PDA

View Full Version : My thoughts on 4e...THIS IS NOT HOW IT LOOKS LIKE!



SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 05:19 PM
Hello I just Wanted to write my own opinion on DnD4e. Just Beforehand I would like to say, if you do not like what I say then be sure to tell me, I find one of the worst reasons not to state an opinion is if you dont like it then dont say anything. Thats just wrong: If i receive a product that I do not not like (DnD4e) then dont I have the right to say my piont of view? Why do you have the right to say you like the product?

First Some Positive Qualities

Anyway I would like to say 4e is a fun edition. And in fact my first RPG I ever played and the the game introduced me to Roleplaying in general was 4e. I bought all the handbooks up until primal power. The system is very well balanced it is alot of fun and.... The art is Much better than 3es books (Even though it recycled the best images from it)

Now I do not HATE or dislike people who play 4e. It was your choice and you like the game more than I do. What I find unacceptable is people who outright deny 4es mistakes and scream about its superiority. Its YOUR Belief not mine. In fact This is MY thoughts on 4e so it doesnt effect you. I just hope to possibly get some awareness on the issue of people popping up on my blog to yell
"4e is better"
"Look seriously I just dont like 4e"
"Then you havnt played it enought!"
"A year and a half and I purchased all the books until primal power"

Anyway Although I do find the rules quite stiff and the powers same to such a point that it doesnt matter, and all classes extremly similar (Except for the sorcerer who has the damage output of a striker and control properties of a Controler) and pigeonholed. And of course I will hear "But in 3e you also had: A Cleric, Wizard, Fighter, Rouge," well yes but at the same time the choices you made effected things on a much higher level, if you chose sorcerer Vs Wizard you where choosing Utility Vs Offence (The Rituals are only a feat away). But Thats still more of a personal preference than an actual point.

The only points I can say are

A: The multiclassing is poor. You have to exchange both feats and Spells for WEAKER abilities! What a ripoff. But you might also say: "But the 3e Multiclassing system was broken!" Well that depended on your gm. Your gm should have said NO I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO MULTICLASS INTO A PALADIN/ Cleric/ Rouge/ Mega Ultra broken class.

And Second The Limited amount of roleplaying. You can argue that there is roleplaying in everything but exactly. You can find an excuse for anything. You shouldnt have to find excuses for stuff like Poison Damage, And Psychic damage (Replacing Constitution damage and Wisdom damage respectivly). How Does a Moral boost heal my poison damage? Or how does it heal Psychic trauma? Or what about the BS Power system for marial powers. I can only launch 3 arrows at a time at highest lv? What kind of a wimp is this?
And I understand you can say Well the moral boost helps you forget about the poison. But we shouldn't have to make excuses. I like the game but I prefer a more Simulation feel rather than war game feel so yeah. dont hate the game. Its Ok. If you dont like anything about my post contact me and I will change it.

Caphi
2010-08-26, 05:24 PM
Your gm should have said NO I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO MULTICLASS INTO A PALADIN/ Cleric/ Rouge/ Mega Ultra broken class.

What did I just read.

To be serious, multiclassing was a deliberate design thing. D&D4 is big on protecting class boundaries and absolutely not letting anyone have anything of anyone else's except grudgingly. You just have to get used to that.

I'm not really sure what to say about the "roleplaying" point. D&D4 has no less particular capacity for roleplaying in the sense of writing and acting a character than any other system, but the power system, simplified effects, and protection of class bounds means there's less ability to back up personality with real abilities if that happens to be your thing. There are some versimilitude bugs though.

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 05:29 PM
What did I just read.

but the power system, simplified effects, and protection of class bounds means there's less ability to back up personality with real abilities if that happens to be your thing. There are some versimilitude bugs though.

Was me acting stupid

But seriosly what you wrote was Just what I was trying to say.

Kaun
2010-08-26, 05:43 PM
...?

Was this a drunk post?

