PDA

View Full Version : Getting used to 4th edition?



Melamoto
2010-02-07, 12:47 PM
Well, my friend's group is playing 4th edition, and I want to join in, so I've been taking a more in depth look at the rules. And I'm really trying to not burn it with fire. The problem is this:

The rules are, as far as I can tell, overly restrictive on what you can and can't do. I can't play a Rogue without being unable to use any of my powers, should I have the audacity to wield anything other than a "Crossbow, Light Blade, or Sling". How about putting different ranks in a number of different skills? That's old talk. We have both kinds of skills in 4th: Trained, and Untrained. And god forbid you might want to wield 2-handers effectively as a halfling.

I don't want to start a full-out edition war, I really don't. What I do want to know is:

Are these restrictions I'm saying real in actual gameplay?
If so, then why are things this way? Why can't you make character concepts that WotC didn't plan for?

Otodetu
2010-02-07, 12:48 PM
This is edition war in it's purest form you know.

Swordgleam
2010-02-07, 12:50 PM
The skills thing bothered me at first. I got over it. To my preference, Iron Heroes has the best skill system, and anything else (including normal 3.5) is simply a compromise. 4e's compromise now bothers me no more than any other.

Off the top of my head, I think small races can wield 2-handers, they just have to use versatile weapons as a 2h. So no halflings with a bastard sword and board.

There's plenty of feats that get around the (admittedly kind of stupid) rogue thing. There's one in Martial Power that lets you play a dwarf rogue who can sneak attack with axes, for example.

Give 4e a chance. I thought it was stupid at first, too. Now I love it. You just have to actually play it.



If so, then why are things this way? Why can't you make character concepts that WotC didn't plan for?

That's just plain silly. This is probably the most flexible edition ever in terms of character concepts.

nepphi
2010-02-07, 12:58 PM
Check out the Rogue's Handbook thread on the Wizards CharOp boards. It explains some of the better ways to get around at least a few of the initial class restrictions on rogues, all within RAW. The sheer volume of material posted in issues of Dragon, the Power books, and other sources change the nature of the game pretty extensively. Even if you don't twink out and over-optimize your character, you can still find some features that address the worst worries.

As for the skill system, it isn't as bad as you think. Remember that every skill gains a bonus of 1/2 your character level as you go up, and you can use a number of feats to boost those further (skill training feat for a skill outside your class list, skill focus for better talent in a trained skill, jack of all trades for a minor but wide-reaching boost...). Since the skill list is so small, and each skill is focused on those tasks related to the adventure you're likely to be having, you really don't have anyone who ends up being -useless- at skills.

As for the halfling issue...there's not much that can be said there. In 3e, it was the 'small weapons' rule, now it's one size of weapons all around and halflings just kind of have to make do. In practice it doesn't really cause problems for halfling rogues (for example), because many of the best rogue powers are dagger-based, as is the (arguably) most powerful Paragon Path, so...

tl;dr version (I do go on, don't I?)

Yes, the restrictions do feel cumbersome at first. However there are many options for getting around them as you grow, and being able to make a successful character who does so is really rewarding, and the edition is definitely worth your time to get to know.

bosssmiley
2010-02-07, 12:59 PM
This is edition war in it's purest form you know.

No, it isn't. It's asking for an explanation of the design choices that inform 4E.

Simple answer: 4E is designed the way it is to model a particular sub-genre of modern fantasy (in this instance the assumed world is a "WOTC D&D fantasy" setting). The character options presented in the books help you to model this type of play, and limit non-genre-appropriate choices.

WOTC had tried offering a la carte character creation in the previous edition, and got the horrors of Char Op for their trouble. Because the assumed world of D&D wasn't sufficiently explained (or simply from edge case-poking devilment) we got Pun Pun, the Wish and the Word, the Tippyverse, etc. :smallamused:

If you want to model a different type of play in 4E (be it the pulp fantasy of OD&D, the medieval fantasy of 1E, the kitchen sink fantasy of 3E) then just change what doesn't fit for you. The Gaming Stasi won't kick in your door. :smallwink:

-----

The halflings can't wield 2-handers thing? That's just restoring the status quo ante after the outbreak of wild mad gas huffing that led to 3E's weapon size rules. 'obbits just aren't big enough or heavy enough to swing man-sized halberds, pikes or tetsubo. Sorry.

oxybe
2010-02-07, 01:06 PM
Well, my friend's group is playing 4th edition, and I want to join in, so I've been taking a more in depth look at the rules. And I'm really trying to not burn it with fire. The problem is this:

The rules are, as far as I can tell, overly restrictive on what you can and can't do. I can't play a Rogue without being unable to use any of my powers, should I have the audacity to wield anything other than a "Crossbow, Light Blade, or Sling". How about putting different ranks in a number of different skills? That's old talk. We have both kinds of skills in 4th: Trained, and Untrained. And god forbid you might want to wield 2-handers effectively as a halfling.

I don't want to start a full-out edition war, I really don't. What I do want to know is:

Are these restrictions I'm saying real in actual gameplay?
If so, then why are things this way? Why can't you make character concepts that WotC didn't plan for?

concept first, then mechanics, is the best way to approach character creation. what kind of character are you envisioning that requires you to be a rogue with a large heavy object? in combat, the rogue archetype is one of a light armored, light weapon combatant. if you want a light armor, heavy weapon, you may want to look at the barbarian, avenger, ranger, some fighter types, or whatnot. find your concept and then the class that fits it best.

"rogue with greataxe" is not a character concept but a mechanical concept made to go against the system.

as for the skills, i'm personally glad they got rid of skills ranks. in 4th ed you actually have 3 basic degrees of training: untrained, trained, (skill) focused. then you have stats, feats, racial bonuses, item bonuses, ect... that all help to give a bigger tweaking to the numbers. a high dex rogue with the stealth boosting boots will still be the better sneak then the full plate paladin.

as for small characters with big weapons, i believe there was an errata that allows small characters to treat one-handed versatile weapons as a 2-hander or something. i'm generally not a small-race user.

honestly, the "restrictions" don't show up unless you're actively trying to go against the system. a class in 4th ed is not the same as a class in 3rd. a 4th ed class is a grouping of thematic archetypes that you can reflavor if needed to better fit your character.

in 3rd ed classes are generally more of a nebulous thing due to the way multiclassing works so it can't normally be just a simple archetype, but it loses out on focus IMO.

Artanis
2010-02-07, 01:13 PM
Well, my friend's group is playing 4th edition, and I want to join in, so I've been taking a more in depth look at the rules. And I'm really trying to not burn it with fire. The problem is this:

The rules are, as far as I can tell, overly restrictive on what you can and can't do. I can't play a Rogue without being unable to use any of my powers, should I have the audacity to wield anything other than a "Crossbow, Light Blade, or Sling". How about putting different ranks in a number of different skills? That's old talk. We have both kinds of skills in 4th: Trained, and Untrained. And god forbid you might want to wield 2-handers effectively as a halfling.

I don't want to start a full-out edition war, I really don't. What I do want to know is:

Are these restrictions I'm saying real in actual gameplay?
If so, then why are things this way? Why can't you make character concepts that WotC didn't plan for?
The restrictions aren't really real in actual gameplay.

What is it about the Rogue that makes you want to play it?

