn't interesting, unique, and scaled (or at least useful at every level, such as Evasion) then don't include it. If it provides an ability you want multiple classes to have access to, then make it a feat. There are literally tens of thousands of pages of D&D material out there that they can draw upon, and legions of fanboys and talented professional writers like Rich Burlew. So there is need for filler. And there is no "fun value" or fluff in having a dozen feats that provide +1 bonuses under circumstances.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-07, 04:31 PM
You can keep using page 42 as an excuse for everything, but the point is that the rules for throwing sand at somebody's face are already in the player's handbook on page 121. Would you let a level-4 wizard cast fireball by making an arcana check? That's the same thing.

Point is that there are several things that a normal person should be able to do, that characters in 4E cannot unless they possess the proper powers or feats; and conversely that there are several things that cannot even be made to make sense in the gameworld that are commonplace because they are done by low-level martial powers (e.g. blinding barrage).
Now here are some fallacies.

First, everyone's favorite: Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
Argument: "You can keep using page 42 as an excuse for everything, but the point is that the rules for throwing sand at somebody's face are already in the player's handbook on page 121. Would you let a level-4 wizard cast fireball by making an arcana check? That's the same thing."

You argue that Throwing Sand is something anyone can do. And yet you say DMG 42 is inapplicable here because it wouldn't let you use a fireball? Are you saying that fireballs are something everyone can do?

Secondly, the Converse Fallacy of Accident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident)
The argument, if I am correct, is this:
There is a power called Sand In The Eyes, therefore the only way to throw sand in someone's eyes is with this power.

As has been pointed out, powers are not everything. You can say inspirational things without using Inspiring Word, for example. Likewise spiders can climb walls even though there is a power called Spider Climb. OK, those are silly, but I do hope you see the point here - just because there is a power that (may) involve a certain activity doesn't mean that activity is impossible for everyone else. The results may be different, but surely you're not arguing that everyone should be able to cast fireballs as well as a trained wizard :smallwink:

The last statement is an example of Petitio Principii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
Argument: "there are several things that cannot even be made to make sense in the gameworld that are commonplace because they are done by low-level martial powers"

So powers like Blinding Barrage don't make sense because they don't make sense? :smallconfused:

Kaun
2009-10-07, 04:31 PM
They need to hurry up and release 4.5e or 5e so people have something new to cry about.

I hear in the new edition there replacing all the spell names with energy drink advertisment and hit points need to be represented by minitures!!!

Blah blah blah.

The New Bruceski
2009-10-07, 05:11 PM
Here's the secret. It mostly applies to martial powers, but I'm sure there are examples in other classes. A power is not something only you can do, it's something you can do particularly well.

Sand in the Eyes, for example, is a sand throw combined with an attack, it does 1W damage as well as blinding. He's skilled at taking advantage of the situation. If someone else threw sand, I'd say Dex versus reflex like the Rogue power, but without the weapon bonus, no damage to the attack, and mmm, I'd probably keep the blinding until end of turn, at least for the first time. If they tried it again it'd either get harder or only grant CA or something, both for the enemy being aware of it, and to prevent chain-blinding. (Gasp! Gamist AND Simulationist reasons!)

Another example: Come and Get It, Fighter7, draw enemies in and attack them all. The fighter's skilled enough that he can get enemies falling for his feint before they even realize it. That doesn't mean other characters can't feign weakness to lure an enemy in, it'd be a bluff check, can't attack in the same action, and the exact effects would depend on the situation.

Thajocoth
2009-10-07, 05:33 PM
I would prefer a smaller number of interesting, more unique, scaled powers and feats.I prefer having a wide variety of options, and for older powers to become obsolete, making way for new ones. I don't want to be fighting the same battles with the same tactics at level 10 as I do at level 20. I don't even want to be fighting the same battles with the same tactics at level 10 as I do at level 9. Variety is fun, and the constant influx of new things provides that.

Chrono22
2009-10-07, 05:42 PM
4e is an excellent game when you judge it on its (the game designers') own terms.
Unfortunately only a small number of those terms have anything to do with playing an RPG.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-07, 05:56 PM
4e is an excellent game when you judge it on its (the game designers') own terms.
Unfortunately only a small number of those terms have anything to do with playing an RPG.
Y'know, just for lulz, could you please elaborate on what constitutes a "RPG" :smalltongue:

oxybe
2009-10-07, 06:05 PM
4e is an excellent game when you judge it on its (the game designers') own terms.
Unfortunately only a small number of those terms have anything to do with playing an RPG.

not any more or less then any version before it.

i find it (4th ed) much more user friendly and manageable then the previous ones, which means i can actually use my time to play an RPG instead of doing bookkeeping & searching up obscure rules.

and for me, user friendly-ness is very important. our sessions are short (3-4 hours), generally lasting from 7 to 10-11pm. we want to get as much actual play as we can in that time alloted. for me, 4th ed accomplishes this better then the editions before it. it's just designed more sleekly then the previous ones IMO.

nveinus
2009-10-07, 06:25 PM
You can keep using page 42 as an excuse for everything, but the point is that the rules for throwing sand at somebody's face are already in the player's handbook on page 121. Would you let a level-4 wizard cast fireball by making an arcana check? That's the same thing.

Point is that there are several things that a normal person should be able to do, that characters in 4E cannot unless they possess the proper powers or feats; and conversely that there are several things that cannot even be made to make sense in the gameworld that are commonplace because they are done by low-level martial powers (e.g. blinding barrage).

Um, page 42 isn't an excuse, its the rules. I'll quote some relavent text.
"You [DM] make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it's your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them."
and "If character tries an action that might fail, use a check to resolve it. To do that you need to know what kind of check it is and what the DC is.
Attacks: If the action is essentially an attack, use an attack roll. It might involve a weapon and target AC or it might just be a Str or Dex check against any defense."
So ruling a Dex vs reflex isn't a house rule, it is an established rule in the system.
So I am sorry if your DM house rules that non-rogues can't throw sand for some strange reason. Hopefully, he'll get better in time.

AllisterH
2009-10-07, 06:55 PM
The funny thing about 4e is that I think it's the first edition of D&D that actually discusses/talks about roleplaying BEFORE it gets to the crunch.

Hard to believe but I think what gets ignored is the first 20 pages of the PHB. I look at that and I see things like the PHB asking players "How does your character react to such a situation...how do you envision your character...what are the mannerisms of your character..."

BEFORE you actually get to the crunch. Before you even select a race for the mechanical benefits, choose ability scores and pick a class, the PHB talks about the roleplaying with regard to each selection.

It talks about personality, your character's choice of alignment (ironic that alignment comes before you choose mechanics, yet it has so little mechanical effect on the game versus the pre 4e method which was reversed), the deities...

Basically, all the stuff I thought people WANTED players to think about before they actually even assigned their first ability score.

All the types of things that D&D used to get mocked at for lacking/placing less emphasis on when compared to "true" RPGs (the 3.0 PHB for example, goes STRAIGHT for the crunch as you open the PHB).

Yet 4e is considered NOT a RPG??

Chrono22
2009-10-07, 07:00 PM
Y'know, just for lulz, could you please elaborate on what constitutes a "RPG" :smalltongue:
To be more specific, what constitutes a pen and paper role playing game. A pen and paper (or face to face) role playing game has its own set of advantages and limitations. As such, it has a limited or niche market- if it takes on too many aspects of another type of RPG, such as computer RPGs or videogames- it ceases to be a pnp or ftf game.
The focus of 4e was game balance. The classes were balanced, the levels were balanced, combat was balanced... this allow massive group activities like living forgotten realms to work and modules to sell.. but balance is not the primary goal of a cooperative pnp RPG. Other aspects are more important for certain reasons. I'll illustrate:
The motivations of a player and GM when they construct their characters and the game world.
A player creates a character to emulate a concept, engender feelings of attachment, a sense of individuality so he can claim ownership of the concept, and to mimic progress with character growth (be it mechanical or accomplishments). His motivations for playing the genre that DnD is associated with- is almost always because of a fancy for the stories of his childhood, or because of an interest in the historic periods around which DnD is based. And occasionally someone will play the game just because his friends do- but then I don't consider this kind of person a DnD player, since he has no vested interest in playing and he could be doing anything else.
For the GM, what motivates him to create a game world (or run a published one) depends on what he plans to do with it. They vary, but typically fall under: tell a story, illicit emotional responses from players, generate player interest in their character's environments.
How good an RPG is at supporting the above motivations is a baseline for how successful it is at being an RPG. How good it is at taking advantage of face to face interaction as the medium for meeting the above goals is a baseline for how good it is at being a pen and paper RPG. The thing is, 4e blatantly ignores any of the above (with the exception of mechanical growth) as tools for creating fun. The designers created a very narrow and limited definition of fun, which they (and many other 4e supporters) implicitly refer to in their arguments.
Realism is trounced as a backwards obstacle to *"fun" instead of being viewed as a tool for making natural observations about what characters see, how they think, and how the game reality responds to their actions.
Individuality is secondary to balance- the classes are incredibly bland, uninteresting, and similar. They have almost no bearing on how a player defines his character. Players like to have how they perceive their character have bearing on the game- and so they usually like that perception to have some representation (mechanical). But as it stands, the framework of the game only really supports what a character can do in combat. Because, apparently only what a character can do in combat matters, since that's what "fun" is.
The biggest problems with 4e, is that the designers personalized what "fun" meant, assumed we all felt the same way, and made a game that is based on those assumptions. In other words, all 4e can do is "fun".

*"fun" - dungeon delving, hack and slash, flashy combats, looking cool.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 07:16 PM
No, they aren't. The rules for the Rogue level 7 encounter power "Sand in the eyes" are on page 121. Granted, they sound similar, so it's easy to tell how you might be confused. But there are differences. Like do you really think one has to carry a light blade to throw sand in someone's eye?


Do I think it makes sense? No, I do not. However, the rule is called "Sand in the Eyes", the flavor text describes the attack as "You scoop up a handful of light dirt or pebbles, strike your foe, and throw the grit in his face to blind him". Blinded is among the effects of a successful attack.

It's pretty clearly describing rules for throwing sand in someone's eyes. The fact that a light blade is required is pretty standard for rogue powers, and is no more significant than the fact that a light blade is required for the "Deep Cut" rogue ability. I feel pretty certain that a deep cut could be made by other weapons as well, yes, but this is how the rules are written.

You may not *like* the way in which the rules describe the use of throwing sand in someones eyes, but it's clearly a rule for doing exactly that.

Gamerlord
2009-10-07, 07:19 PM
4e in my opinion is a fine game, but a horrible edition of D&D, I seem to like it more when I consider it a entirely different game, Whenever I try to play I try not to think about the fact its dungeons and dragons in name only, I prefer to think of it as something completely different. But it still has its flaws, obviously, just like 3.5 which I consider myself the last real edition.

Artanis
2009-10-07, 07:40 PM
Do I think it makes sense? No, I do not. However, the rule is called "Sand in the Eyes", the flavor text describes the attack as "You scoop up a handful of light dirt or pebbles, strike your foe, and throw the grit in his face to blind him". Blinded is among the effects of a successful attack.

It's pretty clearly describing rules for throwing sand in someone's eyes. The fact that a light blade is required is pretty standard for rogue powers, and is no more significant than the fact that a light blade is required for the "Deep Cut" rogue ability. I feel pretty certain that a deep cut could be made by other weapons as well, yes, but this is how the rules are written.

You may not *like* the way in which the rules describe the use of throwing sand in someones eyes, but it's clearly a rule for doing exactly that.

No, it's not describing rules for throwing sand in someone's eyes. It's describing rules for stabbing somebody and then throwing sand in their eyes. There's a difference.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-07, 07:56 PM
No, it's not describing rules for throwing sand in someone's eyes. It's describing rules for stabbing somebody and then throwing sand in their eyes. There's a difference.
No, it's definitely the rules for throwing sand at someone's eyes (you know, because it says so at the top). It's just a quirk of the rules that this includes stabbing the victim, just like it's a quirk of the rules that you can do it without having a hand free, or without having any sand in the vicinity, or for that matter against an opponent without eyes.


Like do you really think one has to carry a light blade to throw sand in someone's eye?
Like do you really think you can prone an ooze? Or backstab a skeleton? Or use a fireball under water? Since all of that is allowed in 4E, it looks like you're making my point for me.

(for that matter, Come And Get It is another good example, in that it automatically taunts any enemy into stepping forward even if they're cowards, or missile-based, or even mindless)

jmbrown
2009-10-07, 08:10 PM
Do I think it makes sense? No, I do not. However, the rule is called "Sand in the Eyes", the flavor text describes the attack as "You scoop up a handful of light dirt or pebbles, strike your foe, and throw the grit in his face to blind him". Blinded is among the effects of a successful attack.

It's pretty clearly describing rules for throwing sand in someone's eyes. The fact that a light blade is required is pretty standard for rogue powers, and is no more significant than the fact that a light blade is required for the "Deep Cut" rogue ability. I feel pretty certain that a deep cut could be made by other weapons as well, yes, but this is how the rules are written.

You may not *like* the way in which the rules describe the use of throwing sand in someones eyes, but it's clearly a rule for doing exactly that.

Flavor text for the power "sand in the eyes" quote for quote

You scoop up a handful of sand or dirt or pebbles, strike your foe, and throw the grit in his face to blind him.

D&D4E is a game based around "simple rules, many exceptions." "Sand in the eyes" is a rogue power. Powers are exclusive to the class in question. There are no specific rules for simply throwing sand in a person's face because it doesn't have a major impact on gameplay and would bog the book down with extra information required for the players to look up. Pg 42 of the DMG was specifically designed for the DMG to create improvised attacks and special situations IE creating "exceptions" to the "rules."

greenknight
2009-10-07, 08:29 PM
To be more specific, what constitutes a pen and paper role playing game. A pen and paper (or face to face) role playing game has its own set of advantages and limitations. As such, it has a limited or niche market- if it takes on too many aspects of another type of RPG, such as computer RPGs or videogames- it ceases to be a pnp or ftf game.

I agree, but the real question is, where is that line drawn? I've played a lot of games which I consider to be essentially PnP, but which have benefited by being computer aided. For example, I can put maps on the computer, and I can use a die roller program.

I've even played Play by Post games, which by their nature can't be considered to be FtF, but I still think they are essentially PnP games aided by computers. Those games tend to have a much slower pace than FtF games, but they still allow me to do everything I would be able to do in a regular PnP game.


The focus of 4e was game balance.

A focus...


but balance is not the primary goal of a cooperative pnp RPG. Other aspects are more important for certain reasons.

I'm very doubtful that any decent game designer only has one "primary" goal. Most of them have several goals in mind, each equally important. For example, if game balance were the only "primary" goal in 4e, it could easily have been achieved by having only one PC race, one character class and only one development path (no Feat or Skill choices).