Jack Zander
2010-08-26, 05:51 PM
{Scrubbed}

Eldan
2010-08-26, 05:58 PM
Well, don't take this the wrong way, but...
a lot of your points make it seem like you didn't really understand earlier editions either. The multiclassing example you posted, as an example, would be utterly crippled and weak in most cases. And a sorcerer really doesn't have more offence than a wizard, in most cases.

Now, to the roleplaying point: yes, there are points (and I'm a 3rd edition player), where justification becomes strange. But 3rd edition has just as many, if you just read the rules as written. Just go over to the "most favourite stupid error" thread, it's full of nonsense in the rules, not just obvious editing errors.

oxybe
2010-08-26, 06:00 PM
And Second The Limited amount of roleplaying. You can argue that there is roleplaying in everything but exactly. You can find an excuse for anything. You shouldnt have to find excuses for stuff like Poison Damage, And Psychic damage (Replacing Constitution damage and Wisdom damage respectivly). How Does a Moral boost heal my poison damage? Or how does it heal Psychic trauma? Or what about the BS Power system for marial powers. I can only launch 3 arrows at a time at highest lv? What kind of a wimp is this?
And I understand you can say Well the moral boost helps you forget about the poison. But we shouldn't have to make excuses. I like the game but I prefer a more Simulation feel rather than war game feel so yeah. dont hate the game. Its Ok. If you dont like anything about my post contact me and I will change it.


4th ed is not 3rd ed. it never claimed to be and actively said "i'm not 3rd ed".

4th ed tries to simulate a pulp-action feel rather then give a set of world-building rules:

-a common trope is a solider wounded by the explosion and his commanding officer tells him to tough it out. solider musters up the courage, knowing he'll feel it in the morning. that right there is the warlord in action.
-martial powers are the special techniques you see heros in novels & movies pull off. does it make sense you can only use it once a day or encounter? not anymore sense that a barbarian can only get "really angry" X amount of times a day in 3.5. it's a conceit of the genre & tropes the game tries to emulate and it's nice for someone other then casters to get nice things.
-poison damage/pyschic damage. HP is plot armor... always has been, always will be and rather then having to potentially track various cascading effects by tracking damage done in different ways (HP damage, stat damage, subdual damage, level drain, ect...), 4th ed uses HP as a measure of "can you keep going on? yes/no". it also uses various conditions like slowed, weakened, stunned to emulate these things. what could be a Con poison in 3.5 might deal some Poison damage and leave you weakened for an encounter in 4th ed.
-multiple attacks are covered by powers rather then a flat extra attacks every few levels. in 3.5 does that last attack in your 17/12/7/2 really matter other then "hope i roll high"?

XiaoTie
2010-08-26, 06:16 PM
And Second The Limited amount of roleplaying. You can argue that there is roleplaying in everything but exactly. You can find an excuse for anything. You shouldnt have to find excuses for stuff like Poison Damage, And Psychic damage (Replacing Constitution damage and Wisdom damage respectivly)


But you might also say: "But the 3e Multiclassing system was broken!" Well that depended on your gm. Your gm should have said NO I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO MULTICLASS INTO A PALADIN/ Cleric/ Rouge/ Mega Ultra broken class.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUb06iLjTKA)

PS.:I like 3.5 as much as I like 4e :smallbiggrin:

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 06:21 PM
{Scrubbed}

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 06:24 PM
4th ed is not 3rd ed. it never claimed to be and actively said "i'm not 3rd ed".