Fluff is mutable. The name of the class you're playing only affects your character concept if you really, really want it to. If you want to play a sneaky stabby guy who uses something other than "Rogue weapons", then use some other class's mechanics and fluff the character as a sneaky stabby guy anyways.


As for skills, how often in 3e did it really and truly matter whether you shifted around a couple points? Generally, there'd be two types of skills: ones you maxed out and used, and ones you didn't max out and never used. In 4e, a CHA-heavy character trained in Diplomacy is going to be the Official Party Face just as much as a CHA-heavy 3e character with maxed-out Diplomacy would. In 3e, the Wizard wasn't going to be busting down any doors even if he put a few points into the relevant skill because the Barbarian was going to be doing so anyways, and the exact same thing is the case in 4e.

In short, 4e's skill system works out being pretty much the same in gameplay as 3e's skill system, with the sole difference being that the Wizard knows how not to drown in 5' of water and the Barbarian picks up the answer to an occasional Trivial Pursuit question due to spending time around said Wizard.


As for Halflings and 2H weapons: like nepphi said, it's the same as 3e in practice. Halflings wield smaller weapons two-handed than Medium-size characters wield two-handed.




Edit: basically, what that dirty, dirty ninja said just moments after I started writing my post :smallredface:

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 01:17 PM
Doesn't it strike anybody as ironic that it's easier to say that you're a rogue that dual-wields full-length swords by playing a Ranger than actually picking up Rogue?

Or for that matter, that it's easier to be a ninja in 3e by being a Rogue with levels in Warlock/Assassin/Shadowdancer/etcetera than actually taking the Ninja class?

There's something obviously screwy about the class-based game mechanic here.

I can understand that it wouldn't matter if the game was less about optimizing the character and just playing the game. But as it is, it seems like 3e and 4e make a game of the customization as well.

My biggest complaint with 4e, however, is that the rituals suck and don't seem very exciting.

Saph
2010-02-07, 01:20 PM
Are these restrictions I'm saying real in actual gameplay?

To an extent. You can still do things in a way that goes against type, you'll just be less effective.


If so, then why are things this way? Why can't you make character concepts that WotC didn't plan for?

4e is designed to be a more restrictive system than 3.5. You can describe a character any way you like, but you have to accept that mechanically, your set of choices is limited. The plus side to this is that it's more balanced and easier to learn; the price you pay for it is fewer options. It's a tradeoff.

Swordgleam
2010-02-07, 01:20 PM
Doesn't it strike anybody as ironic that it's easier to say that you're a rogue that dual-wields full-length swords by playing a Ranger than actually picking up Rogue?


That depends on your personal concept of "rogue." If you think a duel-wielding swashbuckler best epitomizes a rogue, then yeah, 4e's rogue is a little off. If you think a rogue is about clever battlefield positioning, sneak attacks, disarming traps, and fast-talking, then 4e's rogue is perfect.



My biggest complaint with 4e, however, is that rituals suck and don't seem very exciting.

Check out Goodman Games' "Azagar's Book of Rituals." Over 300 pretty awesome rituals.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 01:26 PM
Well here's the main complaint about rituals:

You have to play money and 10 minutes to pick a lock that the Rogue could do for free and at a fraction of the same time. You'd have better luck just trying to pick that lock yourself. Or for that matter, just blasting down the door (at-will powers).

Nor can you do big exciting things that influence the game world but wouldn't necessarily have a lot to do with direct combat. Divination is a good example of this, except that these Rituals tend to be hellishly restrictive and/or expensive.

Other good concepts would include things like carving out a tower from the rock face of a mountain. Immortality. Gate. Wish.

You know, big and important stuff that introduces roleplaying opportunities or makes life convenient but doesn't directly influence combat power.

Artanis
2010-02-07, 01:30 PM
Well here's the main complaint about rituals:

You have to play money and 10 minutes to pick a lock that the Rogue could do for free and at a fraction of the same time. You'd have better luck just trying to pick that lock yourself. Or for that matter, just blasting down the door (at-will powers).

Nor can you do big exciting things that influence the game world but wouldn't necessarily have a lot to do with direct combat. Divination is a good example of this: Except that these spells tend to be hellishly restrictive and/or expensive.

Other good concepts would include things like carving out a tower from the rock face of a mountain. Immortality. Gate and Wish would also work, if their entries were worded properly.

You know, big and important stuff that introduces roleplaying opportunities but doesn't directly influence combat power.

That's pretty much everybody's complaint about rituals: they make you pay for the privilege of using something that sucks.


I wouldn't want them to put in a Gate- or Wish-type ritual. At all. Ever. It would be pretty much impossible to balance between being brokenly powerful and too limited to be even remotely worthwhile.


Also, Epic Destinies already provide immortality.

PallElendro
2010-02-07, 01:32 PM
I love 4e. You don't have prepare spells! the only downfall is that small creatures can't use 2hs, and versatiles are 2h to the, no more damage, but at least people can reach level 30, +6 items, and more magic items than you can put in a Handy Haversack, not just a Bag of Holding.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 01:33 PM
I wouldn't want them to put in a Gate- or Wish-type ritual. At all. Ever. It would be pretty much impossible to balance between being brokenly powerful and too limited to be even remotely worthwhile.
I disagree. I think they're doable.

Gate would be restricted to DM-made NPC's who you have to know the "true name" of. Also, this thing is more inclined to eat you. And it probably won't fight on your behalf. You can't make it do anything that it doesn't want to, so bargaining would be required. Eliminate the convenience of summoning lower level minions and it's workable.

Wish is the same. Except the DM has free license to try and twist or abuse the wish. If it's really a sore point, introduce hard restrictions of what the Wish cannot do (e.g. give players permanent bonuses to stats, wealth must always be earned by another quest, etcetera). And above all else, the DM is allowed to Rule 0 the hell out of the ritual.

Geas is a definite must though. Because being cursed or punished by a wizard to undertake a quest is classic. And in most cases, it's unlikely that a PC will pull it off on a character they haven't already defeated in combat yet. NPC's could easily force it on PC's.

flyingchicken
2010-02-07, 01:35 PM
If you feel that your character concept is so original and unique that not even changing the fluff of the pre-existing (and I should add constantly updated and playtested) mechanical classes won't cut it, maybe you have a legitimate concern. The mechanics are there to keep actual playing fun and fair, the fluff is there for roleplaying and flavor.

oxybe
2010-02-07, 01:44 PM
i think the problem people have with rituals is that they're not the "instant speed i win" buttons magic used to be.

the knock ritual is for when your rogue isn't around and you don't want to "BANG KLANG CLUNK BOOM CRASH" your way through a door. mostly because the noise will alert enemies. and 10 minutes really isn't that long, 2 short rests.

true, they're not the old 6-second problem solver, but they're not supposed to be.

some could have been made less lenghty, but magic is no longer the be-all-end-all in 4th ed. it's a new paradigm.

Thrawn183
2010-02-07, 01:48 PM
Yeah, the real key is that "class" means different things in 3rd and 4th editions. A ranger in 3.5 means something, it's a guy with an animal companion and some limited nature based spell casting. At a certain point, it actually starts to determine the fluff of your character.

4th edition is different. Instead of asking "What class are you playing?" and then defining it by that, it instead asks "What do you want your character to do?" and then finds a class that gets as close to that as possible.