A player creates a character to emulate a concept, engender feelings of attachment, a sense of individuality so he can claim ownership of the concept, and to mimic progress with character growth (be it mechanical or accomplishments). His motivations for playing the genre that DnD is associated with- is almost always because of a fancy for the stories of his childhood, or because of an interest in the historic periods around which DnD is based.

Any RPG is subject to restrictions, even PnP games. In fact, one function of the rules is to outline just what those restrictions are. And class based RPGs like D&D tend to be more restrictive than skill based systems such as GURPS. That said, there's a lot of variety available right there in the 4e PHB, and the steady stream of additional sourcebooks is giving the game even more. While there are some things the rules make it difficult or even impossible to emulate in 4e, the standard fantasy archetypes are available, along with many, many variations on the theme which allow you to personalise those archetypes.


How good an RPG is at supporting the above motivations is a baseline for how successful it is at being an RPG. How good it is at taking advantage of face to face interaction as the medium for meeting the above goals is a baseline for how good it is at being a pen and paper RPG. The thing is, 4e blatantly ignores any of the above (with the exception of mechanical growth) as tools for creating fun. The designers created a very narrow and limited definition of fun, which they (and many other 4e supporters) implicitly refer to in their arguments.

This is where opinions differ. As I've explained, there's lots of variety already available for 4e PCs, and the range of available archetypes is increasing fairly rapidly. As for the DM, I see absolutely nothing in 4e which prohibits them from telling a story, eliciting emotional responses from players or generating player interest in their character's environments. In fact, 4e supports each of those things at least as well as any previous edition, IMO, and I find the more predictable game mechanics brought about by having greater game balance actually tends to enhance the DM's ability to tell a story by reducing the chance of random PC deaths.


Individuality is secondary to balance- the classes are incredibly bland, uninteresting, and similar.

Once again, I disagree. A Fighter generally plays very differently to a Wizard or a Cleric, for example. Even characters who share the same general role (such as Rogue and Ranger) have some specific differences in play which differentiate them, although much like 3e's Barbarian and Fighter (or Sorcerer and Wizard), there is a considerable amount of overlap in their capabilities.


They have almost no bearing on how a player defines his character.

I find there's a considerable difference between a 4e Fighter and a 4e Wizard, both in terms of play and in terms of character definition. Sometimes even characters of the same class can be very different to one another, such as a Melee based Ranger and an Archery based Ranger.


Players like to have how they perceive their character have bearing on the game- and so they usually like that perception to have some representation (mechanical).

I agree. Right now, I'm playing in one game where my character is a 4e Rogue, and is intended in part to act as a scout. But the adventuring party has spent most of its time trapped in a very thick fog where the characters can't see more than 5'. And yes, it has upset me that one of the key concepts of my character has effectively been shut down in that game. But the interesting thing here is that I've done something which you seem to claim is impossible in 4e anyway...


But as it stands, the framework of the game only really supports what a character can do in combat.

Let's get this straight. You're claiming 4e characters can't function as scouts, diplomats or researchers without house rules? Or are you simply claiming that those are also combat roles in 4e?

Chrono22
2009-10-07, 08:54 PM
I agree, but the real question is, where is that line drawn? I've played a lot of games which I consider to be essentially PnP, but which have benefited by being computer aided. For example, I can put maps on the computer, and I can use a die roller program.
The line is when the RPG in question stops relying on the human interaction as the primary conduit of play. When the human element stops being an element, it is no longer a pnp game.


A focus...
Balance is the primary focus. If you disagree with this fact, you are in denial.


I'm very doubtful that any decent game designer only has one "primary" goal. Most of them have several goals in mind, each equally important. For example, if game balance were the only "primary" goal in 4e, it could easily have been achieved by having only one PC race, one character class and only one development path (no Feat or Skill choices).
No goals are equally important. Otherwise you end up with gridlock in the design process. Every designer has to prioritize his goals if he wants to actually make something.


Any RPG is subject to restrictions, even PnP games. In fact, one function of the rules is to outline just what those restrictions are. And class based RPGs like D&D tend to be more restrictive than skill based systems such as GURPS. That said, there's a lot of variety available right there in the 4e PHB, and the steady stream of additional sourcebooks is giving the game even more. While there are some things the rules make it difficult or even impossible to emulate in 4e, the standard fantasy archetypes are available, along with many, many variations on the theme which allow you to personalise those archetypes.
The differences between the classes are small. They all focus on dealing damage, shifting opponents, shifting yourself or allies, and applying status effects for minor bonuses or penalties. 4e's variety is on the minor features of classes and how they play. Here's an example:
4e classes are like different packages for a model of car.
Other systems have helicopters, jets, cars, boats, and trains.


This is where opinions differ. As I've explained, there's lots of variety already available for 4e PCs, and the range of available archetypes is increasing fairly rapidly. As for the DM, I see absolutely nothing in 4e which prohibits them from telling a story, eliciting emotional responses from players or generating player interest in their character's environments.
The reason a GM is prevented (or at least impaired) at doing these things in 4e is because 4e is unapologetically a game. It makes no attempt at realism, it makes no attempt to frame characters' actions as anything more than the actions of an imaginary person in an imaginary world that exists solely to facilitate his "coolness".
Players become emotionally invested and interested in their characters when they begin to perceive them as people. That's much harder to do in 4e. Add in that the choices a player makes have far less impact (see: all classes are the same), and player interest drops to nil.

In fact, 4e supports each of those things at least as well as any previous edition, IMO, and I find the more predictable game mechanics brought about by having greater game balance actually tends to enhance the DM's ability to tell a story by reducing the chance of random PC deaths.
They are overly predictable- when I play 4e, I feel no threat, no risk of death. Because the rules make it exceedingly hard to die unless you are deliberately suicidal. Sorry, I don't like to use training wheels if I'm offroading.


Once again, I disagree. A Fighter generally plays very differently to a Wizard or a Cleric, for example. Even characters who share the same general role (such as Rogue and Ranger) have some specific differences in play which differentiate them, although much like 3e's Barbarian and Fighter (or Sorcerer and Wizard), there is a considerable amount of overlap in their capabilities.
I find there's a considerable difference between a 4e Fighter and a 4e Wizard, both in terms of play and in terms of character definition. Sometimes even characters of the same class can be very different to one another, such as a Melee based Ranger and an Archery based Ranger.
You are kind of like a person who walks into a forest, and comments on the great variety of trees that live there, without realizing there are many other kinds of life in it.


I agree. Right now, I'm playing in one game where my character is a 4e Rogue, and is intended in part to act as a scout. But the adventuring party has spent most of its time trapped in a very thick fog where the characters can't see more than 5'. And yes, it has upset me that one of the key concepts of my character has effectively been shut down in that game. But the interesting thing here is that I've done something which you seem to claim is impossible in 4e anyway...
What do you mean? You've been pigeonholed into one of two rogue character concepts specifically defined by the rules? I never said that was impossible.


Let's get this straight. You're claiming 4e characters can't function as scouts, diplomats or researchers without house rules? Or are you simply claiming that those are also combat roles in 4e?
I'm saying someone can't play a character like he's a real person in 4e with a straight face. 4e is a pnp RPG that wishes it was WoW.

Mando Knight
2009-10-07, 09:40 PM
Balance is the primary focus. If you disagree with this fact, you are in denial.
Then I deny. I deny it. Unless you show me with plain and clear reasoning and actual text from the developers that this is true, I will deny your position.

I'm saying someone can't play a character like he's a real person in 4e with a straight face.
Then the burden of proof is on you. If you believe something is missing or wrong in the system, you are the one who must show that it is so. I do not see the proof... no, I'm your counter-proof, because I can do what you say one can't do.

nveinus
2009-10-07, 09:43 PM
Chrono,
"The differences between the classes are small. They all focus on dealing damage, shifting opponents, shifting yourself or allies, and applying status effects for minor bonuses or penalties. 4e's variety is on the minor features of classes and how they play. Here's an example:
4e classes are like different packages for a model of car.
Other systems have helicopters, jets, cars, boats, and trains."

Your right every class has the exact same powers to choose from that's why my fighter has fireball or apply status effects to large groups of enemies. Oh wait, no he can't. He's a powerhouse on the front lines that generates his own supply of temporary hit points and keeps the mean orc from reducing the rogue to a smear on a wall.
Also, that's not an example. That's a metaphor and one that I have no idea what it means. Are you referring to the fact that every class utilizes the at-will/encounter/daily mechanic instead of previous editions where it was vancian spell casting or psoinic points or no resources at all(the non-spell casters)?


"The reason a GM is prevented (or at least impaired) at doing these things in 4e is because 4e is unapologetically a game. It makes no attempt at realism, it makes no attempt to frame characters' actions as anything more than the actions of an imaginary person in an imaginary world that exists solely to facilitate his "coolness".
Players become emotionally invested and interested in their characters when they begin to perceive them as people. That's much harder to do in 4e. Add in that the choices a player makes have far less impact (see: all classes are the same), and player interest drops to nil."

Um, wasn't it Gygax that said you shouldn't name your PC until 5th level? Also, what's a mechanic that prevents me from perceiving my character as a real person? (Assuming I want to. Most normal people don't survive a hit from a 10ft giant wielding a tree) Hit points? Blinding barrage? the fact I can't roll to find out my rogue's anal circumference? What are you missing here.


"You are kind of like a person who walks into a forest, and comments on the great variety of trees that live there, without realizing there are many other kinds of life in it."

What does this even mean? You claim you have played 4e but also claim that the classes play exactly the same. How is that even possible? The wizard doesn't try to maneuver around the battlefield to get flanking. He hangs back and rains firey doom on baddies.


"I'm saying someone can't play a character like he's a real person in 4e with a straight face. 4e is a pnp RPG that wishes it was WoW."

Again, I ask what does this mean? If you are looking for 4e to provide you with role playing fodder look in the section that details how to flesh out your character and not in the power section.

Athan Allgood
2009-10-07, 09:47 PM
I'm saying someone can't play a character like he's a real person in 4e with a straight face. 4e is a pnp RPG that wishes it was WoW.

It is the strength of the role player that makes a character 'real', not the system in which he is playing.

Whats strange is that, I really am getting the impression that most of the 4E hate is stemming from its combat system.

Certainly a Combat system makes up a large part of what makes this edition different then past versions, but it hasn't changed the basis of the game. Certainly it hasn't changed it enough to slander it as attempting to be a video game.

The 5 core elements of D&D are, in my opinion:
- An attribute system used to define the strength of other abilities
- A system of attacks vs. defenses in order to determine success/ failure in combat
- A fantasy setting featuring elves, dwarves, etc.
- A system of advancement based of experience points and level gain.
- A limitless narrative driven experience that is effected by the chosen options of the player, and can be controlled and changed as desired by the game runner/ DM in order to directly effect the players options and experiences.

While he first four of the above can be replicated by a CRPG, the last one cannot. It is the human element that makes D&D, even 4E, a true RPG, despite anyones dislike for its combat rules.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 09:48 PM
No, it's not describing rules for throwing sand in someone's eyes. It's describing rules for stabbing somebody and then throwing sand in their eyes. There's a difference.

4.0 feels a need to combo normal damage with just about everything. Why this is so, I have no idea, and I dislike it, but it's a typical part of the game.

Athan Allgood
2009-10-07, 10:00 PM
4.0 feels a need to combo normal damage with just about everything. Why this is so, I have no idea, and I dislike it, but it's a typical part of the game.

Its a system of possible, easily defined, abilities used to add flavor to the game.

While an experienced, verbose player may be able to describe an awesome series of parries and feints that leads to him dealing his 3d6+7 damage, some people prefer to have it spelled out for them.

The game creators have gone out of their way to state that the descriptions and names given to powers are generalities that can be redefined by the player as desired.

But look, this is all subjective. I like the new combat system, and don't feel it has changed the narrative possibilities present. Personally, as long as I have those narrative options I cannot agree that the game has been dumbed down.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 10:01 PM
Character building has been dumbed down, for sure. Picking between power A and B when I level really doesn't allow for much customization.

Mando Knight
2009-10-07, 10:13 PM
Character building has been dumbed down, for sure. Picking between power A and B when I level really doesn't allow for much customization.

What about between powers A, B, C, D, E, F, and G when you level, where each one has a different effect?

CarpeGuitarrem
2009-10-07, 10:27 PM
Character building has been dumbed down, for sure. Picking between power A and B when I level really doesn't allow for much customization.
Actually, that's not the major part of character building and character definition. Yes, it takes up the most space in the book, but that's because that's the nature of the beast. Power blocks take more space than anything else to write out. They're also unique to each class.

The real meat of character customization, though, is still in the feats, which are taken every other level. So, really, the most common form of character development (picking feats) is heavily, heavily open to customization.

Power selection only gives you a few new tricks to use in combat. Powers are no more the focus of character building in 4E than ToB Maneuvers were in 3.5.

Zeful
2009-10-07, 10:40 PM
I'm saying someone can't play a character like he's a real person in 4e with a straight face.

I've roleplayed Tetris, Doctor Mario, and Final Fantasy (1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 10-2). You can roleplay anything as anything. The only limitation is you.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 11:42 PM
Actually, that's not the major part of character building and character definition. Yes, it takes up the most space in the book, but that's because that's the nature of the beast. Power blocks take more space than anything else to write out. They're also unique to each class.

The real meat of character customization, though, is still in the feats, which are taken every other level. So, really, the most common form of character development (picking feats) is heavily, heavily open to customization.

Power selection only gives you a few new tricks to use in combat. Powers are no more the focus of character building in 4E than ToB Maneuvers were in 3.5.

Not really the equivalent. Everyone has powers, and the powers are...amazingly similar. Since we were talking about level 7 rogue, lets look at what options are available to the level 7 rogue.

All of the following are encounter powers.

Cloud of Steel. dex vs AC. 1w+dex mod damage blast 5.
Imperiling Strike. dex vs Fort. 1w+dex mod damage to tar, minor one turn debuff.
Rogue's Luck. dex vs AC. 2w+dex mod damage to tar(on miss, have a chance to do 1w+dex mod damage to tar instead)
Sand in the Eyes. dex vs ref. 1w+dex mod damage to tar, blinded for one turn.

Well, we have four different damage abilities to choose from. Three of them are single target, and there is nothing with out of combat utility. This is pretty typical for rogues. Cloud of Steel is the only one with any variation from the others, which are essentially minor variations on a theme.

Some powers are only available to a given creature type(dragonborn, especially), resulting in even less overall choice.

Ah, but you say the real customization comes in feats? First off, feats are often sorted into neat little categories for race and class, so you can't get too far off the preapproved niche for your character type. Secondly, plenty of feats are keyed into certain themes. Thus, you end up turning an entire class into a choice between themes. By theme, I mean what keyword of power you select.