4th ed tries to simulate a pulp-action feel rather then give a set of world-building rules:

-a common trope is a solider wounded by the explosion and his commanding officer tells him to tough it out. solider musters up the courage, knowing he'll feel it in the morning. that right there is the warlord in action.
-martial powers are the special techniques you see heros in novels & movies pull off. does it make sense you can only use it once a day or encounter? not anymore sense that a barbarian can only get "really angry" X amount of times a day in 3.5. it's a conceit of the genre & tropes the game tries to emulate and it's nice for someone other then casters to get nice things.
-poison damage/pyschic damage. HP is plot armor... always has been, always will be and rather then having to potentially track various cascading effects by tracking damage done in different ways (HP damage, stat damage, subdual damage, level drain, ect...), 4th ed uses HP as a measure of "can you keep going on? yes/no". it also uses various conditions like slowed, weakened, stunned to emulate these things. what could be a Con poison in 3.5 might deal some Poison damage and leave you weakened for an encounter in 4th ed.
-multiple attacks are covered by powers rather then a flat extra attacks every few levels. in 3.5 does that last attack in your 17/12/7/2 really matter other then "hope i roll high"?

True every word said about 3e is true, its nonsensical, can easily be ruined. But that by no reason justifies 4e.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 06:27 PM
I think the point of the first post is "Stop telling me to like 4e." :smallconfused:

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 06:30 PM
Cocaine is a hell of a drug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUb06iLjTKA)

PS.:I like 3.5 as much as I like 4e :smallbiggrin:

True but I was talking about the role playing sense not the mechanical. But both editions have their fare share of problems.

Oh and Keep on loving them. ITS YOUR DECISION NOT MINE! Have fun:smallsmile:

oxybe
2010-08-26, 06:31 PM
on multiclassing:

multi-classing in D&D has always sucked. mainly because multi-classing, IMO, goes against the very definition of classes.

in 2nd ed you either multi-classed (a demihuman only option, where they split their XP among 2+ classes that leveled unevenly) or dual-classed (the human option, where you leveled up in class A, then dropped it for B, and you could not use class A's features until you reached the same level in class B. or something). this had the problem of an elf warrior1/theif1/mage1 being front-loaded with the abilities of all 3 classes. leveled up REALLY slowly however.

3rd ed went a bit too far though... with many classes being front-loaded with their special abilities, and trying to emulate the freedom of a classless system allowed PCs to grab 2-3 levels of front-loaded classes for very little drawbacks. this usually only applied to martial types as BAB from different classes stacked with one another, while mixing 2 different casters didn't really help either.

4th ed multi-classing comes in 2 flavors: multi-classing which allows you to dabble in another class at the cost of a feat, and hybrid classes which are very reminiscent of 2nd ed multiclassing except less of an overall hassle (you only get some of each class's abilities and you don't need to track 2-3 different XP charts which solved the gist of the issues).

truthfully? i would have preferred no multi-classing at all. pick your class/archetype and reflavor.


True every word said about 3e is true, its nonsensical, can easily be ruined. But that by no reason justifies 4e.

what do you mean "justifies 4th ed"? 4th ed is justified by the fact that it does what it sets out to do quite well, which is give us a ruleset to act a backdrop for pulp-action fantasy. does it try to be a world simulator? no. but i never really looked at D&D for help creating a world... the rules in all editions are pretty non-sensical if you try to scrutinize them.

RebelRogue
2010-08-26, 06:33 PM
The justification is, that the 4e designers knew all of these things were basically non-sensical anyway, so instead of making an even more complicated system that took these things into a "realistic account", they went the other way and used these facts to their advantage as a basic design strategy.

I see why some may not like this, but (as the OP acknowledges) that does not make 4e a bad game system - it accomplishes what it has set out to do pretty well.

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 06:34 PM
on multiclassing:

multi-classing in D&D has always sucked. mainly because multi-classing, IMO, goes against the very definition of classes.

in 2nd ed you either multi-classed (a demihuman only option, where they split their XP among 2+ classes that leveled unevenly) or dual-classed (the human option, where you leveled up in class A, then dropped it for B, and you could not use class A's features until you reached the same level in class B. or something). this had the problem of an elf warrior1/theif1/mage1 being front-loaded with the abilities of all 3 classes. leveled up REALLY slowly however.