In other words, in 3.5 I play a rogue, who happens to be a halfling that wields giant swords (not that that matters much in the long run other than making you spend way too many feats on TWF and OTWF), in 4e I play a quick and fast dual wielder. Oh hey, that happens to be a ranger.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 01:49 PM
the knock ritual is for when your rogue isn't around and you don't want to "BANG KLANG CLUNK BOOM CRASH" your way through a door. mostly because the noise will alert enemies. and 10 minutes really isn't that long, 2 short rests.
Standing around for 10-minutes to gab at a door isn't exactly much better than blasting it off its hinges.

You could reduce the casting time to 3-rounds and now it's a much better ritual. It still costs money for the privilege of opening the door as it is and it won't replace your Rogue any time soon.

Plus the whole thing is a bit absurd. I can open doors. Just so long as I can spend money and rest in between.

Wait . . . that's impressive? Hey, the Rogue can pick the doors and make it look like magic. And he can do it all day. Wow.


true, they're not the old 6-second problem solver, but they're not supposed to be.

some could have been made less lenghty, but magic is no longer the be-all-end-all in 4th ed. it's a new paradigm.
The problem is that magic is supposed to be dangerous. People are supposed to fear it. Somehow, that it's just a grab-bag of convenient parlor tricks really does a lot to neuter the whole point of it in the setting.

Which is why I feel WOTC struck-out on rituals, because wizards can still be dangerous on a level that doesn't involve the directly attacking you. The whole, "subtle and quick to anger" bit but with more of the subtlety.

Swordgleam
2010-02-07, 01:50 PM
You have to play money and 10 minutes to pick a lock that the Rogue could do for free and at a fraction of the same time.

That's the point. 4e is big on niche protection. If the wizard can get through a locked door as well as a rogue can, why bother being a rogue? Knock is to keep you from being totally helpless when you don't have a rogue.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 01:54 PM
That's the point. 4e is big on niche protection. If the wizard can get through a locked door as well as a rogue can, why bother being a rogue? Knock is to keep you from being totally helpless when you don't have a rogue.
I just pointed out that you could do the same thing and reduce the casting time to 3-rounds and still have "niche protection."

Frankly, this is over-kill, because the 10-minute thing makes a lot of these Rituals outright useless. Few of them are interesting or unique things that "Only The Wizard Can Do." Instead, it's more of a case of "me too."

The few things that he can only do are just silly metagame things like being the magic item merchant or convenient travel for fast-forwarding plot or getting your character back. If they aren't those things (e.g. divination), then they're hideously expensive or restrictive to the point of being useless anyway.

Again, WOTC could have opted to take the "big important and impressive stuff but useless for small stuff" route but didn't. The end result is that they traded off too much of the appeal and romance of magic for the balance.

Swordgleam
2010-02-07, 01:58 PM
Frankly, this is over-kill, because the 10-minute thing makes a lot of these Rituals outright useless. Few of them are interesting or unique things that "Only The Wizard Can Do." Instead, it's more of a case of "me too."

How many of the 10 minute rituals are weaker duplications of things other classes can do? I'm honestly curious what you're thinking of. Knock is the only one that comes to mind for me. Plenty of them, like Tenser's Floating Disk, are useful minor things.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 01:59 PM
How many of the 10 minute rituals are weaker duplications of things other classes can do? I'm honestly curious what you're thinking of. Knock is the only one that comes to mind for me. Plenty of them, like Tenser's Floating Disk, are useful minor things.
Hire a porter.

Bags of holding.

Swordgleam
2010-02-07, 02:03 PM
Hire a porter.

Bags of holding.

You're just not being creative enough. :smallbiggrin: You know what stat wizards have a decent amount of in 4e? Dex. Cast Tenser's Floating Disk, have the low-dex plate-clad pally get on the disk, and let the wizard walk across the precarious catwalk. Can a porter do that?

Anonymouswizard
2010-02-07, 02:06 PM
Hire a porter.

Bags of holding.

Hire a games designer.

I think some people here would jump at the chance.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 02:07 PM
You're just not being creative enough. :smallbiggrin: You know what stat wizards have a decent amount of in 4e? Dex. Cast Tenser's Floating Disk, have the low-dex plate-clad pally get on the disk, and let the wizard walk across the precarious catwalk. Can a porter do that?

Ropes as a life-line. Have the party rogue tie it off on the other end.

If it's precarious already, then having the clanking party tank balance on top of a flying disk doesn't really change matters.

Artanis
2010-02-07, 02:13 PM
I disagree. I think they're doable.

Gate would be restricted to DM-made NPC's who you have to know the "true name" of. Also, this thing is more inclined to eat you. And it probably won't fight on your behalf. You can't make it do anything that it doesn't want to, so bargaining would be required. Eliminate the convenience of summoning lower level minions and it's workable.

Wish is the same. Except the DM has free license to try and twist or abuse the wish. If it's really a sore point, introduce hard restrictions of what the Wish cannot do (e.g. give players permanent bonuses to stats, wealth must always be earned by another quest, etcetera). And above all else, the DM is allowed to Rule 0 the hell out of the ritual.

Geas is a definite must though. Because being cursed or punished by a wizard to undertake a quest is classic. And in most cases, it's unlikely that a PC will pull it off on a character they haven't already defeated in combat yet. NPC's could easily force it on PC's.

GATE:

You can already do this through a combination of existing rituals, existing powers, the NPC cohort rules, and good ol' RP


WISH:

*looks up Wish in the SRD*

Almost everything on that list either A) simply doesn't work with 4e's mechanics; B) is something that 4e went to great lengths to get rid of; or C) can already be done by existing rituals and whatnot anyways. So Wish just wouldn't work.


GEAS:

Using Geas on a PC was little more than forcibly giving them a quest. If you really really want an actual, ink-on-paper ability to point to as "motivation" the way 3e's Geas spell was, there's nothing keeping the DM from giving an NPC the ability to put such a curse on the PCs.

So the only thing a Geas ritual would do is let PCs force other people to do things. If you want the PCs to be able to enslave NPCs, well, I guess you really do have something that (AFAIK) 4e doesn't have an answer for.

flyingchicken
2010-02-07, 02:15 PM
Hire a porter.

Bags of holding.For someone who says WotC traded "the appeal and romance of magic for the balance" you're being quite unromantic.

But anyway, hey, why buy an iPod when a Sony Discman can practically do the same thing at the fraction of the cost right?

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 02:17 PM
For someone who says WotC traded "the appeal and romance of magic for the balance" you're being quite unromantic.

But anyway, hey, why buy an iPod when a Sony Discman can practically do the same thing at the fraction of the cost right?
I fail to see your point.

Tenser's Disc has no point. The way it's defined, it's not even very versatile so you can't get creative with it.

Magic lets you do the equivalent of swishing water in your mouth and spitting it back out and makes you pay for he privilege.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 02:24 PM
GATE:

You can already do this through a combination of existing rituals, existing powers, the NPC cohort rules, and good ol' RP
I'd rather see rituals as a chance for PC's to initiate RP on their own terms. Which is to say, they can alter the game world in their favor. Because that feels rewarding.

Being a glorified second-string to the Rogue is less-so.

In short, it's an excuse for the PC to establish an option of establishing a powerful (but optional) contact, even if the DM's plot doesn't normally allow for it.