Lets look at our rogue. He gets six feats by the time he hits level 10. From that choice, he has two rogue only feat, one that boost sneak attack damage. I imagine this gets picked pretty routinely. The other is surprise attack, which requires 15 str, combat advantage, and a critical hit. Uh...no?

Let's look at the general choice available for his other five feats.
Armor Proficiency: Hide. -Requires Str 13, Con 13. Possible to have, though dex should be your primary stat. It's quite possible you don't, though, removing this option. Further upgrades in armor proficiency have higher requirements, so this path locks itself down quite quickly.

Astral Fire: +1dmg to fire/radiant powers. Your attacks do not use these types.

Blade Opportunist: +2dmg to AoOs w light, heavy blades. Useful provided you have Str 13.

Burning Blizzard: +1dmg to acid/cold powers. Your attacks do not use these types.

Combat Reflexes: +1 to AoOs.

Dark Fury: +1 dmg to necrotic/psychic powers. Your attacks do not use these types.

Defensive Mobility: +2 AC vs AoOs.

Durable: +2 healing surges

Escape Artist: +2 acrobatics, faster grab

Far Shot: More bow range

Far throw: More throwing range.

Fast runner: +2 run speed. Again, need 13 con.

Improved Init: We all know what this does.

Jack of All Trades: +2 untrained checks

Linguist: Complete waste of a feat.

Long Jumper: all jumps get running starts, +1 to acrobatics. At this point, it should be noted that while this may seem to be a good combo with Escape artist, both of these are feat bonuses, and thus, do not stack. Taking both would thus be generally pretty crappy.

Mounted Combat: You can use mounts skills if they are better than yours. You're a rogue, what's the point of this, especially when you could take Jack of all trades instead?

Power attack, power charge...clearly, they forgot to specify "fighter" for these. However, the strength prereqs help make these unlikely choices.

Press the advantage: I'd discuss this feat, but it requires a 15 cha, on a rogue.

Quick Draw: Draw as part of an attack, but also gives +2 init. Given the lack of stacking, this makes improved init pretty weak, since essentially every rogue will grab this.

Raging storm: +1 dmg to lightening/thunder powers.

Shield Proficiencies: Again, fighter feats that are made available, with str prereqs. Not really useful.

Skill focus: Note that since this +3 bonus doesn't stack with other skill bonuses, it completely invalidates other feats. Why would you ever bother with escape artist and a skill focus in acrobatics?

Skill Training: Useful, I guess. Unless you really need a specific skill maxed, just grabbing Jack of All Trades is likely better. You're a rogue though...what skills do you need?

Sure Climber: +1 athletic skill checks, climb faster. Feh.

Toughness: More hp. As per usual, suggested in their builds, and while it's less crappy than in 3.x, it's still of questionable benefit.

Two weapon fighting/defence. Good feats for a rogue, if that's your style.

Weapon Focus: Keep in mind that, again, feat bonuses don't stack. If you take this, any other feat bonus to damage is pointless so long as you use that weapon type. All your abilities require specific weapon types.

Weapon proficiency: See above, why would you get proficiency in weapons that will stop you from using your specials?

Wintertouched: Bonus when using cold, only when attacking creatures vulnerable to cold. Your attacks do not deal cold damage.

Summary, that's what, 32 feats he could technically pick? Aright, lets remove the ones that do absolutely nothing. That ditches all the crappy feats that don't stack. It also ditches all the damage type feats that are meant for casters. Long as we're at it, lets ditch anything that requires 15+ in a non-dex stat. I believe this brings us down to 17, including questionable choice like toughness. It might be less, the lack of feat bonus stacking really hurts. In any case, there are a few feats that are vastly better than everything else. You will take them, or you can build your character in such a way that you can blow your feats on armor and shield proficiency, gimping yourself to uselessness.

Incidentally, the feats essentially require con and str to be secondary stats, at least to the tune of 13 or more. If not, your choice level drops extremely low.

From levels 1-10, no class skills change for the rogue whatsoever. At level 11, his sneak attack damage increases by a die. Woohoo, mad customization and change here.

Mando Knight
2009-10-08, 12:14 AM
You're only looking at the first PHB. Rogues get plenty of feats in Martial Power, and a good amount of love from PHB2. More if they've multiclassed (which is actually a pretty sweet deal) and have access to the other X Power books...

There's a total of 663 feats in Heroic tier alone, not counting Skill Training or Weapon Proficiencies separately. 89 of those are Heroic-tier feats from Martial Power, and probably around a quarter of those are relevant to the Rogue, which is still 22 more feats than you reckoned. Add in probably ten of the 63 PHB2 feats, and we've doubled the number of feats you counted.

greenknight
2009-10-08, 03:46 AM
The line is when the RPG in question stops relying on the human interaction as the primary conduit of play. When the human element stops being an element, it is no longer a pnp game.

Then my question is, how does 4e stop the human element?


Balance is the primary focus. If you disagree with this fact, you are in denial.

Then why is it that 4e has multiple different PC races, classes, skills and feats? And no, I do not accept the argument that they are in actually the same, since my actual gaming experience proves the opposite is true.


No goals are equally important. Otherwise you end up with gridlock in the design process. Every designer has to prioritize his goals if he wants to actually make something.

Eventually, the designers must come to some to some decision. But human beings aren't computers and they aren't locked into decision flowcharts. Instead, they tend to balance different priorities to come up with a result which is usually more of an art than a science.


The differences between the classes are small. They all focus on dealing damage, shifting opponents, shifting yourself or allies, and applying status effects for minor bonuses or penalties.

That's interesting, because first of all it completely ignores the effects of out of combat skills, lockdown powers (for example, Sleep), utility powers (which can do a wide range of things), rituals (like utility powers, these can do a lot of different things), and perhaps most importantly, the fact that this description can be broadly applied to any RPG.


4e classes are like different packages for a model of car.
Other systems have helicopters, jets, cars, boats, and trains.

That statement doesn't really say anything. In what way is a 4e Wizard a different model of a 4e Paladin, for example? Without resorting to comments which also hold true in earlier editions of the game.


The reason a GM is prevented (or at least impaired) at doing these things in 4e is because 4e is unapologetically a game. It makes no attempt at realism, it makes no attempt to frame characters' actions as anything more than the actions of an imaginary person in an imaginary world that exists solely to facilitate his "coolness".

Again, this is true for earlier editions. You could have a character who knew he or she could withstand a max damage critical hit from a two handed sword (unless the attacker had some way to significantly increase that damage via power attack etc). And characters who could reliably survive a fall from any height. Or the character could survive a minute or more in molten lava, without magic!

Yes, 4e is a game and it makes no bones about it. But it's a Roleplaying game, and there is some attempt to make the characters "realistic", within the context of the game itself. That's why the equipment section of the PHB includes such things as food and clothing.


Players become emotionally invested and interested in their characters when they begin to perceive them as people. That's much harder to do in 4e. Add in that the choices a player makes have far less impact (see: all classes are the same), and player interest drops to nil.

It's harder for some people, easier for others, and about the same for a few more. This is true for each edition of D&D (and even other game systems), btw.


They are overly predictable- when I play 4e, I feel no threat, no risk of death.

Ordinarily you shouldn't. I had one DM tell me that there should be something like a 33% chance of death for each level the character gains. I wouldn't play in a game like that because on average it would mean my character would die after about 3 levels, which would really interfere with my ability to get emotionally invested in the character.

The real risk of character death should only occur if the player is playing badly, if the dice really go against the character, or during particularly difficult encounters. I've played 4e for a while now and I've seen all three things happen. And yes, I've also seen PCs die in 4e, just like in any earlier edition of the game.


You are kind of like a person who walks into a forest, and comments on the great variety of trees that live there, without realizing there are many other kinds of life in it.

Or you could walk into a forest and not notice the trees at all...


What do you mean? You've been pigeonholed into one of two rogue character concepts specifically defined by the rules? I never said that was impossible.

Hang on, didn't you state "the framework of the game only really supports what a character can do in combat". So, are you saying that scouting is combat, or that scouting isn't really supported in 4e?


I'm saying someone can't play a character like he's a real person in 4e with a straight face. 4e is a pnp RPG that wishes it was WoW.

Other comments made on this thread don't seem to support this statement. And you didn't actually answer my question either.

Itamarcu
2009-10-08, 04:19 AM
Back to the original question, I think 4e is more like a fantasy action movie, like LotR, with more options for classes & races. I mean, I opened the PHB in one of the class powers, and read the text: (translated from Hebrew, sorry for accidents)
"You spin your weapon in the air, slicing the enemies around you and make them scream in pain. Without any warning, you slip through their defenses and make another slashing spin" <Quoted from the Fighter power Lvl.27 "Cruel Harvest" or in Hebrew, "קציר אכזר".

This sounds to me like a description of some fight in an action movie, like Chuck Norris with a sword.
Don't you agree?

nveinus
2009-10-08, 04:30 AM
Cloud of Steel. dex vs AC. 1w+dex mod damage blast 5.
Imperiling Strike. dex vs Fort. 1w+dex mod damage to tar, minor one turn debuff.
Rogue's Luck. dex vs AC. 2w+dex mod damage to tar(on miss, have a chance to do 1w+dex mod damage to tar instead)
Sand in the Eyes. dex vs ref. 1w+dex mod damage to tar, blinded for one turn.


Well, I would look for out of combat utility powers in the utilites powers section not in attack powers.



Well, we have four different damage abilities to choose from. Three of them are single target, and there is nothing with out of combat utility. This is pretty typical for rogues. Cloud of Steel is the only one with any variation from the others, which are essentially minor variations on a theme.


Well yes. I would expect the choices of the rogue's attack powers be powers that kill people dead. Also, you are ignoring that Imperiling strike and Rogue's luck's riders are influenced by your style of rogue. A 3-4 penalty to AC or a 3-4 bonus on a re-roll are nothing to sneeze at.



Lets look at our rogue. He gets six feats by the time he hits level 10. From that choice, he has two rogue only feat, one that boost sneak attack damage. I imagine this gets picked pretty routinely. The other is surprise attack, which requires 15 str, combat advantage, and a critical hit. Uh...no?

and other feat related stuff


For a brutal scoundrel this is very doable. And pressing the advantage you poo-poo because of the 15 cha prereq is also available for the artful dodger.

Actually, for the element boosting powers can affect your weapon attacks if you use a flaming, freezing etc weapon since this items add the fire, frost etc keyword to your attacks. This is very important for the two frost based feats Wintertouched and other one which are very popular with rogues since using the magic items means easy access to combat advantage. Granted a combo that doesn't kick in until paragon but its there. And yes astral fire is pretty useless even for spellcasters.

For the stacking issue between escape artist and long jumper and skill focus. The major benefit in long jumper is all jumps are considered running because otherwise if you don't move at least 10 feet before a jump the DC is doubled. The +1 is just gravy. So stacking them means that you can jump almost at will with a +3 instead of just +1.

Mounted combat also allows you to use any of the mounts abilities. Giant riding lizards make claw attacks when their riders make melee attacks. Warhorses add+5 to damage on charges. You don't gain these benefits without mounted combat.

Again shield prof is very doable for the brutal scoundrel. And if you are not duel wielding why not bring a shield?
Toughness is actually pretty good outside the 9-10 and 19-20 range. Its these levels right before the feat scales up.
Weapon prof: rapier, garrote, drow long knife, bladed shield are all options for the rogue.

Chrono22
2009-10-08, 06:23 AM
Then my question is, how does 4e stop the human element?
I never said it does. But that was a selling point of the game before they skimped us on the game table.


Then why is it that 4e has multiple different PC races, classes, skills and feats? And no, I do not accept the argument that they are in actually the same, since my actual gaming experience proves the opposite is true.
The powers are very very very similar. Even utility powers. Since everything progresses at relatively the same rate (half level bonus), it's the case that as you play the game any given character will become more like any other given character.


Eventually, the designers must come to some to some decision. But human beings aren't computers and they aren't locked into decision flowcharts. Instead, they tend to balance different priorities to come up with a result which is usually more of an art than a science.
And your point is? WotC screwed the pooch when they decided that emulating MMORPGs was more important then retaining their fanbase.


That's interesting, because first of all it completely ignores the effects of out of combat skills, lockdown powers (for example, Sleep), utility powers (which can do a wide range of things), rituals (like utility powers, these can do a lot of different things), and perhaps most importantly, the fact that this description can be broadly applied to any RPG.
Dogs in the Vineyard. World of Darkness. Starwars d6. Paranoia. Shadowrun. They all play differently, and they all have different focuses. But none of them are nearly as hardwired into their respective play styles as 4e is. They all have variety, which is severely lacking in 4e.


That statement doesn't really say anything. In what way is a 4e Wizard a different model of a 4e Paladin, for example? Without resorting to comments which also hold true in earlier editions of the game.
Ok. I wasn't comparing 4e to older editions specifically, but I'll play ball. A 4e a paladin has a list of powers that are modified by his primary attribute, deal a listed damage which is modified by his weapon of choice, and impart either a beneficial or damaging effect. A 4e wizard operates in a similar fashion, the only remarkable difference being his "power source", how he delivers his powers, and what armor he wears. He does the same thing the paladin does, just in a slightly different way. His focus is on dealing damage to the enemies, subduing them when he can.
Their 3.5 counterparts can do anything under the sun. They aren't restricted to rigid and narrowly defined class roles. Ironically, they still have better defined ones- a paladin has a code of honor and must respect the laws of his god/society, and a wizard can truly be the bookish sage they are made out to be instead of an area of effect spamming blaster.
If you took all the listed powers of 4e, put them in a spreadsheet, and compared them, I'm sure you'd see that they are indeed incredibly similar, to the point of redundancy. You couldn't even hope to make such comparisons in any previous edition of DnD.
^And that's not even getting into other systems.


Again, this is true for earlier editions. You could have a character who knew he or she could withstand a max damage critical hit from a two handed sword (unless the attacker had some way to significantly increase that damage via power attack etc). And characters who could reliably survive a fall from any height. Or the character could survive a minute or more in molten lava, without magic!
Yeah, DnD wasn't perfect before either. But as I stated before, it was better at meeting the criteria of players and GMs- not on purpose though. Mostly it's because of the multiclassing rules, and monster HD/level similarity which were not originally seen as a big advantage for 3e.


Yes, 4e is a game and it makes no bones about it. But it's a Roleplaying game, and there is some attempt to make the characters "realistic", within the context of the game itself. That's why the equipment section of the PHB includes such things as food and clothing.
I've seen threads on the WotC boards where the majority of posters dispute tracking how many arrows you have. This should speak volumes about the kinds of players that have gravitated to 4e. They aren't digging it because of the food and clothing entries. 4e really is all about combat.


It's harder for some people, easier for others, and about the same for a few more. This is true for each edition of D&D (and even other game systems), btw.
Perhaps. But it's still a very important part of role playing. 4e's verisimilitude shattering powers, nonsense descriptions and backwards assertions about the game reality don't help.