3rd ed went a bit too far though... with many classes being front-loaded with their special abilities, and trying to emulate the freedom of a classless system allowed PCs to grab 2-3 levels of front-loaded classes for very little drawbacks. this usually only applied to martial types as BAB from different classes stacked with one another, while mixing 2 different casters didn't really help either.

4th ed multi-classing comes in 2 flavors: multi-classing which allows you to dabble in another class at the cost of a feat, and hybrid classes which are very reminiscent of 2nd ed multiclassing except less of an overall hassle (you only get some of each class's abilities and you don't need to track 2-3 different XP charts which solved the gist of the issues).

truthfully? i would have preferred no multi-classing at all. pick your class/archetype and reflavor.
This is especialy true in pathfinder where you get benifits for sticking until lv 20.

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 06:36 PM
I think the point of the first post is "Stop telling me to like 4e." :smallconfused:

I think so, too.
But, conversely, I do like 4e, and it's that pulp-action-novel feel that does it for me. I think the powers system works well in a quasi-steampunk setting (which is what I am writing - a Dark Horror/Steampunk setting).
To each his/her own, though. I know people that are begging me to finish my campaign setting so they can try 4e (because I'll never run the 'generic' setting, and I don't have the 4e Realms books for them to try). I also know people who want me back in their 3.5 game (which I won't do, because I'm dedicated to 4e now, for the above reason).
If you don't like 4e, don't like it. If you like 4e, like it. I like my gaming to be exactly that...mine. So if the point of the first post is, "Stop telling me to like 4e." I can completely agree with that (as long as people stop telling me to like 3.x :smalltongue:).

EDIT: @oxybe: HOLY CRAP, Batman! Another person who knows what a demihuman is! :smallbiggrin:

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 06:38 PM
.
If you don't like 4e, don't like it. If you like 4e, like it. I like my gaming to be exactly that...mine. So if the point of the first post is, "Stop telling me to like 4e." I can completely agree with that (as long as people stop telling me to like 3.x :smalltongue:).

Like Shadowrun Fool. Its Totaly tex Betah then dnd cause that s ucks Yah. Its likw erobot elvefs and stuff

Lord Raziere
2010-08-26, 06:39 PM
The justification is, that the 4e designers knew all of these things were basically non-sensical anyway, so instead of making an even more complicated system that took these things into a "realistic account", they went the other way and used these facts to their advantage as a basic design strategy.

I see why some may not like this, but (as the OP acknowledges) that does not make 4e a bad game system - it accomplishes what it has set out to do pretty well.

well if I want to play a medieval hero where magic and dragons is involved, why would I want realism? I want to play the guy that slays the dragon, if it was more realistic I'd get crushed and destroyed by the dragon and that is not being a dragonslayer, that is just stupidity. ergo, why want realism when it will get in the way of slaying the dragon?

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-26, 06:41 PM
Not that I ascribe to the scurrilous suggestion earlier that alcohol was involved in the construction of the OP, but as I am also slightly post-evening-out right now, I think I shall respond in kind.

You're right of course, it's every bit as valid that you should be free to voice your concerns as we should be to disagree with you. Nice to see that recongised so entirely.

And you are, in a sense, right. When played a certain way DnD 4e can be a tiny bit overly specific. It has rigid structure built into it, that if followed to religiously can hurt the overal fun of the game. All RPG's must struggle with and avoid such things, of course, but that doesn't reduce the truth of my previous statement.

I find the best way to run D&D 4e is to not worry overly much about D&D 4e. Feel absolutely free, empowered, or even encouraged to crack that sucka open and do what you and your group feel is best with it. There was even a Dev-Blog at one point that actively begged the reader to make the most awesomely broken and fun Artifacts and Items that occured to us, because where their hands were tied by needing to adhere to fair rules and keep things on a decent level, that doesn't mean that we should feel any such need or pressure.

And I don't even think that's a plus point for 4e. I have come to the decision that the concept described above, of feeling liberated from the printed word when it doesn't dance according to your own whims, is the one true way to approach all RPG's.