WISH:

*looks up Wish in the SRD*

Almost everything on that list either A) simply doesn't work with 4e's mechanics; B) is something that 4e went to great lengths to get rid of; or C) can already be done by existing rituals and whatnot anyways. So Wish just wouldn't work.
I'm thinking more of 2e wishes and not 3e wishes. The thing just literally being a free shot at doing whatever you wanted with the exception that the DM was allowed to screw you on it for getting unreasonable.

3e decided it had to be specific about what you could and could not do, but I fail to see why this couldn't be adapted to 4e with some work. ("Sure, you can swap out a power, if you really want to pay for it." Or "Sure, you can have a magic item of the same worth as the component cost or less.")



GEAS:

Using Geas on a PC was little more than forcibly giving them a quest. If you really really want an actual, ink-on-paper ability to point to as "motivation" the way 3e's Geas spell was, there's nothing keeping the DM from giving an NPC the ability to put such a curse on the PCs.

So the only thing a Geas ritual would do is let PCs force other people to do things. If you want the PCs to be able to enslave NPCs, well, I guess you really do have something that (AFAIK) 4e doesn't have an answer for.
It needn't be a railroading mechanic so much as it is a consequence of wizard actually having power to make you do what he wants if you lose out to him. Or it could be a likely tool for the lawful authority types.

Otherwise, I suppose your point is actually valid.

It's notably short of slavery though since it's not really Dominate Person/Monster and wouldn't necessarily have to be. Especially if you choose the right wording.

Likewise, trying to get the BBEG to follow the groups command isn't going to work if he decides he'd rather just kill you instead, consequences be damned.

flyingchicken
2010-02-07, 02:27 PM
I fail to see your point.

Tenser's Disc has no point. The way it's defined, it's not even very versatile so you can't get creative with it.The original statement was that the disc (flashy iPod) was useful; you proposed a porter and a Bag of Holding (cheap discman). It's not as cheap, it's not as practical, but those issues never stop a romantic from being brain-dead retarded with his ideals. If you want you could even replace "iPod" with "knighthood" and "discman" with "being a regular gentleman hidalgo."

Besides, depending on how flexible the GM is willing to be I could think of a few ways of using the disc creatively. A cushion for falling, an awesome movable chair (even in combat: probably could throw lightning bolts while comfortably lounging, laughing maniacally as I outrun the saps who slow down on difficult terrain)... actually that last one was pretty good, I wanna do that some time.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 02:32 PM
The original statement was that the disc (flashy iPod) was useful; you proposed a porter and a Bag of Holding (cheap discman). It's not as cheap, it's not as practical, but those issues never stop a romantic from being brain-dead retarded with his ideals. If you want you could even replace "iPod" with "knighthood" and "discman" with "being a regular gentleman hidalgo."

Besides, depending on how flexible the GM is willing to be I could think of a few ways of using the disc creatively. A cushion for falling, an awesome movable chair (even in combat: probably could throw lightning bolts while comfortably lounging, laughing maniacally as I outrun the saps who slow down on difficult terrain)... actually that last one was pretty good, I wanna do that some time.
No I get it.

You're saying that it's arbitrarily cool because of marketing and advertising. Because you know, a Bag of Holding is a magic item. And because porters are actually supposed to be a part of Dungeons and Dragons before the whole logistical aspect of the game that got de-emphasized.

But somehow a stupid slow-moving flying disc is supposed to be cooler or more interesting than either.

It's also three-feet wide, so it's not even really a good cushion.

Kudos for the chair-bit but not for much else. But I'm sure the DM would let you get away with that for free using Prestidigitation. (It's indistinguishable from a move-action and can't levitate up or down. The only benefit is that it's a fancy flying throne that is really comfy.)

Artanis
2010-02-07, 02:38 PM
I'd rather see rituals as a chance for PC's to initiate RP on their own terms. Which is to say, they can alter the game world in their favor. Because that feels rewarding.

Being a glorified second-string to the Rogue is less-so.
Believe me, I agree. In fact, most people agree. Knock in particular is one of the most egregious offenders, so much so that it is often the poster child for the Fail in 4e's ritual system.



In short, it's an excuse for the PC to establish an option of establishing a powerful (but optional) contact, even if the DM's plot doesn't normally allow for it.
Consult Mystic Sages, Consult Oracle, and Loremaster's Bargain are all in the PHB. Loremaster's Bargain in particular does almost exactly what you seem to be asking for.



I'm thinking more of 2e wishes and not 3e wishes. The thing just literally being a free shot at doing whatever you wanted with the exception that the DM was allowed to screw you on it for getting unreasonable.

3e decided it had to be specific about what you could and could not do, but I fail to see why this couldn't be adapted to 4e with some work. ("Sure, you can swap out a power, if you really want to pay for it." Or "Sure, you can have a magic item of the same worth as the component cost or less.")

Ah. I'm unfamiliar with 2e wishes. However, 4e is based around balance first and foremost, and something relying entirely on DM fiat for balance the way "a free shot to etc. etc. etc." does is one of the things 4e went out of its way to get rid of.

If you want me to go into the specifics for why each item on the 3e Wish can't be adapted, then I will.

Regarding your two particular examples:
-You can swap out a power as your retraining at each level. If you want to pay money to do so extra times, AV2 has "lair items" that let you retrain twice per level. If you don't want to buy such an item, you could get the DM to let you pay an NPC to rent one for the day or something.
-Enchant item ritual.

flyingchicken
2010-02-07, 02:45 PM
But somehow a stupid slow-moving flying disc is supposed to be cooler or more interesting than either.Now this is just YMMV. :smalltongue:

It's also three-feet wide, so it's not even really a good cushion.It's also made of magic. I suppose magic can be as comfy as it can be, as sometimes loot happens to be fragile.

But I'm sure the DM would let you get away with that for free using Prestidigitation. (It's indistinguishable from a move-action and can't levitate up or down. The only benefit is that it's a fancy flying throne that is really comfy.)I don't get this.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 02:46 PM
B
Ah. I'm unfamiliar with 2e wishes. However, 4e is based around balance first and foremost, and something relying entirely on Rule 0 for balance the way "a free shot to etc. etc. etc." does is one of the things 4e went out of its way to get rid of.

If you want me to go into the specifics for why each item on the 3e Wish can't be adapted, then I will.

Regarding your two particular examples:
-You can swap out a power as your retraining at each level. If you want to pay money to do so extra times, AV2 has "lair items" that let you retrain twice per level. If you don't want to buy such an item, you could get the DM to let you pay an NPC to rent one for the day or something.
-Enchant item ritual.
True, but those guidelines are more like baseline rules of what players are definitely allowed to do. Which is all 3e basically establishes that 2e doesn't. However, there is the argument that perhaps this makes Wish too reliable and easy. Especially since the player doesn't really have to get creative with the Wish when all he has to do is stick to the guideline.

2e Wish are basically the freedom to do anything with the caveat that the DM is within his rights to pervert the Wish or otherwise simply rule that Wish fails. 3e just treats it like a spell replicator with a convenient instantaneous crafting feature.

The whole point and spirit of Wish is that you're allowed to do anything not normally covered by the mechanics but is not entirely unreasonable for a 9th level spell slot. (Or whatever money you pay into the Ritual.)