Ordinarily you shouldn't. I had one DM tell me that there should be something like a 33% chance of death for each level the character gains. I wouldn't play in a game like that because on average it would mean my character would die after about 3 levels, which would really interfere with my ability to get emotionally invested in the character.
I find it's a sliding scale. The less risk a character faces, the less reason I have to care about him. My truly memorable characters have faced the impossible, and not just lived, but triumphed.


The real risk of character death should only occur if the player is playing badly, if the dice really go against the character, or during particularly difficult encounters. I've played 4e for a while now and I've seen all three things happen. And yes, I've also seen PCs die in 4e, just like in any earlier edition of the game.
I actually think character death should be a natural part of play and an assumed risk. Doing otherwise just encourages players to "play badly" as you put it.


Hang on, didn't you state "the framework of the game only really supports what a character can do in combat". So, are you saying that scouting is combat, or that scouting isn't really supported in 4e?
Yes, I'm saying scouting is combat. Because you only scout when there are risks around. Otherwise it would be an auto success and the GM wouldn't bother tracking it.


Other comments made on this thread don't seem to support this statement. And you didn't actually answer my question either.
Next time, frame your question more clearly.

toasty
2009-10-08, 06:57 AM
Can't really talk about the other stuff, buuut


I actually think character death should be a natural part of play and an assumed risk. Doing otherwise just encourages players to "play badly" as you put it.

This is something that is relative. Some people like character death to happen often and regularly. Others not at all. Many prefer a mix of the two, that is, character death is possible in many circumstances, but avoidable if the PCs are smart.

DnD, quite obviously, appeals to people who prefer character death to be rare and/or easily solvable. There is nothing wrong with this, as its a preference.


Yes, I'm saying scouting is combat. Because you only scout when there are risks around. Otherwise it would be an auto success and the GM wouldn't bother tracking it.

That's kinda like saying sneaking around someone to avoid combat is combat. Its not really combat. Yes, you need to have some sort of conflict resolution mechanic (in DnD a Stealth vs. Perception roll). By the common definition of Combat in many RPGs (at least, all the ones I've played/seen) combat isn't either scouting or sneaking past someone.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-08, 08:05 AM
You're only looking at the first PHB. Rogues get plenty of feats in Martial Power, and a good amount of love from PHB2. More if they've multiclassed (which is actually a pretty sweet deal) and have access to the other X Power books...

There's a total of 663 feats in Heroic tier alone, not counting Skill Training or Weapon Proficiencies separately. 89 of those are Heroic-tier feats from Martial Power, and probably around a quarter of those are relevant to the Rogue, which is still 22 more feats than you reckoned. Add in probably ten of the 63 PHB2 feats, and we've doubled the number of feats you counted.

This is also true of 3.5. The amounts of feats available is staggering.

Keep in mind that simply adding available feats does not always add choice, either. For example, a few of the core feats were some twist on +acrobatics skill. Stacking rules make taking multiples of these quite weak or altogether pointless.

See, the thing is that with 3.5, feats were a means of customization, yes, but they were far from the only, or even primary means of customization. The fact that this is true of 4.0 indicates the loss of overall choice.

Skills are vastly different, and less choice based than in 3.5, where you could customize your skill levels in much greater detail.

Classes in 3.5 also offered much more growth while leveling.

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-08, 08:08 AM
This is also true of 3.5. The amounts of feats available is staggering.

Keep in mind that simply adding available feats does not always add choice, either. For example, a few of the core feats were some twist on +acrobatics skill. Stacking rules make taking multiples of these quite weak or altogether pointless.

See, the thing is that with 3.5, feats were a means of customization, yes, but they were far from the only, or even primary means of customization. The fact that this is true of 4.0 indicates the loss of overall choice.

Skills are vastly different, and less choice based than in 3.5, where you could customize your skill levels in much greater detail.

Classes in 3.5 also offered much more growth while leveling.

You'll forgive me, but beyond feats and equipment, what method did 3.5 have for customizing a Fighter? It's been a while, and for the life of me I cannot think of what you must be thinking of.

Did you mean what Skill should he pick to put his point into? ;)

Jayabalard
2009-10-08, 08:18 AM
You'll forgive me, but beyond feats and equipment, what method did 3.5 have for customizing a Fighter? It's been a while, and for the life of me I cannot think of what you must be thinking of. probably this is referring to multiclassing

Tyndmyr
2009-10-08, 08:24 AM
Well, I would look for out of combat utility powers in the utilites powers section not in attack powers.

Yes, but you don't choose between attack powers and utility powers, correct?

As you level, when you get a power, you choose from a list of powers of the same type, typically. Generally, they are extremely similar.


s. I would expect the choices of the rogue's attack powers be powers that kill people dead. Also, you are ignoring that Imperiling strike and Rogue's luck's riders are influenced by your style of rogue. A 3-4 penalty to AC or a 3-4 bonus on a re-roll are nothing to sneeze at.

The argument is not that the rogue is ineffective, it's that he lacks choice. You have three single target attacks, all of which deal similar damage. One deals more damage on average, the other two provide minor one turn debuffs.

The only real choice that offers something different is the AOE attack, which is actually significantly different in combat.


For a brutal scoundrel this is very doable. And pressing the advantage you poo-poo because of the 15 cha prereq is also available for the artful dodger.

Well, if you use the standard array without modification(the standard char generation method presented), you only get 1 ability over 15, and only 3 abilities in total at 13 or higher. As a rogue, essentially all your powers give bonus damage in the form of dex, and dex is used...everywhere. If you haven chosen dex as your primary stat, these feats are not available to you.

Rogues are clearly designed with the idea that their primary stat would be dex, with str and con as secondary stats. If you deviate from this, you actually lose more possible useful feats, decreasing your choice significantly.


Actually, for the element boosting powers can affect your weapon attacks if you use a flaming, freezing etc weapon since this items add the fire, frost etc keyword to your attacks. This is very important for the two frost based feats Wintertouched and other one which are very popular with rogues since using the magic items means easy access to combat advantage. Granted a combo that doesn't kick in until paragon but its there. And yes astral fire is pretty useless even for spellcasters.

You can combo a feat and a weapon for +1 damage at paragon levels? Sometimes?

Um...this is your example of player choice?

Tyndmyr
2009-10-08, 08:25 AM
probably this is referring to multiclassing

Multiclassing is huge in 3.5...races also mean more, and provide more variety, and feats have much more synergy.

You can stack bonuses to one skill rather well in 3.5, where 4.0 is explicitly designed to prevent this.

Yes, in 3.5 you can make a fighter with crap skills, and put in 20 levels of straight fighter. You certainly do not have to.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-08, 08:30 AM
You'll forgive me, but beyond feats and equipment, what method did 3.5 have for customizing a Fighter? It's been a while, and for the life of me I cannot think of what you must be thinking of.

Did you mean what Skill should he pick to put his point into? ;)

Probably optimizer would say something about it but.. fighters can be done in several ways.

Charge feats based on power attack, Sword and board, TWF, Ranged Combat, Mounted Combat, Combat Reflexes Tier (a crapload of feats), Combat Focus (wisdom), Combat expertise--> Improved Trip (int), fear based feats...

Alternative Class Features..

And you can combine - and it helps to roleplay your fighter too.

A smart, reactive spiked chain wielder (CE+ CR), a muscular charger with maces ( three mountains + charge), a muscular dire flail user (Dire Flail smash, CR and charge feats), an imposing mounted commander (fear effects + charge + mount)..

A merciless, beast master archer (ranged + handle animal and maybe wild cohort). A wise, stalwart glaive wielding guardian (Combat focus + CR)..

I see that most optimizers would say that a viable fighter can use like 10% of this - for some game, fair enough.

Nevertheless, for a new edition, I want to expand and consolidate my options about combat, I don't want a fighter without ranged combat "powers", or wait for a splatbook o simply TWfight because it means that WotC is mocking me.

And please, don't start the usual Ranged Fighter = Ranger beacuse is not what I want from a customization standpoint.



DnD, quite obviously, appeals to people who prefer character death to be rare and/or easily solvable. There is nothing wrong with this, as its a preference.


Well, D&D 3.5, quite obviously, let you choose between use or not use save or die in your games (suggested nerf in ELH and ELH web enhancement - gratis et amore dei).

4th edition says that SoD is not fun and screw it. Mike Mearls and the other desingers, in Races of Classes, decide that D&D must have THAT style, THAT purpose and those that use OTHER styles and purpose are playing the wrong game.

And I must stop because if I remember the Gorgons**t written in R&C, I start really to :smallfurious:.

Indon
2009-10-08, 09:00 AM
Would you let a level-4 wizard cast fireball by making an arcana check? That's the same thing.
Not quite.

The game would deal with an attempt to improvise a Fireball using the improvised powers system. It would be a straight Int vs. <Defense> attack, probably Reflex. It would also require the opportunity to be able to do so - like how a 'sand in the eyes' improv would require sand and the opponent to have eyes (unlike the power), an improv Fireball would require, say, a scroll or something detailing the spell. It would likely only hit one target for less damage than a full Fireball.

Page 42 encourages DM's to make improvised powers strictly worse than real ones unless the opportunity isn't replicable.


To be technical, what the level 7 rogue encounter power allows you to do is to strike them and then throw sand in their eyes as a standard action. The partial act of attempting to blind someone without hitting them as well isn't covered. :smalltongue:

As an improvised power, throwing sand in someone's eyes would still deal damage, as improvised powers deal damage. It may as well be stabbing them and then throwing something in their eyes, just not as well as a Rogue.


Then I deny. I deny it. Unless you show me with plain and clear reasoning and actual text from the developers that this is true, I will deny your position.

I think your position is silly. When design decisions are clearly being made with balance in mind rather than other principles, then design is clearly overriding those other design principles.

What design principle in 4E is not overridden by game balance when it comes down to it?


What about between powers A, B, C, D, E, F, and G when you level, where each one has a different effect?

There's generally not more than 5 availible powers for a slot.

Also, those powers that are availible are generally divided, de facto, into two or three different builds thanks to secondary stat synergies. So in effect, you generally have an option between two powers that work for your build, and all the others that won't do very much for you.

Like in 3.5, most choices are deceptive. Unlike in 3.5, there are less choices to begin with.


Then why is it that 4e has multiple different PC races, classes, skills and feats? And no, I do not accept the argument that they are in actually the same, since my actual gaming experience proves the opposite is true.
Because of the game's genre, that of tactical miniatures game. Miniatures games have different kinds of units with different abilities in order to provide the genre's basic functionality.

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-08, 09:32 AM
Probably optimizer would say something about it but.. fighters can be done in several ways.

What you list there is mostly feat based customisation. And quite fun, no doubt. But the line was that 3.5 allowed much more customization other than feats.

Multiclassing? Sounds like a bit of a cop-out, really. Sure, you can customise your fighter, by no-longer being a fighter, but a fighter-and.

As I understand it, probably fighter 2, then taking anything else.

You certainly can, by the way, stack skills quite nicely. I've currently got an entirely legal Drow Assassin with a stealth bonus of 16 at level 2. I can roll a 1 and beat most creatures passive perception. Haven't really even taken much in the way of feats to enhance that.

I put it further, that there was not, really, any extra flexibility in skills in 3.5, as far as customisation goes, because there are only really two standards of skill competancy for most of them; Competant, and uncompetant. You could, sure, put one skill point in various things, rather than keeping a smaller number at a reasonable level, but really, it's unlikely to benefit you much at all. With the multiclass feats, skill training, background benefits and the simple fact that there are less skill traps (Lol, your mighty athlete climbs like a monkey, runs like a cheetah, jumps like a flea. But did you bring your arm-bands? Oh, too bad. You drown.) means to me, almost all characters in 4th have more control and more options skill-wise, really.

It is true, that fighters have to all intents and purposes lost their Ranged Weapon using side. It's a shame, to some small degree, but really, and I know you saw it coming, that IS what a ranger is for. If you want to be a fighty fighter and still use some archery powers, multiclass or hybrid. I'd imagine a fighter/ranger focusing on the dexy fighter powers and ranger ranged stuff could work fine.

I can't say that I honestly buy the 'races meant more' thing, either, though the choice was certainly a different and potentially more complex one, when the confusing and often punitive racial-HD and LA system came into play.

Yakk
2009-10-08, 09:41 AM
You can keep using page 42 as an excuse for everything, but the point is that the rules for throwing sand at somebody's face are already in the player's handbook on page 121. Would you let a level-4 wizard cast fireball by making an arcana check? That's the same thing.
Cast fireball (as in use that specific spell), or create a ball of fire using arcana?

Well, if the Wizard had a ring of solid elemental fire (which is an item in 4e -- it is just jewelry), and made an Arcana check to break the elemental fire out, then sure. Because that is something a Wizard should be able to do.

And I'd use page 42 for this. Because page 42 is a set of explicit rules in 4e that governs what you do when the players are creative. It includes target numbers and multiple sets of damage expressions depending on how limited the action is and how damaging it should be relative to 'standard' options.

It isn't just "make up a house rule".

(And, as an aside, level 1 wizards can create a 15' by 15' explosion of fire at-will.)

Point is that there are several things that a normal person should be able to do, that characters in 4E cannot unless they possess the proper powers or feats; and conversely that there are several things that cannot even be made to make sense in the gameworld that are commonplace because they are done by low-level martial powers (e.g. blinding barrage).
PCs in 4e are not commonplace. This is mentioned explicitly in the 4e rules.

The "rational system for combat" makes a lot of assumptions about the party, the monsters, and levels. It's an example of a constraint. The system tells you (specifically the DM) explicitly what enemies are appropriate. Which is fine, but also more video game like. Other rpg's would simply let the GM decide (or create the opponents), which could lead to problems if the GM makes a miscalculation! It's really a different way of approaching the issue.
*nod*, 4e says "if you follow these guildlines for providing equipment to characters, and these guildlines for picking monsters, you can express how challenging the monsters will be to the PCs by this number".

And there is no "fun value" or fluff in having a dozen feats that provide +1 bonuses under circumstances.
Agreed. There are too many of those feats, and they tend to be too good.

By this standard, we have:
Good 4e feat: Eladrin Blade Advance (Swordmage feat, lets you make a basic attack when you use fey step)
Bad 4e feat: Focused Expertise (Longsword) from level 1-15.

Eladrin Blade Advance generates 1 attack attempts worth of damage in exchange for using Fey Step to advance and not retreat per encounter. With a 50% chance to hit, this generates ~0.5 extra units of effect per encounter.

Focused Expertise increases your number of hits by 0.05 per action. With 1 daily (~3 units each), 3 encounter (~2 units each) and 3 at-will attacks (~1 unit each), this generates ~0.6 extra units of effect per encounter.