I also would like to add that the community in my region is happiest when they get a balanced diet of contrasting systems. DnD has it's place and it's focus, and WoD has a different emphasis and purpose.
By getting a mixture and a variety of experiences, all such games are enriched. The fact that we just finished a changeling campaign makes the planar-hopping D&D paragon campaign I'm valiantly trying to run feel all the more fresh.

If you retain the ability to have fun with 4e, to appreciate it for what it is, then we could ask for nothing more, because there will always be a time and a place for such games, and by remaining open to them you enrich your own life. But you should feel free to prefer other games, because the market is full of fascinating, awesome games that deal with both similar and vastly different things.

Anyway, ranting aside (the downside of awesome sessions of Star Wars Saga played in a small pub is that awesome + award winning cider tends to equal over-enthusiasm), I'll address your two points too;

Firstly - Multi-classing, or more accurately the mixture of concepts.
At first, it was indeed quite limited. I agree entirely that in comparison to the carte-blanche approach of the previous edition, it was a bit lackluster. They had their reasons, but the end result was exclusive moreso than inclusive.

The situation as it stands, however, is that between multiclassing and hybrid classing you have some very powerful tools for mixing classes with. You can acheive through careful building a wide range of unusual concepts, though it does help to focus on what you want to acheive first, and worry about what specific classes and mechanisms you have access to secondly.

For example, a Wizard - Fighter hybrid could work. It totally could, but if what you really want is a sword weilding, up-close spellcaster, you really should just relax and play a swordmage. If you want a Wizard who just happens to use a sword, you optionally have things like the arcane impliment proficiency feat (to net military swords as an impliment). It's very important to keep an eye on what you actually want to do, and not get too focused on the details that you lose the whole.

Secondly I could quite honestly argue that the lack of overly prescriptive or regulatory rules is infact a liberating influence, encouraging much more open and genuine roleplaying. I could point out that my most influencial character, a terribly statted Drow Warlord / Swordsage rolled a skill check once every level perhaps and an attack every couple. But it's really beside the point. You CAN roleplay in any system, if you enjoy it. The most important thing is the type of game you feel comfortable with, and if it's a more encompassing, simulatory experience that you crave from your tabletop entertainment, it is entirely natural that you would feel less comfortable Roleplaying 4e than, say, Gurps, Traveller, or 3.5 even.

(TL;DR) The important thing is to understand what you want, and why you want it.

And don't worry too much about whether eejots like myself on the internet agree with your preferences, as long as your group is having fun. :smallwink:

Kaervaslol
2010-08-26, 06:41 PM
There is a lot of things to not like about 4th edition, but those that you pointed out are not (at least from my experience) the really important ones.

4ED introduced the paradigm of the really linear adventure. The game is obssessed with balance in all its forms.

Adventures should be linear and controlled. All challenges should offer a fair ammount of err.. challenge, but pose no real threat. The "encounter" mechanic as it core is basically a linear corridor with rooms where **** happens. Character are expected to have certain magical items at certain levels, and as the DM you are heavily encouraged to give them what they "need". This is so heavily engrained in the system that there is actually a rule that gives the characters bonuses if you are playing a low magic campaign.

For the sake of balance the power mechanic was adopted, so that under the hood all classes function the same way.

Of course 3.XED has it share of problems. It kept the sandbox feel of the old editions but introduced extreme customization, to the point that stat blocks became huge and unmaneagable. It eliminated the mechanism that kept classes balanced by unifying the XP tables and allowing open multiclassing.

It's more like apples and oranges really. I don't care for any of the two, even though I have played both of them (bad gaming is better than no gaming :smallbiggrin:).