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 02:47 PM
Now this is just YMMV. :smalltongue:
It's also made of magic. I suppose magic can be as comfy as it can be, as sometimes loot happens to be fragile.
I don't get this.
I use my Prestidigitation to hover on my ass 5-feet off the ground in the air. It is indistinguishable in all respects to any kind of move action. If it goes into a pit, I fall into a pit and the hovering isn't sufficient to break my fall in any notable fashion. It cannot levitate up or down.

It also is a really comfy and there is an illusion of a golden throne encrusted with jewels.

Artanis
2010-02-07, 02:50 PM
The whole point and spirit of Wish is that you're allowed to do anything not normally covered by the mechanics but is not entirely unreasonable for a 9th level spell slot. (Or whatever money you pay into the Ritual.)

Which is precisely why it wouldn't fit in 4e.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 02:53 PM
Which is precisely why it wouldn't fit in 4e.
Well, it depends on whether you view 4E's mention as rules-light system whenever it isn't combat. And it's not necessarily game-breaking.

I could Wish:
"I want the party to recover all its healing surges and power uses as though it had a full night's rest."

The DM might decide that this isn't unreasonable, given the money put into Ritual. Or maybe he's the kind of DM who thinks that Wish necessarily has to be earned through careful wording.

In effect, it doesn't really change all that much unless the plot is placing a time limit on the PC's actions and they wouldn't normally have the time rest otherwise.

flyingchicken
2010-02-07, 02:54 PM
I use my Prestidigitation to hover on my ass 5-feet off the ground in the air. It is indistinguishable in all respects to any kind of move action. If it goes into a pit, I fall into a pit and the hovering isn't sufficient to break my fall in any notable fashion. It cannot levitate up or down.

It also is a really comfy and there is an illusion of a golden throne encrusted with jewels.I dunno if I'm getting you, but anyway: Looking at the wording, personally if I were DM I won't let that run unless you're a <1 lb fey creature; the closest I'd probably let you do is making the illusion that you're floating on a gold and jewels throne, and you'd still be walking in reality and that's really more like one of those bulky Holloween costumes where you look like you're riding a horse or something. Are we talking about the same Prestidigitation here?

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 02:56 PM
I dunno if I'm getting you, but anyway: Looking at the wording, personally if I were DM I won't let that run unless you're a <1 lb fey creature; the closest I'd probably let you do is making the illusion that you're floating on a gold and jewels throne, and you'd still be walking in reality and that's really more like one of those bulky Holloween costumes where you look like you're riding a horse or something. Are we talking about the same Prestidigitation here?
Hell, I'd take the illusion even. Just because it is a pretty funny image.

Skorj
2010-02-07, 03:01 PM
3.5e relies quite heavily on rule 0 for balance. Now that's awesome if you have a veteran DM and players who want the whole group to have fun, but it fails pretty easily: witness half the posts on this forum. "I took an optimized build, totally within RAW, and my DM pitched a fit" or "I just want to focus on my character concept, not a "build", and the other players keep yelling at me for being weak".

4e is very focused on "combat balance first, your ideas about what a class should be like second". I have a lot of respect for that. All you need to do is separate fluff from crunch, and you can play just about any fantasy character concept, and still be balanced. What you can't do is play "I'm more powerful than everyone else, because I'm just that awesome."

I like both styles of play, the open ended "negotiate with the DM to settle everything" style of earlier D&D versions, and the "tactical wargame with some RP fluff on top" games. But the latter is a lot easier for a novice DM to run, as there's just a lot less DM judgement involved, which makes it a much better way to reach out to a new crowd of people who have never played a tabletop RPG before.

My biggest complaint with 4E is that it's really hard to find all the useful rules. It reminds my of AD&D in its early years, where so much good and useful stuff existed only in Dragon articles and 3rd-party supplements. Hasbro needs to get with the times, and offer complete (andever-growing) systems as subscription-based wikis instead of dozens of seperate publications.

Saintjebus
2010-02-07, 03:16 PM
My biggest complaint with 4E is that it's really hard to find all the useful rules. It reminds my of AD&D in its early years, where so much good and useful stuff existed only in Dragon articles and 3rd-party supplements. Hasbro needs to get with the times, and offer complete (andever-growing) systems as subscription-based wikis instead of dozens of seperate publications.

I give you the DDI Compendium (http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/database.aspx) and the Character Builder. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Tool.aspx?x=dnd/4new/tool/characterbuilder)

Requires a subscription, and gets added to every time new stuff comes out. It's not a Wiki(subscribers can't add to it), but it does have everything else you asked for.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 03:17 PM
Uhh. I find that backwards. Basically you're saying that you like having rules for things.

So if anything 3E is less Rule 0 than 4E is.

4E demands some improvisation, while 3E means to have rules to cover most contingencies but won't live up to the challenge of actually succeeding.

But that's not the same as saying that 3E is "free form." It really isn't. You're couched into the expectation that there needs to be a rule for everything.

To be fair 4E, isn't entirely clear on that point either, since it sticks you on rather tight rails and doesn't give any indication that you're supposed to make up a lot of stuff as well. This is particularly bad with skill challenges, since the book expects you to adhere to a formula, rather than just handing the DM a blank check and telling him to go wild. At its best, 4E is about getting you to actually play the game without needing to metagame and min-max the characters constantly with the looming worry of breaking the game.

You seem to be missing the point of extra publications. They're optional content. They're not supposed to complete the game or make it more realistic or anything. They're just there as an alternative to homebrewing up a bunch of rulings.

Artanis
2010-02-07, 03:33 PM
Skill challenges are another one of the things that most people consider to have Failed. Even the revised skill challenges are...ah..."unimpressive".

flyingchicken
2010-02-07, 03:36 PM
This is particularly bad with skill challenges, since the book expects you to adhere to a formula, rather than just handing the DM a blank check and telling him to go wild.Yeah the book could have been less rigid with its guidelines (or, more likely, less conservative with its word count). This series of articles on the matter (http://at-will.omnivangelist.net/2008/12/how-to-make-a-skill-challenge-fun/) is pretty nice and isn't applicable only to 4e.

Like all bland mechanics (and aside from mind-numbing mathematics for lovers of math, or the elegant or better yet efficient solutions to computational problems, what kind of mechanics are not bland? don't answer that it's rhetorical), flavor goes a long way to improve the experience; this, flavor, of course, shouldn't be the books' responsibility along but the gamers using using it.

Altima
2010-02-07, 04:10 PM
The rules are, as far as I can tell, overly restrictive on what you can and can't do. I can't play a Rogue without being unable to use any of my powers, should I have the audacity to wield anything other than a "Crossbow, Light Blade, or Sling". How about putting different ranks in a number of different skills? That's old talk. We have both kinds of skills in 4th: Trained, and Untrained. And god forbid you might want to wield 2-handers effectively as a halfling.

Are these restrictions I'm saying real in actual gameplay?
If so, then why are things this way? Why can't you make character concepts that WotC didn't plan for?

On the bright side, if you have a dagger in one hand and a light ranged weapon in the other, you can effortlessly switch from melee to ranged while being able to move and so on. Given that you're a squishy rogue and anything other than shifting will cause an opportunity attack, it's not all that bad.