You'll see how the two are very similar in impact. Yet one of them is a passive bonus that goes on your character sheet, and the other lets your character do things they couldn't do otherwise.

(Focused expertise at 16+ is not only a 'bad feat' by this standard, it is also ridiculously too good.)

A Fighter generally plays very differently to a Wizard or a Cleric, for example. Even characters who share the same general role (such as Rogue and Ranger) have some specific differences in play which differentiate them
For example, someone who isn't experienced at tactical combat games is not someone I'd want to be playing a Fighter or Rogue, but could do quite fine as an archer Ranger.

Rogues are playing a mini-game of "get combat advantage no matter what". Fighters are playing a mini-game of "frustrate the ability for opponents to attack my allies, while giving my allies advantaged ability to attack my enemies". Rangers can play a game of "convince enemies to attack me, then screw them" -- a related game can be played by Warlocks.

4.0 feels a need to combo normal damage with just about everything. Why this is so, I have no idea, and I dislike it, but it's a typical part of the game.
HP in 4e are being used as a kind of pacing mechanic. They are a defeat-o-meter -- you defeat an opponent by reducing it to 0 HP. The point of this was to make sure that everyone's effort to defeat an opponent was helping each other; if there where two orthogonal ways to defeat an opponent, then effort sunk into defeating it along method A would end up being lost when the opponent was defeated using method B.

So when you try to petrify someone, this generally causes HP damage. When you attack them with a spell, or break their moral with a taunt, this causes HP damage.

When you finally defeat them -- reduce them to 0 HP -- you narrate how that final attack resulted in the target being defeated.

I actually think it would have been interesting if they had gone a step further with this. Have 3 different thresholds:
Full HP
Bloodied (1/2)
Vunerable (1/4)

Attacks would have a "finishing blow" effect when they hit a Vunerable target. So if you hit a Vunerable foe with fireball, it would burn them to a cinder; if you hit a Vunerable foe with cleave, you'd chop off their head.

But that would add complexity, and it might not be worth it.

I've roleplayed Tetris, Doctor Mario, and Final Fantasy (1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 10-2). You can roleplay anything as anything. The only limitation is you.
I've roleplayed Civilization. It is quite fun. :)

The other is surprise attack, which requires 15 str, combat advantage, and a critical hit. Uh...no?
You get a critical hit about every 2nd encounter -- more if you use lots of burst powers.

So a rogue who uses stealth or high initiative to have combat advantage to launch cloud of steel might be getting 1+ crit with that qualification per encounter.

The real disadvantage is that it comes not when you want it, but at random.

But yes, crit feats take effort to be useful.

Mounted Combat: You can use mounts skills if they are better than yours. You're a rogue, what's the point of this, especially when you could take Jack of all trades instead?
No, that isn't all that mounted combat does. This feat does require some 'DM help' in that you need a mount, I'll admit.

However, the strength prereqs help make these unlikely choices.
Strength is a secondary attribute of Rogues in 4e. Your dismissal of str based feats is ... premature.

Draw as part of an attack, but also gives +2 init. Given the lack of stacking, this makes improved init pretty weak, since essentially every rogue will grab this.
No, not every rogue will take Quick Draw.

Press the advantage: I'd discuss this feat, but it requires a 15 cha, on a rogue.
Cha is also a secondary attribute for a Rogue.

I get the feeling you haven't played Rogues in 4e, or even created one.

Rogues in 4e generally have a high Str or Cha (and a higher Dex). Ruling out both Cha and Str feats makes me very puzzled.

Weapon FocusBarring the Astral-Fire and race-cultural type feats, Weapon Focus stacks with every other feat.

Many feat damage bonuses are untyped.

See above, why would you get proficiency in weapons that will stop you from using your specials?
Because there are a myriad of weapons that let you use your specials? Plus a selection of feats that extend which weapons that work with your exploits?

Your attacks do not deal cold damage.
Unless you have a frost dagger, say.

Summary, that's what, 32 feats he could technically pick?
In the first PHB.

Long as we're at it, lets ditch anything that requires 15+ in a non-dex stat.
15+ in a non-dex stat is common among 4e Rogues, even at level 6.

I've seen threads on the WotC boards where the majority of posters dispute tracking how many arrows you have.
*nod*, and rarely does anyone make a fortitude check to engage in a bowl movement (hope you don't roll a 1).

I think every 4e character I've played has purchased clothing appropriate for their status.

For example, a few of the core feats were some twist on +acrobatics skill. Stacking rules make taking multiples of these quite weak or altogether pointless.
Sometimes they are untyped bonuses. Sometimes they are some bonus (the ability to check to make an escape as an immediate reaction to being grabbed, etc), plus a feat bonus rider -- the extra +1 feat bonus is just a rider.

Something being a feat bonus, or not a feat bonus, is an important balancing factor in 4e. I don't like most of the feat bonus feats (at a design level), because they are the ones that apply all of the time; bonuses that are situational tend to be untyped, and thus stack perfectly fine.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-08, 09:54 AM
HP in 4e are being used as a kind of pacing mechanic. They are a defeat-o-meter -- you defeat an opponent by reducing it to 0 HP. The point of this was to make sure that everyone's effort to defeat an opponent was helping each other; if there where two orthogonal ways to defeat an opponent, then effort sunk into defeating it along method A would end up being lost when the opponent was defeated using method B.

So when you try to petrify someone, this generally causes HP damage. When you attack them with a spell, or break their moral with a taunt, this causes HP damage.

When you finally defeat them -- reduce them to 0 HP -- you narrate how that final attack resulted in the target being defeated.

So, since this is the case, you agree with me that it's ridiculous to describe "sand in the eyes" as not really a throwing sand at someones eyes attack because it includes melee damage?

For better or worse, 4e includes damage with nearly everything, and this doesn't make the petrify attack not a petrify attack. It's just a different way of modeling that attack mechanically.



As for all the feat stuff, you cannot have strength, con, and cha all as secondary stats, because the standard starting array does not give you sufficiently high attributes to raise them all to 13, the typical requirement for these. As for 15, only one stat is that high. Thus, for you to get a 15 cha skill, charisma would be your primary stat.

Yes, you can modify stats with racial choices, etc...but if you're pouring your assets into boosting a list of secondary skills, your primary skill(s) suffer greatly.

All feat bonuses are listed as explicitly not stacking. Yes, some feats give untyped bonuses. These are the exception. Count em up if you want.

Thus, you have relatively little choice.

Jayabalard
2009-10-08, 09:56 AM
It isn't just "make up a house rule".*shrug* I don't really see a difference.


Multiclassing? Sounds like a bit of a cop-out, really. Sure, you can customise your fighter, by no-longer being a fighter, but a fighter-and. Cop out how? the discussion is about customizing a character, not how to customize a fighter.

Yakk
2009-10-08, 10:11 AM
So, since this is the case, you agree with me that it's ridiculous to describe "sand in the eyes" as not really a throwing sand at someones eyes attack because it includes melee damage?
Either you pay attention to the fluff, in which case it involves throwing sand in the eyes while cutting them, or you do not. Half-paying attention to the fluff, in order to implicitly rule out any other kind of sand in the eyes move, seems to be stretching things.

As for all the feat stuff, you cannot have strength, con, and cha all as secondary stats, because the standard starting array does not give you sufficiently high attributes to raise them all to 13, the typical requirement for these. As for 15, only one stat is that high. Thus, for you to get a 15 cha skill, charisma would be your primary stat.
We are talking about a level 6 character. At level 4, you gain +1 to two attributes. For a rogue, that would traditionally be dex and one other attribute, usually your secondary attribute.

On top of that, races either give +2 to one attribute, or +2 to two attributes. Quite often a character has a +2 to either their primary (dex in this case), or a secondary (str or cha) attribute.

It would be unusual for a 6th level rogue to not have at least 15 in one of cha or str. It is possible, but unusual.

I speak from both knowledge of the mechanics (starting with <14 in a secondary attribute for a rogue is pretty wasteful) and experience (I haven't played with a rogue with < 14 in a secondary attribute).

Your standard -- the standard array -- has a 14 if I remember correctly. It would seem reasonable to assign this second highest attribute to your secondary attribute for your character. At 4 this is bumped to 15; at 4 you get a feat, and can retrain one feat. At 5 you can retrain one feat. At 6 you gain a feat and retrain one feat.

So by level 6, you can have 5 feats that require a 15 in your secondary attribute, which is the most feats any character can have at level 6.

Yes, you can modify stats with racial choices, etc...but if you're pouring your assets into boosting a list of secondary skills, your primary skill(s) suffer greatly.
I think you mean attributes? Higher Str/Cha secondary attributes for a rogue is not a poor investment at all. You probably want a higher Dex than your Str/Cha, but with diminishing marginal returns...


[Page 42] isn't just "make up a house rule".*shrug* I don't really see a difference.
So as far as you are concerned, page 42, which gives detailed instructions asto what the DC of an improvised attack should have, and how much damage it should deal so that it is neither overshadowed nor overshadowing, and breaks damage into attacks that might be repeatable and those that are one-off, contains no information?

(Page 42 is, by the way, the page that contains the table; the rules about using the table are on more than page 42).

I'm drawing an analogy with Exalted stunt dice. How many stunt dice you get for a description is determined by the DM based on guidelines in the Exalted rules. Saying that any use of page 42 is a houserule is like saying that any use of Exalted stunt dice is a house rule.

In which case, Exalted mechanics are seriously broken, because the game relies on players being able to use stunt dice for a number of purposes. (or it did in the edition I last played, if I remember correctly)

And no, these rules are not runable by a computer. Luckily, 4e presumes that the DM isn't a computer, because 4e isn't a MMORPG or CRPG. :)

Kurald Galain
2009-10-08, 10:12 AM
You're only looking at the first PHB. Rogues get plenty of feats in Martial Power, and a good amount of love from PHB2. More if they've multiclassed (which is actually a pretty sweet deal) and have access to the other X Power books...
Tyndmyr has a good point though. You primarily customize your character by picking one of approx three Build Choices for your class (in case of rogue, you can be a cha rogue, a str rogue, or a less useful kind of str rogue) and that dictates many of your power choices. Frequently when you get to pick a power, several of the choices are duds, or intended for the other Build Choice, or similar to other powers you already have. Also frequently one of the powers for that level is so obviously better that the others aren't a contender.

Looking at e.g. rogue powers at level 3 or level 13, most of them are also pretty similar to the level-7 powers.



"You spin your weapon in the air, slicing the enemies around you and make them scream in pain. Without any warning, you slip through their defenses and make another slashing spin" ... This sounds to me like a description of some fight in an action movie, like Chuck Norris with a sword.
Yes, it does. However, there are too many powers with descriptions that are identical except for paraphrasing and heavy usage of the thesaurus. Many martial powers are simply "You <adverbly> hit the enemy with your <weapon> causing him to <emote>."


Well, I would look for out of combat utility powers in the utilites powers section not in attack powers.
True enough, but the vast majority of utility powers are not "out of combat" utility.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-08, 10:14 AM
Page 42 encourages DM's to make improvised powers strictly worse than real ones unless the opportunity isn't replicable.

That is my point, yes.

(compare to e.g. Exalted, which makes improvised powers strictly better than real ones)

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-08, 10:15 AM
What you list there is mostly feat based customisation. And quite fun, no doubt. But the line was that 3.5 allowed much more customization other than feats.

Multiclassing? Sounds like a bit of a cop-out, really. Sure, you can customise your fighter, by no-longer being a fighter, but a fighter-and.

As I understand it, probably fighter 2, then taking anything else.


Again - the fact that I have the freedom to choose how customize my PC, is an advantage for me (not that a lot of things, as I said, shouldn't be fixed - after all, people always see me on these boards whining about how TWF should be done with abetter scaling, feats should be merged and the like - an mostly because I'm a fan of the single class fighter :smallwink:)

more, consider that, even if my gaming group is quite a fan of single classes or class + Prc PCs, for a lot of people the game was about mix some features for a PC concept, assuming, and not being wrong, that classes are abstractions of wich the charactera are not aware. Should be these people punished?

If fighter should be a choise good for 20 level, rebuilt feat and other mechanics, don't kill it and replace with a power spamming machine.
Again, we have headache solving = beheading.

Abou the other things.. well about skill you could be right, but i don't undestand the armband things. Couldn't I be a good climber and a bad swimmer? Maybe I grew in mountain and never seen the sea or a swimmable river. Maybe I never washed myself :smalltongue:

Finally, yes, there are skill that you must always max, but not in every campaign. For some, 4 ranks are enough. Unless you want an auto-win every time even at low levels. A matter o tastes I guess.

And If i have problems with skill points, , there are good solutions. In UA, there 1-2 good ways to overcome skill points. You could, as an exaple, have classes with every class skill maxed (-3) and every non-class skill at 0 + mod. Or choose 2+ int skills, have them maxed automatically and the other ones at 1/2 level. Do this remember to you something?

.. after all, a lot of things people like of 4th dition (like this or the fixed XP monsters) were in UA. And several parts of UA are SRD...

nveinus
2009-10-08, 10:24 AM
Yes, but you don't choose between attack powers and utility powers, correct?

As you level, when you get a power, you choose from a list of powers of the same type, typically. Generally, they are extremely similar.

The argument is not that the rogue is ineffective, it's that he lacks choice. You have three single target attacks, all of which deal similar damage. One deals more damage on average, the other two provide minor one turn debuffs.

The only real choice that offers something different is the AOE attack, which is actually significantly different in combat.


Really? you see no difference in the gameplay possibilities between blinding an opponent (setting up your own combat advantage if flanking is not possible, or allowing an ally or yourself to freely run away from the blindee) a penalty to AC and reflex which is a big flag saying "Everyone dogpile this guy!" Or setting up your own combo to get a massive boost to make sure your daily hits. (A human brutal scoundrel with action surge who follows up imperiling strike with an AP is getting a +6 to his attack roll! If that doesn't say "I am about to f this guy up" I don't what does ). Or the ability to re-roll an attack with a bonus? Rogue's luck is elven reroll on steroids(available to all artful dodgers instead of just elf rogues). This is a good thing. Especially since the rogue's main source of damage is in his sneak attack dice the loss of 1[w] is negligible. If you say "yes, all these powers work exactly the same" then I don't know what to say. Our perceptions of reality are so different that further dialogue to kinda moot. That or you haven't played 4e and are basing your opions by just a read through of the book, which I totally agree is a dry read if you try to chug right through it. But while the book is not a great read, it is a great game.



Well, if you use the standard array without modification(the standard char generation method presented), you only get 1 ability over 15, and only 3 abilities in total at 13 or higher. As a rogue, essentially all your powers give bonus damage in the form of dex, and dex is used...everywhere. If you haven chosen dex as your primary stat, these feats are not available to you.