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 06:45 PM
Like Shadowrun Fool. Its Totaly tex Betah then dnd cause that s ucks Yah. Its likw erobot elvefs and stuff

Sorry, you're a little behind the times, there. I've liked Shadowrun since the late 80's. :smalltongue:

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 06:45 PM
Not that I ascribe to the scurrilous suggestion earlier that alcohol was involved in the construction of the OP, but as I am also slightly post-evening-out right now, I think I shall respond in kind.

You're right of course, it's every bit as valid that you should be free to voice your concerns as we should be to disagree with you. Nice to see that recongised so entirely.

And you are, in a sense, right. When played a certain way DnD 4e can be a tiny bit overly specific. It has rigid structure built into it, that if followed to religiously can hurt the overal fun of the game. All RPG's must struggle with and avoid such things, of course, but that doesn't reduce the truth of my previous statement.

I find the best way to run D&D 4e is to not worry overly much about D&D 4e. Feel absolutely free, empowered, or even encouraged to crack that sucka open and do what you and your group feel is best with it. There was even a Dev-Blog at one point that actively begged the reader to make the most awesomely broken and fun Artifacts and Items that occured to us, because where their hands were tied by needing to adhere to fair rules and keep things on a decent level, that doesn't mean that we should feel any such need or pressure.

And I don't even think that's a plus point for 4e. I have come to the decision that the concept described above, of feeling liberated from the printed word when it doesn't dance according to your own whims, is the one true way to approach all RPG's.

I also would like to add that the community in my region is happiest when they get a balanced diet of contrasting systems. DnD has it's place and it's focus, and WoD has a different emphasis and purpose.
By getting a mixture and a variety of experiences, all such games are enriched. The fact that we just finished a changeling campaign makes the planar-hopping D&D paragon campaign I'm valiantly trying to run feel all the more fresh.

If you retain the ability to have fun with 4e, to appreciate it for what it is, then we could ask for nothing more, because there will always be a time and a place for such games, and by remaining open to them you enrich your own life. But you should feel free to prefer other games, because the market is full of fascinating, awesome games that deal with both similar and vastly different things.

Anyway, ranting aside (the downside of awesome sessions of Star Wars Saga played in a small pub is that awesome + award winning cider tends to equal over-enthusiasm), I'll address your two points too;

Firstly - Multi-classing, or more accurately the mixture of concepts.
At first, it was indeed quite limited. I agree entirely that in comparison to the carte-blanche approach of the previous edition, it was a bit lackluster. They had their reasons, but the end result was exclusive moreso than inclusive.

The situation as it stands, however, is that between multiclassing and hybrid classing you have some very powerful tools for mixing classes with. You can acheive through careful building a wide range of unusual concepts, though it does help to focus on what you want to acheive first, and worry about what specific classes and mechanisms you have access to secondly.

For example, a Wizard - Fighter hybrid could work. It totally could, but if what you really want is a sword weilding, up-close spellcaster, you really should just relax and play a swordmage. If you want a Wizard who just happens to use a sword, you optionally have things like the arcane impliment proficiency feat (to net military swords as an impliment). It's very important to keep an eye on what you actually want to do, and not get too focused on the details that you lose the whole.

Secondly I could quite honestly argue that the lack of overly prescriptive or regulatory rules is infact a liberating influence, encouraging much more open and genuine roleplaying. I could point out that my most influencial character, a terribly statted Drow Warlord / Swordsage rolled a skill check once every level perhaps and an attack every couple. But it's really beside the point. You CAN roleplay in any system, if you enjoy it. The most important thing is the type of game you feel comfortable with, and if it's a more encompassing, simulatory experience that you crave from your tabletop entertainment, it is entirely natural that you would feel less comfortable Roleplaying 4e than, say, Gurps, Traveller, or 3.5 even.

(TL;DR) The important thing is to understand what you want, and why you want it.

And don't worry too much about whether eejots like myself on the internet agree with your preferences, as long as your group is having fun. :smallwink:

Thanks anyway.