And no, there's no more different rank skills--you have your trained skills, your non-trained skills, and their modifiers. In defense of the new system, you can retrain out skills for something else if it's not working out for you. Also, many times in 3.5e, I see players only going partially into a skill dip for a particular purpose (5 in balance, for example) that no longer exists or to fulfill a PrC requirements, which do not exist, and most paths and destinies don't have a skill requirement (though it's helpful for some, like wandering swordmage, I believe).

And yes, the rules are restrictive, in order to preserve balance. Blame the whiney warriors, if you wish.

On the other hand, there are so many classes, paragon paths, and epic destinies that you can pretty much play any style you want. With the way you can train out feats, skills, and even powers, you can radically shift around how your character plays over the course of several levels.

For dual-wielding, well, no one can do it, with the exception of a ranger or tempest fighter. Unlike in 3.x, having two weapons does not grant any sort of combat advantage other than you being able to pick a weapon to use with your power.

So if you tell us what you'd like to do, we can give you an informed opinion about which class may be for you.

Also, on the bright side, you can sneak attack everything, so no more worrying about undead, for example.

Artanis
2010-02-07, 04:33 PM
To expand on the comment regarding dual-wielding:


A character can carry two weapons if he wants, and when he makes an attack, he can pick which one to use. It's just that he can't use both at once unless a power tells him to. Since Rangers and Tempest Fighters are pretty much the only ones who get powers like that, there's usually little point to bother with carrying two weapons at once. There are feats that let you benefit, and there's the potential for added versatility (e.g. having a melee weapon in one hand and a ranged weapon in the other hand), but holding two weapons will not give you extra attacks in and of itself.

Colmarr
2010-02-07, 05:54 PM
4e is based around balance first and foremost, and something relying entirely on DM fiat for balance the way "a free shot to etc. etc. etc." does is one of the things 4e went out of its way to get rid of.

Ironically, while the 4e rules are very balance-focused, the spiritus mundi of 4e seems to be very firmly entrenched in the "do whatever you want" approach, as evidenced by the pg 42 rules and more than one developer blog posts and dragon/dungeon articles (I'm specifically thinking of the "we can't publish awesome magic items" blog post by (?) Schaeffer).

As such, Wish strikes me as exactly the sort of thing that 4e encourages but that will never be printed (which may have beem what you were getting at :smallsmile:).

Evard
2010-02-07, 06:14 PM
One thing people must remember is that 4th edition is easy easy easy to homebrew without making it overpowered.

want a rogue who uses bastard swords? Get rid of other weapon prof and make it bastard sword only. Want a small creature to use bastard sword and board then give them a feat that allows them to even if it ain't an official feat.

RebelRogue
2010-02-07, 06:51 PM
As such, Wish strikes me as exactly the sort of thing that 4e encourages but that will never be printed (which may have beem what you were getting at :smallsmile:).
I pretty much agree. Or maybe, there will be Wish-granting items for single/limited uses. The problem with powers like this really begins when it's something you have reliable access to (as a Ritual) even though there is a monetary cost. IMO wishes should be special, not something you throw around casually every other hour of the day.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-07, 07:20 PM
Give 4e a chance. I thought it was stupid at first, too. Now I love it. You just have to actually play it.

This. Over 9000 times this. I don't love 4e, or even like it particularly; but you really do have to play it to have a full opinion of the edition. It looks a lot worse than it plays.


want a rogue who uses bastard swords? Get rid of other weapon prof and make it bastard sword only. Want a small creature to use bastard sword and board then give them a feat that allows them to even if it ain't an official feat.

What about this is 4e-specific?

faceroll
2010-02-07, 07:38 PM
This is edition war in it's purest form you know.

Wars tend to have a lot more dead people.

AgentPaper
2010-02-07, 07:57 PM
If you want a halfling to dual-wield small bastard swords, then let him use two small bastard swords, using the stats of a rapier.

Altima
2010-02-07, 08:04 PM
If you want a halfling to dual-wield small bastard swords, then let him use two small bastard swords, using the stats of a rapier.

Or use stats of a human, elf, or whatever, and call yourself a halfling, without any of the halfling race benefits. You look like a halfling, talk like one, but mechanically speaking, you're 'balanced' inasmuch as 4e races are balanced against and with each other.

Excession
2010-02-07, 09:34 PM
Anything a Halfling can do, a Drow can do better.

Except dual-wielding, I think they're banned from that or something. And scimitars in general.

Sahaar
2010-02-07, 09:36 PM
To be perfectly honest, I started out with 4e, then learned 3.5e to play games here (3.5 has a bigger playerbase than 4e here) and I like 3.5 better.

AgentPaper
2010-02-07, 09:39 PM
To be perfectly honest, I started out with 4e, then learned 3.5e to play games here (3.5 has a bigger playerbase than 4e here) and I like 3.5 better.

And there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't really apply to the topic at hand. It would if this were an edition war thread, but it isn't. (please?)

Artanis
2010-02-07, 09:55 PM
Ironically, while the 4e rules are very balance-focused, the spiritus mundi of 4e seems to be very firmly entrenched in the "do whatever you want" approach, as evidenced by the pg 42 rules and more than one developer blog posts and dragon/dungeon articles (I'm specifically thinking of the "we can't publish awesome magic items" blog post by (?) Schaeffer).

As such, Wish strikes me as exactly the sort of thing that 4e encourages but that will never be printed (which may have beem what you were getting at :smallsmile:).

That's more or less what I was getting at, yeah :smallsmile:

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-07, 11:59 PM
I pretty much agree. Or maybe, there will be Wish-granting items for single/limited uses. The problem with powers like this really begins when it's something you have reliable access to (as a Ritual) even though there is a monetary cost. IMO wishes should be special, not something you throw around casually every other hour of the day.
Healing surge or action point cost.

If not both. You're not going to use it in the middle of a dungeon crawl unless you have to.

Also, if you're a badass archwizard, it's sort of the point to have that much power at your fingertips.

"Hayyy! Look at this guys! I can make all food everywhere taste like the color blue for 2 minutes!"

"That was weird."

Ozreth
2010-02-08, 12:13 AM
I like 4e. It plays much differently than it looks. Get a good amount of open minded play time in and I think you will enjoy it.

Rituals are awesome. I like that they cost money for materials, I like that they take time to cast. I also like that you can buy ritual scrolls for somebody who dosen't have the ritual casting feat.

In my city that dosen't allow magic my group got ahold of some old parchment with a code that they assumed to be the password to an old tomb. None of them could read it, so they headed to the blackmarket in the sewers and bought themselves a "comprehend language" ritual scroll and headed back to the tomb.

As the ritual was being cast, tons of ghosts started coming through the door and attacking the players. Unfortunately the person casting the ritual was out of the fight, so the others had to fend off the attackers while he finished the ritual. OR he could cancel the ritual, join in the fight, then they would have to go back and buy another scroll and pay the costs and all that.

good stuff.

Colmarr
2010-02-08, 12:29 AM
OR he could cancel the ritual, join in the fight, then they would have to go back and buy another scroll and pay the costs and all that.

good stuff.

Nitpick: I thought the ritual rules specifically stated that ritual components (incl. the scroll itself) weren't used up until the ritual was completed, and that they explicitly started that you could stop at any time before the ritual was finished without penalty?