Rogues are clearly designed with the idea that their primary stat would be dex, with str and con as secondary stats. If you deviate from this, you actually lose more possible useful feats, decreasing your choice significantly.

Er, even for some reason we are ignoring stat boosts from race(why are we doing this?) At level 4 you increase two stats, so yes you qualify for those feats by level 4 or you know level one. My human rogue up post (str16 con12 Dex16 int 11 wis 13 cha 10). Did you even played 4e? If you haven't




You can combo a feat and a weapon for +1 damage at paragon levels? Sometimes?

Um...this is your example of player choice?

Uh, no. I combo two feats and a magic weapon to gain vulnerability 5 on my target and make it so I always have combat advantage against it without having to flank. Wintertouch says targets hit by frost powers gain vulnerability 5 and Lasting frost says you gain combat advantage against anything that has vulnerability to frost. So yeah a potent combo (you could argue too potent)

Kurald Galain
2009-10-08, 10:43 AM
Really? you see no difference in the gameplay possibilities between blinding an opponent ... a penalty to AC and reflex ... Or the ability to re-roll an attack with a bonus?
While these are different effects, your rogue doesn't play differently depending on which of these powers you chose. Whichever you picked, you'll likely use early on in every combat (because it's better than your at-wills) on whatever the biggest threat is at the moment.


Rogue's luck is elven reroll on steroids(available to all artful dodgers instead of just elf rogues).
Well, not really. Elven Reroll is much better because it works on powers with big effects when they hit. Rogue's luck is pretty mediocre since rogues already have very high accuracy.


Wintertouch says targets hit by frost powers gain vulnerability 5 and Lasting frost says you gain combat advantage against anything that has vulnerability to frost. So yeah a potent combo (you could argue too potent)
I don't think that's "too potent" by any means; it's not like it's hard for a rogue to obtain combat advantage.

nveinus
2009-10-08, 10:44 AM
That is my point, yes.

(compare to e.g. Exalted, which makes improvised powers strictly better than real ones)

Yes and no. Stunting mechanic is to encourage players to describe their attacks in interesting ways. Even if they are using a charm straight out of the book. On the improv scale White Wolf tells STs to reduce or not give bonus to the same stunt over and over again. That's the important part since for a good deal of D&D players allowing something to work once means that it is now precedent and should work the same over and over again. This gets dumb when the entire party starts carrying around bags of flour cause you let the rogue do something cool in a kitchen fight once.

What tells your PC from other PC
1. race
1a Main difference is your racial power. stats boosts also come into play.
2. class
2a. which style of class (a choice between at least 2)
2b. any race specific feats for your class. Eldrain rogues do not play the same as half-orc rogues.
2c. Power selection
3. skills
4. feats
4a. racial non-class feats. (example: enlarge dragonbreath, action surge)

"While these are different effects, your rogue doesn't play differently depending on which of these powers you chose. Whichever you picked, you'll likely use early on in every combat (because it's better than your at-wills) on whatever the biggest threat is at the moment."

Like I said, if you do not see a difference in how these powers work out in game than either you haven't played or our experiences/assumptions/desires about the game are very different.

Yakk
2009-10-08, 10:52 AM
Page 42 encourages DM's to make improvised powers strictly worse than real ones unless the opportunity isn't replicable.

That is my point, yes.

(compare to e.g. Exalted, which makes improvised powers strictly better than real ones)
In Exalted, repeating the same improvised power ad nausium is supposed to be strictly better than what again?

Coming up with something new -- non-replicable -- gives more bonus in Exalted than repeating the same thing.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-08, 10:58 AM
In Exalted, repeating the same improvised power ad nausium is supposed to be strictly better than what again?
If you repeat it ad nauseam then it's no longer an improvised power.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-08, 11:16 AM
I never said that the powers were exactly the same. I merely said that they were, in practice, not much of a choice.

As others have said, in an encounter, you tend to use your encounter ability on the scariest looking thing early on. If the fight looks particularily nasty, you might bust out a daily ability. This is actually pretty common among all classes, since the powers work basically the same way.

When comparing between different single target effects with a 1 turn debuff, with identical or very similar damage, it makes relatively little difference which you pick unless one is just worse in general. They play pretty much the same. In 3.x, different people are playing significantly different styles. The wizard is most likely trying to calculate how many slots need to be expended on this encounter, and is quite probably not blasting at full power if it's a mook fight. Melee types play completely differently.

In answer, yes, I've played 4th ed. Not nearly so much as 3rd, but I imagine this is pretty typical here. I've got the core books, I never bothered to get the other releases.

The idea that there's no point to partially trained skills in 3.x is odd, too. In addition to skills being common prereqs for PrCs, many skills only need to hit fixed DCs. If you wear no armor, and tend not to carry much, a few skills in swimming is all you need. IE, so you don't drown. There's no reason for a wizard to try to pump swimming so high he can swim up a waterfall, but putting a few points in can be useful.

Mando Knight
2009-10-08, 12:24 PM
I think your position is silly. When design decisions are clearly being made with balance in mind rather than other principles, then design is clearly overriding those other design principles.

What design principle in 4E is not overridden by game balance when it comes down to it?

Then show me. Show me where the overriding concern is balance. Show me how balance is the main design principle, rather than a tool used to achieve the other design goals.

TheDreadedThrag
2009-10-08, 01:28 PM
4e just happens to use elements commonly found in some videogames, such as character roles. It's not "video-gamey" because it shares these traits in common any more than Greek gyros are "burrito-y" because they're both basically stuff wrapped in bread.

D&D started off as a tabletop wargame (Chainmail), then became a minor extension to a tabletop wargame (0e), then a competitive exploration game with combat rules (1e), then a storytelling game with combat rules (2e), then a world-building system with combat rules (3e), then a board game with combat rules (4e). Alternatively, it started as a Chainmail ripoff, then became a Choose Your Own Adventure book ripoff, then a Diablo ripoff, then a WoW ripoff, if you'd prefer to think of it that way. These are of course stereotypes, as any one-sentence description of a game must be; you can't really sum up an edition in a few adjectives.

My take on which edition I prefer? I learned with 1e, then switched to 2e (which changed a ton of fluff but was basically the same mechanics cleaned up a bit), then switched to 3e (which drastically changed the core gameplay mechanics but kept the flavor pretty much the same), and now basically play 3e with a bunch of minor rules to 2e-ify it. 4e changed both the core mechanics and the fluff at once, which is one mark against it in my book. The second mark against it is its overreliance on miniatures and detailed movement--3e can be taken back to its predecessor's mostly-gridless roots basically by messing with AoOs, but you'd have to do a ton of work to be able to play 4e with a ruler and a few marks on a whiteboard.

Finally, I play D&D because of the things that make it unique in my view: take out Vancian casting, alignment, the Planescape cosmology/Greyhawk fluff, the various subsystems, etc. and you just have a generic fantasy game, and if I wanted that I'd play that, I'd look for a generic fantasy game--simply put, if 4e wasn't meant to be a new edition of D&D, I'd probably play it in a heartbeat, but it doesn't give me what I want out of D&D. Third strike and it's out.

So, summary: Any edition of D&D is what you make of it. Many people like 4e, many people don't; I happen to fall into the latter category, but when I criticize 4e I only bring up valid criticisms, and "4e = vidjagame!" is one that's been brought up and refuted before.

WoW rip off? you wish! D&D was there first, and in my opinion if it hadn't started the way it did then WoW would never exist. Oh and 4e is like windows vista. Easy enough to point and click to what icon you want, But if you actually know what you're doing it gets boring and way oversimplified.

Indon
2009-10-08, 01:32 PM
In Exalted, repeating the same improvised power ad nausium is supposed to be strictly better than what again?

Coming up with something new -- non-replicable -- gives more bonus in Exalted than repeating the same thing.

Not quite.

In Exalted, coming up with something new gives a bonus, and repeating it reduces or removes the bonus.

In 4th edition, coming up with something that can be repeated - from the first time - is meant to be strictly inferior to power usage. This is, of course, because for balance purposes it can't be better than an at-will. Less replicable improvised attacks would be comparable to encounter or daily powers, and would thus be allowed to be more powerful without exceeding a comparable encounter/daily power.


Then show me. Show me where the overriding concern is balance. Show me how balance is the main design principle, rather than a tool used to achieve the other design goals.

As a quick example, attack improvisation can't lead to players doing things more effective than a power of comparable ease of use.

But optimally, someone would name another design goal 4E even has so that I could bring up a place in the rules where balance trumps it specifically.

Mando Knight
2009-10-08, 01:32 PM
Oh and 4e is like windows vista. Easy enough to point and click to what icon you want, But if you actually know what you're doing it gets boring and way oversimplified.

Could you cite that for me?

As a quick example, attack improvisation can't lead to players doing things more effective than a power of comparable ease of use.
So a kick that you've never practiced should be more effective than the one you've practiced ten thousand times?

If you've got a power that does the same thing as an improvised move, then the power should be more effective. If you're improvising based on something interesting that you noticed in the environment, then its effectiveness should be adjudicated as is appropriate for the move and your ability to execute it.

But optimally, someone would name another design goal 4E even has so that I could bring up a place in the rules where balance trumps it specifically.
Modularity of the system elements. Ease of introduction to new gamers. Ease of representation of basic fantasy elements.

TheDreadedThrag
2009-10-08, 01:36 PM
Could you cite that for me?

Cite for you?
Like, you like what i said? or you want me to justify?

Mando Knight
2009-10-08, 01:46 PM
Cite for you?
Like, you like what i said? or you want me to justify?

Justify the entire analogy. That Vista is oversimplified and boring (wow, that's actually a new complaint about that OS...), and that 4e is like Vista in that way.

The New Bruceski
2009-10-08, 01:59 PM
Not really the equivalent. Everyone has powers, and the powers are...amazingly similar. Since we were talking about level 7 rogue, lets look at what options are available to the level 7 rogue.

All of the following are encounter powers.

Cloud of Steel. dex vs AC. 1w+dex mod damage blast 5.
Imperiling Strike. dex vs Fort. 1w+dex mod damage to tar, minor one turn debuff.
Rogue's Luck. dex vs AC. 2w+dex mod damage to tar(on miss, have a chance to do 1w+dex mod damage to tar instead)
Sand in the Eyes. dex vs ref. 1w+dex mod damage to tar, blinded for one turn.

Well, we have four different damage abilities to choose from. Three of them are single target, and there is nothing with out of combat utility. This is pretty typical for rogues. Cloud of Steel is the only one with any variation from the others, which are essentially minor variations on a theme.

Congratulations, you can look at what abilities have in common. Now let's look at how they're different.

Cloud of Steel -- As you said, an AoE attack which is rare for Rogues. Useful for someone fighting many enemies at once.

Imperiling Strike -- You ignored the boost for Brutal Scoundrels. This can bump the -1 to AC/Reflex up to -3 or maybe -4 at that level, likely -3. As an attack against Fort it's easy to hit on most enemies, especially for a Rogue, and for the next turn everyone in your party has a better chance of hitting the guy. Wonderful way to soften up a foe for an ally's daily power.

Also note that, assuming you swap out the lowest level power when it's called for, you'll have this power until level 23. It's only going to get better.

Rogue's Luck -- Twice the damage of any other Rogue7 power, and if you miss you get a basic attack. Again, you ignored the boost of an Artful Dodger to this ability, making the second attack more accurate. For someone who cares about straight-up damage, or has some other reason to make sure *some* damage gets through, this is the ability of choice.

Sand in the Eyes -- In some ways this is very close to Imperiling Strike. Blind targets grant combat advantage, which is a flat +2 to all defenses to everybody and makes sure you get to sneak attack next round. If you have some other way of gaining/granting others combat advantage, though, Imperiling Strike stacks, while blinding doesn't. But Imperiling Strike scales as you gain strength (if Brutal). Blinding has other effects that the party/player might be well- or poorly-suited to take advantage of.

In conclusion: Do the powers look similar? Yeah, they're all level 7 Rogue powers, what did you expect? Are they the same? I don't think so. Each power is going to be useful in different situations, and so a player will choose a power based on his fighting style/interactions with the party. Some are better than others in many/most situations, but none are Strictly Worse. Looks like a pretty good variety of choices to me, and that's before looking at Martial Power.

Indon
2009-10-08, 02:07 PM
So a kick that you've never practiced should be more effective than the one you've practiced ten thousand times?
Depends on what you want out of your system.

In Exalted, a kick you've never practiced should be more effective, so long as it's awesome, because Exalted has Rule of Cool as a major design element.


Modularity of the system elements.
Multiclassing.


Ease of introduction to new gamers.
There is no simpler 'newbie' class option - all classes are of comparable complexity.

Probably a better one - actions often have multiple cumulative minor bonuses and penalties which can be hard to track, but which are vital for the system's functionality.


Ease of representation of basic fantasy elements.
Flight.

greenknight
2009-10-08, 02:11 PM
I never said it does. But that was a selling point of the game before they skimped us on the game table.

So what does that statement mean?


The powers are very very very similar. Even utility powers.

They are intended to be similar in power, yes, but not necessarily in effect. For example, let's look at three 1st level Encounter powers from the PHB:

1) Cause Fear (Cleric Encounter 1). If successful, this attack causes the enemy to flee. It works at a distance, but it doesn't even cause damage directly.

2) Hammer and Anvil (Warlord Encounter 1). If successful, this attack directly does damage and allows an ally adjacent to the target to make a basic melee attack, adding the Warlord's Charisma modifier to any damage caused. While this is essentially just a damaging attack, the special effect adds a significant tactical aspect.

3) Icy Terrain (Wizard Encounter 1). This creates a 9 square area of difficult terrain (regardless of whether the attack itself is successful), until the end of the Wizard's next turn. On a hit, it also does a little damage and knocks the target prone. While the damage can be useful, the real significance of this power is that it can reduce their speed and potentially even knock them prone, effectively wasting a turn for two or more foes.

What 1st level 4e PHB1 Encounter powers are very, very, very similar to those?


And your point is?

My point is exactly as I've previously stated. Game balance was a primary design goal for 4e, but it wasn't the primary design goal. At certain points in the game design process, other things were considered to be equally important, or even more important. This is why there are different races, classes, skills and feats in the game. It's also why sometimes even one class can be played with two or more very different play styles.


But none of them are nearly as hardwired into their respective play styles as 4e is. They all have variety, which is severely lacking in 4e.

As others have already stated, there's heaps of variety possible in 4e.


Ok. I wasn't comparing 4e to older editions specifically, but I'll play ball. A 4e a paladin has a list of powers that are modified by his primary attribute, deal a listed damage which is modified by his weapon of choice, and impart either a beneficial or damaging effect. A 4e wizard operates in a similar fashion, the only remarkable difference being his "power source", how he delivers his powers, and what armor he wears. He does the same thing the paladin does, just in a slightly different way. His focus is on dealing damage to the enemies, subduing them when he can.