Just Those dam lv2 and 3 internet trolls keep pissing me off. Its just so hard not to get infected by it, just answer once and before long your a troll yourself

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 06:47 PM
Sorry, you're a little behind the times, there. I've liked Shadowrun since the late 80's. :smalltongue:

Yeah. I like it too only I play 4th edition because it was the only one i could get my hands on.

Anyway Im glad that this forum is so highly regulated that there was no trolling here. =)

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 06:53 PM
There is a lot of things to not like about 4th edition, but those that you pointed out are not (at least from my experience) the really important ones.

4ED introduced the paradigm of the really linear adventure. The game is obssessed with balance in all its forms.
I like the balance of classes. It makes the party of all wizards less common.

Adventures should be linear and controlled. All challenges should offer a fair ammount of err.. challenge, but pose no real threat. The "encounter" mechanic as it core is basically a linear corridor with rooms where **** happens. Character are expected to have certain magical items at certain levels, and as the DM you are heavily encouraged to give them what they "need". This is so heavily engrained in the system that there is actually a rule that gives the characters bonuses if you are playing a low magic campaign.
I must have missed that part, but then again, my players expect lower magic, due to the higher tech level. They also expect high mortality rates, and less rezzing for some strange reason CTHULHU.

For the sake of balance the power mechanic was adopted, so that under the hood all classes function the same way.

Of course 3.XED has it share of problems. It kept the sandbox feel of the old editions but introduced extreme customization, to the point that stat blocks became huge and unmaneagable. It eliminated the mechanism that kept classes balanced by unifying the XP tables and allowing open multiclassing.
Agreed.

It's more like apples and oranges really. I don't care for any of the two, even though I have played both of them (bad gaming is better than no gaming :smallbiggrin:).
True dat, yo! :smallbiggrin:

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-26, 06:54 PM
Don't worry about it. A Few more levels and the level 2 and 3 trolls attack bonus will be so far behind your defences, they'll only hit on a natural 20. :smallwink:

Also, may want to edit that second post, copy and paste it into the first one and delete the second (via edit, again). The folks hereabouts have opinions on 'double posting'.

oxybe
2010-08-26, 06:54 PM
2nd ed AD&D veteran here. i've been playing ridiculous BS like wild-fighting, dual weilding, dart throwing, elvish warrior/mages for years now.

D&D has only had a passing relationship with "realism" and is best served with "verisimilitude" which even then breaks when scrutinized.

you need to apply the MST3K mantra (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra) when playing RPGs and let yourself get immersed in just how ridiculous the situation is when you realize your psionic robot is fighting the wolfman on top of a magic train for possession of the Golden MacGuffin while aided by your velociraptor riding, boomerang throwing, midget berserker and being shot after by dwarves on an airship.

or how the magical elven princess is fighting a tentacle poop-monster with rainbows while riding a unicorn.

or how the half-orc bandito is shooting lasers from his steampunk-renessance pistol at the demon lady while inside an Escher painting.

D&D is weird like that. it comes with the territory.

kyoryu
2010-08-26, 06:56 PM
4ED introduced the paradigm of the really linear adventure. The game is obssessed with balance in all its forms.


It's clear that LFR is a major focus of 4e. And to do something like LFR, you need balanced rules that aren't too abusable, as RAW is the only thing that you can count on.

Not saying that that's a good/bad/indifferent thing, just why I think they do it.

Kaervaslol
2010-08-26, 06:58 PM
It's clear that LFR is a major focus of 4e. And to do something like LFR, you need balanced rules that aren't too abusable, as RAW is the only thing that you can count on.

Not saying that that's a good/bad/indifferent thing, just why I think they do it.

I don't know what LFR means, please explain :p

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-26, 06:58 PM
It's clear that LFR is a major focus of 4e. And to do something like LFR, you need balanced rules that aren't too abusable, as RAW is the only thing that you can count on.

Not saying that that's a good/bad/indifferent thing, just why I think they do it.