Shardan
2010-02-08, 12:33 AM
What i have discovered is the group you play with is thebiggest key to whether or not 4E is fun. If everyone plays with the enthusiasm of 'hack'n'slash' then you will have no flavor and just a list of powers. If the characters have cookie-cutter personalities then you will have no originality. If the players build beyond the numbers, describe with flair and act with originality, then you will have a richer experience. the system is balanced, fair, easy to use, and group oriented. but it is the players and DM that makes the game a good experience or not.

Ozreth
2010-02-08, 02:18 AM
Nitpick: I thought the ritual rules specifically stated that ritual components (incl. the scroll itself) weren't used up until the ritual was completed, and that they explicitly started that you could stop at any time before the ritual was finished without penalty?

Ooh this could be true. Regardless, I still like them : )

And even if he were to stop casting he would still have to start the ten minute cast all over again, in which I would again bombard the party with ghosts.

Dimers
2010-02-08, 02:36 AM
Tenser's Disc has no point. The way it's defined, it's not even very versatile so you can't get creative with it.

Earlier tonight, I read a story about using Tenser's Disk to avoid a series of traps, in a way that walking people couldn't have done. I've heard of a lot of uses of the Disk that don't just use it as a loot-carrier -- delivering dangerous substances to the enemy before blowing them up, for example. It could be used to impress yokels, or to get past missing stairs or a pit trap, or to stay out of a flow of acid/lava/poison/snakes. If you walk it ahead of you, you can determine where the floor suddenly drops away even if that's obscured by vines or mist. It can do several of these things during its 24-hour duration. I personally feel it's one of the more versatile rituals (I've only seen those in PHB1, tho). Arcane Lock isn't very versatile, and might make a better example for you to use. But most rituals allow -- even require -- the DM-depilating degree of creativity I've otherwise come to associate only with 2nd-edition illusion spells.

Nightson
2010-02-08, 03:17 AM
Indeed but Arcane Lock doesn't need to be versatile. The only opportunity cost associated with the ritual is the initial gold cost to learn it. After that it's just time and components. Because they don't take up slots of any kind, rituals can be pretty focused and still be useful.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-08, 04:17 AM
It looks a lot worse than it plays.
This is very true. I think that most roleplaying books are written with experienced roleplayers in mind, and the 4E books are written for a much broader audience; the result is that from reading the books, many experienced roleplayers get the impression that the game is boring.


Nitpick: I thought the ritual rules specifically stated that ritual components (incl. the scroll itself) weren't used up until the ritual was completed,
That is correct.


Indeed but Arcane Lock doesn't need to be versatile. The only opportunity cost associated with the ritual is the initial gold cost to learn it. After that it's just time and components.
Time and components are both opportunity costs :smalltongue:

Leeham
2010-02-08, 04:42 AM
Personally? I used to hate 4e, hate it. Then I loved it, bought the books and squeeled like a little girly pig as I flipped through the pages. Then I hated it again because it wasn't 3.5. And now I love it again. Go figure. I suppose it might take some getting used to if your used to 3.5, mostly because there aren't all the little details there were.

Killer Angel
2010-02-08, 05:22 AM
Personally? I used to hate 4e, hate it. Then I loved it. Then I hated it again. And now I love it again.

Sir, you're clearly unreliable on the matter. :smalltongue:

potatocubed
2010-02-08, 05:46 AM
Give 4e a chance. I thought it was stupid at first, too. Now I love it. You just have to actually play it.

See, I jumped on 4e when it first came out, but the more I play it (well, run it) the less I like it. The overwhelming combat focus of the game is starting to grate on me despite the GM advantages it has over 3.x.

I mean, I still enjoy it, I'm just leaning back towards a system which promotes more non-combat shenanigans.

*leans*

RebelRogue
2010-02-08, 06:41 AM
Healing surge or action point cost.

If not both. You're not going to use it in the middle of a dungeon crawl unless you have to.

Also, if you're a badass archwizard, it's sort of the point to have that much power at your fingertips.

"Hayyy! Look at this guys! I can make all food everywhere taste like the color blue for 2 minutes!"

"That was weird."
Haha :smallsmile: Well, after some thought I think you just may be right. But it'd have to be a level 30 ritual, then. Some of those other level 30 powers are very powerful too, to the point of being game-breaking. But that's sort of the point of play at this level, and the character is going to retire soon anyway.

bosssmiley
2010-02-08, 09:55 AM
See, I jumped on 4e when it first came out, but the more I play it (well, run it) the less I like it. The overwhelming combat focus of the game is starting to grate on me despite the GM advantages it has over 3.x.

I mean, I still enjoy it, I'm just leaning back towards a system which promotes more non-combat shenanigans.

*leans*

Even Mike Mearls advocates using OD&D(!) to design adventures for 4E, simply because old D&D is less prescriptive a combat engine, and more a stimulator of the imagination. Bake the cake in OD&D, then slather on the 4E mechanics icing. :smallamused:

I quote:


As those of you who follow me on Twitter might know, I wrote up a dungeon for OD&D to run at this year's D&D Experience. Unfortunately, I didn't get the chance to run it at the con. However, I learned a useful lesson going forward: From now on, when I design an adventure I'll first approach it as if I'm running it using OD&D.

This approach might seem a little weird, but it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. OD&D keeps characters simple. They don't have loads of spells, abilities, or magic items. The monsters are built in a similar way. An orc swings its sword or fires its bow at you, and that's about it. Critters like beholders and dragons are a little more complex, but they're the exception, not the norm. There are no skills to roll, just descriptions of what a character tries to do.

When you pull those things back, you're left with only one option for making a dungeon or adventure interesting: Compelling locations, mysteries, puzzles, weird phenomena, *stuff* that the PCs can poke, prod, and inspect. These are all the things that make D&D compelling. They show off the spontaneity, immersion, and creativity that arise in the exchange among players and DM.

source (http://kotgl.blogspot.com/2010/02/build-your-adventures-in-od.html)

potatocubed
2010-02-08, 10:19 AM
Hmm. I'm not convinced. I mean, sure, you can create (for example) a murder mystery in 4e the same way you can create a murder mystery in OD&D or any other game (provided you ditch the skill challenge system, but that's a sensible thing to do anyway).

The problem is that it's kind of like taking a platoon of tank operators and making them teach nursery school for a living. They've put all this time into learning how to use their tanks and they've got these shiny new tanks right there in the car park and none of it is relevant. They might as well never have bothered with tank training or building their tanks or driving them to the school - and if you're going to run a non-combat scenario in a 4e game you might as well not bother with 4e at all. It adds nothing.

Sipex
2010-02-08, 10:23 AM
So...erm, are there still any problems the OP has with 4e?

On the complaints that it's too combat reliant I have to say, that it's true the designers put an inproportionate amount of work into combat but that doesn't mean everything else sucks.

Everything else was simplified making custom scenarios and challenges easier to create. I can testify to this, I do it quite a bit.

Skills are amazing when used right, ignore Wizards 'skill challenge' rules and use the easy system to make something more interactive and fun.

The campaigns will only be as combat focused as your DM makes them out to be.

Choco
2010-02-08, 10:34 AM
So...erm, are there still any problems the OP has with 4e?

On the complaints that it's too combat reliant I have to say, that it's true the designers put an inproportionate amount of work into combat but that doesn't mean everything else sucks.