Let's see here:

* List of powers modified by primary attribute. Exactly how is that different to previous editions of the game?

* deal a listed damage modified by weapon of choice. Again, what's the difference?

* Impart either a beneficial or damaging effect. Well, some powers benefit allies while at the same time damaging foes, but yet again, I don't see any difference compared to previous versions. What attack isn't intended to have some kind of beneficial or damaging effect?

* 4e Wizard operates in a similar fashion. This statement shows a serious lack of understanding when it comes to either 4e Wizards or 4e Paladins.

4e Paladins generally stand on the front line, are heavily protected (good AC and other defences), and have lots of hitpoints. Their general strategy in combat is to attract enemy attacks. Their class powers generally focus on attacking a single target at melee or much more rarely close (5 square) range. Many powers have a secondary effect which generally make it harder to hit the paladin (and/or the paladin's allies), or provide a buffing effect. They also have a power (Lay on Hands) which is essentially another buffing effect that returns hitpoints as a minor action.

Outside of combat, Paladins tend to have decent Wisdom scores, along with either Strength or Charisma. Their class skills tend to deal with knowledge (history, insight and religion), diplomacy (diplomacy and intimidate) and healing (the Heal skill). They can also take the Endurance skill if they want. Nearly all Paladins can excel in Insight and Heal, and Charisma based Paladins will almost certainly go the diplomatic route.

4e Wizards usually avoid melee if they can, they can have good defences but their hitpoints and healing surge capacity are generally low, so they tend to not want to be the focus of enemy attacks. Offhand, I can't think of any melee attack powers for Wizards, although they do have some close type attacks which can be used at melee range without provoking an opportunity attack. Nearly all of the Wizard's attack powers are area attacks and/or have a minimum range of 10 squares. Most of them also have a secondary effect which helps to restrict the enemy's options in some way, although a few are just about dealing damage.

Outside of combat, Wizards tend to have good Intelligence scores, along with good Constitution, Dexterity or Wisdom. With Arcane Power, Charisma also becomes a viable option. Their class skill list includes all Int based skills (Arcana, History, Religion), along with quite a few Wisdom (Dungeoneering, Insight, Nature) and one Charisma (Diplomacy) based skill. Given their reliance on Intelligence, I'd expect the majority of Wizards to take at least 2 of the Intelligence skills, with the other skills chosen varying depending on what the character's ability scores are.

The roles and abilities of these two classes couldn't be more different. To say otherwise is to really be in denial.


Their 3.5 counterparts can do anything under the sun. They aren't restricted to rigid and narrowly defined class roles.

Well, the 3.5e Wizard could end up doing virtually anything, but that is usually considered to be one of the reasons why that class can be overpowered. A 3.5e Paladin on the other hand does have a pretty rigid and narrow definition, which starts with the character's alignment and carries on from there. As in 4e, they tend to focus on single targets, although they do have the option of going with melee or ranged builds. As is also the case with 4e, the Paladin tends to have good defences and total hitpoints. 3.5e doesn't have much in the way of getting enemies to focus on attacking the paladin, but in most parties I'd expect Paladins to be on the front line trying to protect their less robust companions. And yes, the majority of the 3.5e Paladin's magical powers focus on protecting/buffing the Paladin and/or the Paladin's companions - just like with 4e.


Ironically, they still have better defined ones- a paladin has a code of honor and must respect the laws of his god/society, and a wizard can truly be the bookish sage they are made out to be instead of an area of effect spamming blaster.

Yes, that code of conduct does tend to restrict Paladins to a rigid and narrowly defined class role. And 3.5e Wizards can be bookish sages, although given their class skills in 4e, I'm still not sure why you think that's any different in that edition. But it's worth repeating that the ultimate versatility of the 3.5e Wizard is what allows that class to eventually overshadow all of the non-spellcasting classes, except in magic dead areas. When your class powers allow you to do just about anything and everything as well as any other class can, there's really no need for those other classes, is there? At which point, the infinite variety of 3.5e comes down to a party of Wizard, Wizard, Wizard, Wizard, or variation thereof (you could replace one of those Wizards with a different kind of Wizard, for example).


I've seen threads on the WotC boards where the majority of posters dispute tracking how many arrows you have.

Great. That comes down to individual play style though. P222 of the 1st Ed PHB details how much ammo (arrows, crossbow bolts, sling bullets) a character can buy for a specified price and encumbrance value. P221 specifically states that said ammunition is used up when fired from a projectile weapon. That indicates to me that the rules intend for players to purchase, carry and keep track of ammunition used. Please provide a reference from the rulebooks which indicates that is not the case.


But it's still a very important part of role playing. 4e's verisimilitude shattering powers, nonsense descriptions and backwards assertions about the game reality don't help.

Yes, 4e is a game and doesn't shy away from that fact. There are probably more examples of situations where you'd simply say "it's that way because the rules say so" than in 3e. I suspect a lot of those instances would probably be removed if WotC had restricted Martial power attacks to just basic melee and ranged attacks, and used another word (Ki, perhaps) to describe what they called the Martial power source.


I find it's a sliding scale. The less risk a character faces, the less reason I have to care about him. My truly memorable characters have faced the impossible, and not just lived, but triumphed.

Well, yes. It's always a good feeling to know that the characters have successfully accomplished a difficult and personally dangerous mission. But even then it's a matter of degree. Was every encounter so dangerous that there was a significant risk of one or more PCs dying? If so, were there many encounters in the campaign? Because if both of those statements are true, then you start to get into territory where the character isn't really important because he or she is likely to die and be replaced several times during the course of the campaign.

If you really care about character development, then most of the time your character shouldn't be in real danger unless you're playing stupidly or the dice really go against you. Then you can occasionally throw in that really difficult encounter which can make the entire campaign memorable.


I actually think character death should be a natural part of play and an assumed risk. Doing otherwise just encourages players to "play badly" as you put it.

Of course it's an assumed risk, and certainly bad play should dramatically increase the risk of that happening. However, as I stated above, for good character development, the game needs to be structured in such a way that the character is likely to survive for several levels under normal circumstances.


Yes, I'm saying scouting is combat. Because you only scout when there are risks around.

I would have said that scouting is part of adventuring. As in, your party are generally considered to be a group of adventurers, as opposed to craftsmen making baskets for a living. And yes, a significant part of adventuring does involve dealing with risk, which requires a method of conflict resolution.

Now, if you consider the typical activities performed by adventurers to be combat, then yes, the 4e rulebooks are very heavily focused on combat. But then again, with such a definition of combat, that would also be true of every previous edition of D&D as well.


Next time, frame your question more clearly.

Let me see. My question was:

You're claiming 4e characters can't function as scouts, diplomats or researchers without house rules? Or are you simply claiming that those are also combat roles in 4e?

What did you find unclear about that?

TheDreadedThrag
2009-10-08, 02:24 PM
Justify the entire analogy. That Vista is oversimplified and boring (wow, that's actually a new complaint about that OS...), and that 4e is like Vista in that way.

Just like vista not allowing a lot of drivers to actually run and work on my computer, 4e really watered down the classes, feats, AND ESPECIALLY THE SKILLS to the core rulebooks
it's like they both skip over the small details that i actually really enjoy.
it sounded like you had been playing alot of these games, and i figured you would see these flaws. Now i'm not saying that either vista or 4e is useless, i'm only saying that if you really know how to take full advantage of 3.5 or xp, these newer systems leave you wanting.

Mando Knight
2009-10-08, 02:46 PM
Multiclassing.
It's just as modular as the rest of the system. In fact, it's probably actually a good example of it. The MC feats allow for an "add-on" ability from another class, and the power swap feats allow the character to switch between powers that are roughly similar in capabilities to each other. (Hybrid classing, which will be more formally released in PHB3, allows for a more fluid choice between class powers.) If it's too limiting for you feat-wise, a possible houserule is to give the power swap feats for free...

There is no simpler 'newbie' class option - all classes are of comparable complexity.
Which is part of the idea. The basics of character creation were made to be idiotproof so newbies could get into the system, but the complexities exist at another level. The system is a bit like Chess or Super Smash Bros in that respect...

Probably a better one - actions often have multiple cumulative minor bonuses and penalties which can be hard to track, but which are vital for the system's functionality.
Things like that have been around since before 3.X, and are hardly an example of balance overriding that goal, but more as a general failure of its developers to keep it simple enough for new people.

Flight.
That one I'll grant, because I dislike how overzealous WotC is in not handing out PC flight in 4e. The Exalted Angel Epic Destiny in Divine Power is barely a step in the right direction.

Just like vista not allowing a lot of drivers to actually run and work on my computer, 4e really watered down the classes, feats, AND ESPECIALLY THE SKILLS to the core rulebooks
it's like they both skip over the small details that i actually really enjoy.
it sounded like you had been playing alot of these games, and i figured you would see these flaws. Now i'm not saying that either vista or 4e is useless, i'm only saying that if you really know how to take full advantage of 3.5 or xp, these newer systems leave you wanting.
That analogy doesn't really work. Vista didn't accept old drivers because its backwards compatibility was buggy early on. The only real problem it has is that it's resource hungry, more so than the initially-designed-for-less-than-128-MB-of-RAM XP and the yeah-we-messed-up-last-time-but-this-one's-good,-honest Windows 7. 4e's problems are neither buggy backward compatibility (as it was directly stated that it wasn't backwards compatible by design, partly because they didn't want 4e to inherit 3.X's problems), nor excessive memory consumption. The big thing they both get is disproportionate bad press from old-version diehards.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-08, 02:56 PM
It's just as modular as the rest of the system. In fact, it's probably actually a good example of it. The MC feats allow for an "add-on" ability from another class, and the power swap feats allow the character to switch between powers that are roughly similar in capabilities to each other. (Hybrid classing, which will be more formally released in PHB3, allows for a more fluid choice between class powers.) If it's too limiting for you feat-wise, a possible houserule is to give the power swap feats for free...

There really isn't much point discussing the merits of unreleased systems. Even worse, unreleased systems with house rules.

I will agree that idiot-proofing seemed to be a significant design factor in 4th ed...and it probably is less intimidating for new players to start playing. However, the trade off for idiot-proofing is the necessary simplification. You simply cannot have radically different class designs without making it more difficult for new players to pick up. For those of us that don't happen to be new players, this seems like a pretty rotten deal. For someone new, it might not.

Matthew
2009-10-08, 03:01 PM
The big thing they both get is disproportionate bad press from old-version diehards.

That is more than true in reverse. Every edition has its proponents, and many of them are utterly convinced that their one chosen version is superior to the others (which will often be subjectively true). Nothing to with whether such folks are "die-hards" or not.

Indon
2009-10-08, 03:05 PM
It's just as modular as the rest of the system. In fact, it's probably actually a good example of it. The MC feats allow for an "add-on" ability from another class, and the power swap feats allow the character to switch between powers that are roughly similar in capabilities to each other.
I disagree. You argue that the modularity demonstrated by multiclassing is manifested in feats - I think this demonstrates the modularity of feats, but not of classes.

Classes are not modular in that sense. Compared with 3E, races, class abilities, and feats are more interchangable, but classes are vastly less so - because 3E multiclassing was simply too hard to balance. Admittedly, hybrid-classing may change this.


Which is part of the idea. The basics of character creation were made to be idiotproof so newbies could get into the system, but the complexities exist at another level. The system is a bit like Chess or Super Smash Bros in that respect...
My point is, it would be simpler for new players for there to be a simpler character play option.

I think this is an excellent example of the interaction of the system's design priorities - the result in 4th edition just happens to have arrived at a balanced result without much compromise of another principle (it could be simpler and more accessible, but not too much), but if that compromise does not exist, balance triumphs unilaterally, as I talk about in a bit.


Things like that have been around since before 3.X, and are hardly an example of balance overriding that goal, but more as a general failure of its developers to keep it simple enough for new people.
While I agree that either way, it's poorly executed, I see nothing indicating it is not a triumph of the system's basic functionality - balance - over simplicity, and that it is intentional.

One may think it would be hard to determine where simplicity falls in the design intent of 4th edition because that simplicity is so inconsistent, but I think it's indicative instead of a simpler scenario - in some areas, the simplicity of the design is simply overrun entirely by more important design concerns - in this case, game balance. Where it is overrun, the game cedes simplicity to balance. Otherwise, the game remains simple because it's one of the other high-priority design concerns of the game.


That one I'll grant, because I dislike how overzealous WotC is in not handing out PC flight in 4e. The Exalted Angel Epic Destiny in Divine Power is barely a step in the right direction.
Really, versimilitude in general is prioritized lower than balance. That's probably the most controversial aspect of the system.

Mando Knight
2009-10-08, 03:21 PM
I disagree. You argue that the modularity demonstrated by multiclassing is manifested in feats - I think this demonstrates the modularity of feats, but not of classes.

Classes are not modular in that sense. Compared with 3E, races, class abilities, and feats are more interchangable, but classes are vastly less so - because 3E multiclassing was simply too hard to balance. Admittedly, hybrid-classing may change this.
Powers and feats are modular on the character level (individual character power and feat sets). Classes in 4e are mostly modular on the campaign level, where the success of a party against specific challenges does not (usually) ride on having a particular character in the group. Paladins or Swordmages can sub in for a Fighter in a pinch, as could a Ranger or Sorcerer for a Rogue, or a Druid or Psion for a Wizard. Slightly less so a Fighter for a Rogue, or a Paladin for a Cleric, but the possibility is still there.

My point is, it would be simpler for new players for there to be a simpler character play option.
Right. And what option do you want to forbid experienced players from honestly choosing?

While I agree that either way, it's poorly executed, I see nothing indicating it is not a triumph of the system's basic functionality - balance - over simplicity, and that it is intentional.
In the same way that a box of Cheerios is a triumph of steel over cardboard. The "fiddly bits" aren't there because of balance, it's to appease the "hardcore" gamer's desire for "complexity."

TheDreadedThrag
2009-10-08, 03:48 PM
That is more than true in reverse. Every edition has its proponents, and many of them are utterly convinced that their one chosen version is superior to the others (which will often be subjectively true). Nothing to with whether such folks are "die-hards" or not.

here here!

Mando Knight
2009-10-08, 03:56 PM
That is more than true in reverse. Every edition has its proponents, and many of them are utterly convinced that their one chosen version is superior to the others (which will often be subjectively true). Nothing to with whether such folks are "die-hards" or not.

While true (except if you're a proponent of Windows 3.1 :smalltongue:), I was mostly referring to the people who complain "Edition N isn't Edition N-1, so N is utterly worthless and unusable. See all of the flaws it has (that we prefer to forget that N-1 had early in its product life, too)?"

Athan Allgood
2009-10-08, 05:42 PM
Wow, this thread totally stopped being about whether 4th is video-gamish and started to just be about whether people like it as much as a different system, didn't it?

Bottom line (IMO): A P&P RPG, no matter how simple/ complex/ strict/ or loose the system will always, by definition, allow more options, flexibility and possibilities than a video game will.

If your DM runs a very linear, railroading campaign, it might feel like something from Warcraft, but that is a flaw in the DM, not the system.

You will recognize terms and abilities in 4E as being similar to some of those found in MMOs, but the gameplay itself is whatever you and your GM/group make it.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-08, 05:45 PM
Wow, this thread totally stopped being about whether 4th is video-gamish and started to just be about whether people like it as much as a different system, didn't it?

Bottom line (IMO): A P&P RPG, no matter how simple/ complex/ strict/ or loose the system will always, by definition, allow more options, flexibility and possibilities than a video game will.

If your DM runs a very linear, railroading campaign, it might feel like something from Warcraft, but that is a flaw in the DM, not the system.

You will recognize terms and abilities in 4E as being similar to some of those found in MMOs, but the gameplay itself is whatever you and your GM/group make it.
My friend, this was practically drawn to be another battlefield in the ongoing Edition Warz.

I still say we need a stickied thread for this sort of thing, but I can understand not wanting to keep 300 pages of vitriol at the top of the forum :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2009-10-08, 05:54 PM
Just like vista not allowing a lot of drivers to actually run and work on my computer, 4e really watered down the classes, feats, AND ESPECIALLY THE SKILLS to the core rulebooks
I like the Vista analogy.


You can get a "basic" version (PHB) or an "enterprise" version (PHB+DMG+MM).
Their marketing says that you have to be insane to use previous versions of the same, but many people do so anyway.
It's heavily pirated, and the owner company tries to combat piracy in impopular ways.
Although in the past most people didn't know of alternatives beyond various versions of this system, there are a number of third-party alternatives that are gaining in market recognition.
There's not nearly as much third-party support as in the previous version.
Many things are not allowed unless you have the specific rights to do them.
If you try something unexpected, the entire system may break down.
It is intended by the company that makes it to be replaced in a few years.


Anything else? Paperclips maybe?

amaranth69
2009-10-08, 06:22 PM
To me 4th edition feels video-gamey, specifically like final fantasy tactics. I really enjoy playing 4th edition though. I am beginning to enjoy the return to simplicity, and would like to surmise that this is why they brought it out as Dungeons and Dragons, 4th edition, not ADVANCED dungeons and dragons 4th ed.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-08, 06:26 PM
If your DM runs a very linear, railroading campaign, it might feel like something from Warcraft, but that is a flaw in the DM, not the system.

You will recognize terms and abilities in 4E as being similar to some of those found in MMOs, but the gameplay itself is whatever you and your GM/group make it.

It's not fair to blame the DM for everything...yes, a bad DM can ruin a campaign, but systems can still have good and bad attributes.

Yes, the DM can house rule bad attributes away, but that says very little about the quality of the system itself.

Not to mention, plenty of attributes consist of tradeoffs. Greater number of options tends to result in greater complexity, for example. It's not surprising that shifting significantly along one or more tradeoff axis' will annoy plenty of people.

Athan Allgood
2009-10-08, 06:48 PM
It's not fair to blame the DM for everything...yes, a bad DM can ruin a campaign, but systems can still have good and bad attributes.

... okay...

... but thats not what this thread, nor my post, is about.

Original poster asked whether anyone else thought that 4E felt video-gamey. I am saying, no, it feels like a P&P RPG (because it is), that can be MADE to feel video-gamey by a bad DM.

For the record, you've made yourself quite clear, you don't like the system, you think other systems are better, great. Nobody is telling you to like it, play whatever you want. It feels like you are trying to convince those that do like it that we are somehow wrong for doing so, however, which I cant agree with.

Indon
2009-10-08, 06:57 PM
Powers and feats are modular on the character level (individual character power and feat sets). Classes in 4e are mostly modular on the campaign level, where the success of a party against specific challenges does not (usually) ride on having a particular character in the group. Paladins or Swordmages can sub in for a Fighter in a pinch, as could a Ranger or Sorcerer for a Rogue, or a Druid or Psion for a Wizard. Slightly less so a Fighter for a Rogue, or a Paladin for a Cleric, but the possibility is still there.
Modularity is about interchangability of components, not replacability of the whole.

Class dictates power usage, so interchanging class necessitates interchanging all powers. That's an example of a dependency which precludes modularity, even on a campaign level.

But I will agree that thanks to the role system, classes are largely replacable.


Right. And what option do you want to forbid experienced players from honestly choosing?
I'm an experienced 3.5 player and I still play the Fighter sometimes.

Being experienced does not by any means imply that someone automatically wants to play a character who tracks their abilities with a deck of cards.


In the same way that a box of Cheerios is a triumph of steel over cardboard. The "fiddly bits" aren't there because of balance, it's to appease the "hardcore" gamer's desire for "complexity."

But Cheerios (or the box) aren't made out of steel, and meanwhile 4th edition is balanced because of a series of interacting formulae that provide minor bonuses at any given point in the system - that's basically the metasystem that makes CR work.

Your analogy would only be applicable if, in fact, cheerios boxes (or the cereal itself) were constructed out of steel.

Edit: Also, why would Wizards try to make the game both simple to play (for build options) and intricate (tactical game) for all players/characters?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-08, 07:16 PM
Edit: Also, why would Wizards try to make the game both simple to play (for build options) and intricate (tactical game) for all players/characters?
To appeal to a wider audience, perhaps?

I mean, in order to gain Rules Mastery for builds, you need to master the books - all of them. Tactics are something that you can either learn through practice or common sense - and the base rules for combat don't change.

So what you have is easy entry for Players with a character creation process that requires little to no Rules Mastery. Once they're playing, they get to work on their tactical abilities - through trial and error, if need be.

And it's not like all classes are of the same level complexity. Clerics are probably the most straightforward class - there are no marks and such to keep track of - but a Druid or Warlock requires a bit more study to understand. And for the Rules Mastery types, CharOp shows that there are plenty of nice rules (like an Avenger's Oath) that can be exploited (the Crit Fisher).

So there's a little bit for everybody. Well, maybe not everybody :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2009-10-08, 07:35 PM
... okay...

... but thats not what this thread, nor my post, is about.

Original poster asked whether anyone else thought that 4E felt video-gamey. I am saying, no, it feels like a P&P RPG (because it is), that can be MADE to feel video-gamey by a bad DM.

For the record, you've made yourself quite clear, you don't like the system, you think other systems are better, great. Nobody is telling you to like it, play whatever you want. It feels like you are trying to convince those that do like it that we are somehow wrong for doing so, however, which I cant agree with.

Well, it felt as if you were blaming "video-gamey" games on the DM, and thus, letting the system off the hook. Regardless of how you feel about a given system, certainly it'd be reasonable to say that some systems might feel more like a video game than others, and thus, bringing DMs into this might not be accurate.

I'm not trying to state that a system is better. I'm merely arguing about what attributes 4e has. Some people may love those attributes, others will no doubt hate them. I think describing systems purely as better or worse can't help but be terribly inaccurate.

Ehra
2009-10-08, 08:56 PM
Using the "useless feats" thread as inspiration; saying you can't throw sand in someone's eye as an improvised attack because rogues have "throw sand" as a power is like saying a 3.5 character can't find clues at a crime scene using their spot check because they didn't take the Investigate feat, or that they can only read a book if they have the Research feat.

An improvised attack is just that, it includes throwing sand in someone's face. Just because a rogue can throw sand better than anyone else doesn't mean everyone else magically loses the ability to do it.

I really can't believe some people feel so much loyalty to a game that they can stand by such horrible logic if it makes some other game look bad.

Thajocoth
2009-10-08, 09:40 PM
My friend, this was practically drawn to be another battlefield in the ongoing Edition Warz.

I still say we need a stickied thread for this sort of thing, but I can understand not wanting to keep 300 pages of vitriol at the top of the forum :smalltongue:

Honestly, I'm surprised that Edition War isn't a banned topic. I, personally, wouldn't ban any topics on a message board, but with the rules trend the way it is... It's a topic that's at least as flammable as any of the topics that have been banned.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-09, 02:53 AM
Honestly, I'm surprised that Edition War isn't a banned topic. I, personally, wouldn't ban any topics on a message board, but with the rules trend the way it is... It's a topic that's at least as flammable as any of the topics that have been banned.

Edition war is a BANNING topic. If you are not polite, you are banned soon.

Nevertheless, if people remain polite and ironic, can be even pleasant to talk about it.


To me 4th edition feels video-gamey, specifically like final fantasy tactics. I really enjoy playing 4th edition though. I am beginning to enjoy the return to simplicity, and would like to surmise that this is why they brought it out as Dungeons and Dragons, 4th edition, not ADVANCED dungeons and dragons 4th ed.

This is a very interesting position - generally are detractors like me that say "I don't like because, among other things, is videogamey". Interesting - could you please say more?


Wow, this thread totally stopped being about whether 4th is video-gamish and started to just be about whether people like it as much as a different system, didn't it?


You are right, but not at all. A lot of the things we said are part of the "videogamey feeling". See my post of the thread about epic PC less cool, less world shattering.

This makes me feel the 4th edition 30th level PCs that kill orcus like the endgame WOW PC that can kill Illidan, at level 70, in The Burning Crusade.

They kill high level boss, but they do the same thing they did in previous levels. Continuing the Wow analogy, 3.x Epic PC seem more like Illiidan Stormrage himself. Illidan could be world-breaking and maybe Game-breaking (ZOMG NERF SKULL OF GUL'DAN I'TS OP) but is way more cool.

The New Bruceski
2009-10-09, 03:51 AM
Honestly, I'm surprised that Edition War isn't a banned topic. I, personally, wouldn't ban any topics on a message board, but with the rules trend the way it is... It's a topic that's at least as flammable as any of the topics that have been banned.

I think one reason is that if you ban the topic, where do you draw the line? At saying a system's changes are good/bad? At stating the changes in the first place? If people get into a big tussle, bannings tend to come out of it, but otherwise "edition war" can be subjective enough to cause issue.

Indon
2009-10-09, 07:52 AM
I think one reason is that if you ban the topic, where do you draw the line? At saying a system's changes are good/bad? At stating the changes in the first place? If people get into a big tussle, bannings tend to come out of it, but otherwise "edition war" can be subjective enough to cause issue.

I think the line is drawn somewhere around constructive discussion. This topic has it. If at some point in the future it ceases to have it, the topic is likely to be locked.

The fact that 4th edition is controversial does not preclude us from talking about it, or even comparing it to previous editions, so long as we do so civilly and don't go around in circles about it.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-09, 08:23 AM
I think one reason is that if you ban the topic, where do you draw the line?
One forum that I know of uses tags in the thread title that indicate if the thread is about a certain game or edition, and whether it's positive or negative about that. For instance, "things you love about 4E [4+]" or "things you hate about 4E [4-]" would be two different threads and keeps rebuttals out of both. But that doesn't strike me as workable.

But yeah, hang out on the WOTC forums for a week and you'll likely agree with me that the GITP forums are much more pleasant to hang out at. Essentially, it's the difference between people shouting that someone's argument is stupid, or people shouting that someone in person is stupid.

Anyway.

I agree with Oracle that WOTC is trying to cater to as wide an audience as possible (which makes sense from a business point of view). I don't think statistics are available to point out whether they're succeeding at this.

Yakk
2009-10-09, 09:39 AM
If it's too limiting for you feat-wise, a possible houserule is to give the power swap feats for free...
And before someone goes all Ooo, note that the ease of the houserule matters.

Because feats are modular bits of rules, saying "you get feat X for free" allows modular changing of rules and characters.

Flight.
Flight is pushed back to Paragon and Epic so that entire categories of adventure can occur in Heroic that would be negated by Flight (and similar things) of any distance.

You can still tell those stories with 4e D&D -- you just have to tell them at Paragon/Epic.

Is this a balance issue? I guess sort of, if you define balance that broadly.

I'd rather think it is about not vetoing player powers once they have them. Telling a story about climbing a huge tower is a different story if players are flying; sure, you could add a wind that makes flying impossible, but that kind of veto is discouraged in 4e.

So they just veto flying (beyond for a single round) in Heroic, limit it in Paragon (esp. early Paragon), and open it up in Epic.

There really isn't much point discussing the merits of unreleased systems. Even worse, unreleased systems with house rules.
Beta hybrid rules have been released for months now on DDI and via a Dragon magazine article. I've played a Hybrid in a game already.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-09, 11:49 AM
Beta hybrid rules have been released for months now on DDI and via a Dragon magazine article. I've played a Hybrid in a game already.
Say, how are the Hybrids? From the preview, they seemed really easy to break (2nd Level Rogue/Warlock, I'm looking at you :smalltongue:).

Tyndmyr
2009-10-09, 12:03 PM
Honestly, I'm surprised that Edition War isn't a banned topic. I, personally, wouldn't ban any topics on a message board, but with the rules trend the way it is... It's a topic that's at least as flammable as any of the topics that have been banned.

Edition comparison is all well and good, but if any topic involves a "war", it's probably not going to go well.

Arguing over the feel or features of 4e is all well and good, but if we got into "4th edition is bad. Those who play it are bad, and they should feel bad, too" type area, I imagine smiting would eventually follow.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-09, 12:10 PM
Say, how are the Hybrids? From the preview, they seemed really easy to break (2nd Level Rogue/Warlock, I'm looking at you :smalltongue:).

There's a second preview that disallows several combos from the first preview. For instance, sneak attack only works on rogue powers, just like fighter marking only works on fighter powers.

Indon
2009-10-09, 01:50 PM
Flight is pushed back to Paragon and Epic so that entire categories of adventure can occur in Heroic that would be negated by Flight (and similar things) of any distance.

You can still tell those stories with 4e D&D -- you just have to tell them at Paragon/Epic.
When I mentioned flight, what I was thinking of was The Dark Crystal, which is most definitely not an adventure undertaken by Paragon or Epic characters. 4E can't model a Gelfling accurately, because of balance concerns. Sure, you could add a Paragon or Epic racial feat that allows that feature, but that's nonetheless a sacrifice for the sake of mechanical balance.

Woefully, thanks to features like Warforged and Eternal Wands, Wizards is unlikely to release significant changes from their formula in even supplimentary material, since that material still gets sucked into internet discussion of the game and gains the expectation that it should be used everywhere.

Aron Times
2009-10-09, 02:01 PM
Probably already mentioned before...

One thing to keep in mind if you don't want to break immersion is to not take the game literally. 4E uses a lot of abstraction. The powers your character has are not the only things your character can do; they are simply the things that he can do exceptionally well.

If you want to use unorthodox techniques, i.e. improvised powers, you can use page 42 as a guideline. As a rule, improvised powers are strictly worse than preexisting powers but might be useful in very specific circumstances.