Everything else was simplified making custom scenarios and challenges easier to create. I can testify to this, I do it quite a bit.

Skills are amazing when used right, ignore Wizards 'skill challenge' rules and use the easy system to make something more interactive and fun.

The campaigns will only be as combat focused as your DM makes them out to be.

My views exactly. Combat is really the only thing that needs a heavy set of rules to run smoothly, the more RP-focused actions can easily be taken care of by fiat and houserules. Seriously, if you are a roleplayer you do not need books to teach you how to roleplay, as evidenced by the MANY freeform RP groups out there on the internet that somehow manage just fine. My biggest complaint about 3e was that they attempted to create rules for EVERYTHING under the damn sun. In the end all it did was create a massive mess that was either ignored most of the time or took time away from gaming to be looked at every 3 minutes.

Me and my group are much more into roleplaying than rollplaying, and we all love 4e much more than we did 3e, specifically because we are not bogged down by needless rules.

Ozreth
2010-02-08, 10:51 AM
The overwhelming combat focus of the game is starting to grate on me despite the GM advantages it has over 3.x.

I still don't understand why people say this. I still don't put too much combat into my games as my group is more of an out of combat/rp type...and thats all you have to do. If you dont want combat all the time...then dont do it.

And when you ARE in combat its just super nice and fluid in 4e. Everybody wins.

I think people are forgetting to play the game like dungeons and dragons. Think of the billions of homebrew rules that people have come up with in 3.x to change whatever. Think of the insane amount of rule details in 3.x that are almost completely looked over by the entire community.

The rules are nothing but a small vessel to carry you along much larger waves.

Jerthanis
2010-02-08, 11:18 AM
Are these restrictions I'm saying real in actual gameplay?
If so, then why are things this way? Why can't you make character concepts that WotC didn't plan for?

I can honestly say, yes and no. Not being able to put in fractional skillpoints isn't really a restriction because every skill scales with level automatically now, so if you would've wanted to put one point every few levels into Knowledge: Arcana, now it does so automatically. If you find later on you want to specialize in Knowledge: Arcana, it's one feat to become competitive, and a second to make up for any shortfall in your Intelligence statistic. 4e skill system gives a much greater ability to play with skills against type, I find, and definitely allows later refocusing if you aren't satisfied.

That said, there isn't a lot of freedom within a class to customize your experience with that class, so "I wanna build a rogue who does X in a totally different way than most rogues" really isn't an option in most cases, so you aren't so much using your mechanics as building blocks that you assemble into a complete character. Really, in 4e you have to flow from character concept into class choice, rather than from a class' printed flavor to character concept. If you want a two weapon fighting guy who uses a lot of skills, it's gonna be a Ranger who chooses Dungeoneering over Nature and picks up Thievery with a feat.

AgentPaper
2010-02-08, 11:26 AM
That said, there isn't a lot of freedom within a class to customize your experience with that class, so "I wanna build a rogue who does X in a totally different way than most rogues" really isn't an option in most cases, so you aren't so much using your mechanics as building blocks that you assemble into a complete character. Really, in 4e you have to flow from character concept into class choice, rather than from a class' printed flavor to character concept. If you want a two weapon fighting guy who uses a lot of skills, it's gonna be a Ranger who chooses Dungeoneering over Nature and picks up Thievery with a feat.

Or multi-classes to rogue, gain the thievery skill, and also the ability to stab someone in the back every once in a while.

Eorran
2010-02-08, 11:46 AM
Tenser's Disc has no point. The way it's defined, it's not even very versatile so you can't get creative with it.


I beg to differ! Our first 4e session, my friend's Wizard looked at TFD, and discovered it's ulitmate use: hovertank.

He had custom-built metal panels, with little "feet" to hold it on the ground when the disk went away. Now he has cover from enemies on three sides.

As he levels up and can hold more weight, he'll add a rear drop-down door, a top hatch, and maybe spinning spiky things.
He's looking at a crossbow turret with a coaxial wand. :smallbiggrin:

Sipex
2010-02-08, 12:48 PM
I beg to differ! Our first 4e session, my friend's Wizard looked at TFD, and discovered it's ulitmate use: hovertank.

He had custom-built metal panels, with little "feet" to hold it on the ground when the disk went away. Now he has cover from enemies on three sides.

As he levels up and can hold more weight, he'll add a rear drop-down door, a top hatch, and maybe spinning spiky things.
He's looking at a crossbow turret with a coaxial wand. :smallbiggrin:

I pray my wizard never reads this forum. That sounds amazing.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-08, 12:58 PM
I'd have to point out that most rules in 3e mostly have to do with combat.

A Wizard is generally rated on his ability to kick your ass with the utility he gets. Less important is whether or he can perform public ceremonial functions or play the jazz flute.

Mando Knight
2010-02-08, 01:01 PM
I beg to differ! Our first 4e session, my friend's Wizard looked at TFD, and discovered it's ulitmate use: hovertank.

Tenser's Disk is widely considered the best level 1 ritual ever. Partly because of this.

Master_Rahl22
2010-02-08, 03:11 PM
I will second a few things that have already been said in the thread. Character creation needs to flow from concept to class, keeping in mind that fluff can be rewritten. Also, most rules in 4E are about combat since that's the part that we need rules for. I absolutely love that there are hardly any rules for RP and the skill system was streamlined, because it means I can RP how I want. I don't need rules to tell me that calling the king a liar and then mooning him is a bad idea and likely to get us thrown in jail/deported/beheaded, but I do need rules for when we decide to fight the guards so it doesn't become a case of "I stabbed you!" "Nuh uh, I dodged it and then stabbed you!"

Sipex
2010-02-08, 04:20 PM
"I stabbed you!" "Nuh uh, I dodged it and then stabbed you!"

OH GOD. Flashbacks of oldschool chatroom RPing! No! Bad!

flyingchicken
2010-02-09, 04:53 AM
OH GOD. Flashbacks of oldschool chatroom RPing! No! Bad!Chatroom RPing would work nicely if there were rules to follow, you know, and maybe some ability to paste linebreaks so you can have at least ASCII maps of things (the alternative, uploading images or having no maps at all, being too tedious of course).

Sipex
2010-02-09, 09:49 AM
The key to chatroom RP was that there was no DM though, so whatever arbitrary rules which were made were totally useless.

I remember there were two systems where I was from. One required you to post your attack then it's hit description (both with understandable spelling and grammar) before your opponent got a chance to type in their dodge. Second required you to create an attack your opponent couldn't dodge.


...


Neither worked well at all.

flyingchicken
2010-02-09, 09:56 AM
The key to chatroom RP was that there was no DM though, so whatever arbitrary rules which were made were totally useless.

I remember there were two systems where I was from. One required you to post your attack then it's hit description (both with understandable spelling and grammar) before your opponent got a chance to type in their dodge. Second required you to create an attack your opponent couldn't dodge.


...


Neither worked well at all.Yeah, I'm just sure many of us have memories of people ripping the Earth with giant bladed phalli and freezing people to below zero Kelvin (???!) in unmoderated chatroom RPing with arguments on physics and language technicalities afterward.

Sipex
2010-02-09, 09:59 AM
Ah...memories.

But yeah, my point there was, you'd need a sort of DM character to referee a chat room RP if you want any rules.

And if you do that...why aren't you just playing D&D?