My own opinion is that the idea of focusing on LFR even to some degree brings a bit more scrutiny to the whole affair. I doubt MTG would be nearly so rigorously balanced and designed if there weren't such a tournament focused market.

oxybe
2010-08-26, 06:58 PM
It's more like apples and oranges really. I don't care for any of the two, even though I have played both of them (bad gaming is better than no gaming :smallbiggrin:).

i would contest the opposite. i only have 24 hours a day and 7 days a week to work with so i only have so much time for fun to be had. if i can have a more enjoyable 4 hours of gaming via DragonQuest 9 on my DS then a bad game of D&D, then DQ9 it is.

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 07:00 PM
when you realize your psionic robot is fighting the wolfman on top of a magic train for possession of the Golden MacGuffin while aided by your velociraptor riding, boomerang throwing, midget berserker and being shot after by dwarves on an airship.


Ridiculous? This is made of WIN!

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 07:00 PM
Don't worry about it. A Few more levels and the level 2 and 3 trolls attack bonus will be so far behind your defences, they'll only hit on a natural 20. :smallwink:

Also, may want to edit that second post, copy and paste it into the first one and delete the second (via edit, again). The folks hereabouts have opinions on 'double posting'.

No its just I pretent Trolls are actualy poor souls infected with the T.R.O.W.L virus.

kyoryu
2010-08-26, 07:00 PM
I don't know what LFR means, please explain :p

Living Forgotten Realms.

Sorry, I should have spelled it out at least once.

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 07:02 PM
Living Forgotten Realms.

Sorry, I should have spelled it out at least once.

As if Living Greyhawk wasn't bad enough...:smallyuk:

Kaervaslol
2010-08-26, 07:02 PM
i would contest the opposite. i only have 24 hours a day and 7 days a week to work with so i only have so much time for fun to be had. if i can have a more enjoyable 4 hours of gaming via DragonQuest 9 on my DS then a bad game of D&D, then DQ9 it is.

I know what you mean. But since gaming for me means hanging with friends, getting drunk and ******* around, it's all good in the end.

That's why I called it bad gaming. They are not bad games, but they are not games really made for me.

Kaun
2010-08-26, 07:04 PM
What i don't understand is...

...if you dont like 4e then don't play it?

Why bother with this thread?

..are you trying to convince other people who do like it to stop playing it?

What is the goal of this?

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 07:06 PM
What i don't understand is...

...if you dont like 4e then don't play it?

Why bother with this thread?

..are you trying to convince other people who do like it to stop playing it?

What is the goal of this?

Play what you want as long as you dont force others to play what they do not want.

Kaun
2010-08-26, 07:11 PM
Play what you want as long as you dont force others to play what they do not want.

... :smallconfused:

screw this its beer O'clock some where.

RebelRogue
2010-08-26, 07:11 PM
There is a lot of things to not like about 4th edition, but those that you pointed out are not (at least from my experience) the really important ones.

4ED introduced the paradigm of the really linear adventure. The game is obssessed with balance in all its forms.

Adventures should be linear and controlled. All challenges should offer a fair ammount of err.. challenge, but pose no real threat. The "encounter" mechanic as it core is basically a linear corridor with rooms where **** happens. Character are expected to have certain magical items at certain levels, and as the DM you are heavily encouraged to give them what they "need". This is so heavily engrained in the system that there is actually a rule that gives the characters bonuses if you are playing a low magic campaign.
Since when was D&D adventures not at its core constructed as a series of stuff happening (linearly or non-linearly)? The idea of an "encounter" is as old as the game itself. And there has always been thoughts on how hard these encounters may be to defeat - in that sense every edition of D&D has an element of gamism (unless your DM is a real jerk - that's possible in any RPG). 3.5 tried to quantify how hard these encounters are, and ended up doing a poor job at it. Now 4e has improved upon it, and suddenly it is wrong? That makes no sense!

I can understand if you think the idea of wishlists is silly, but once again (like ALL OTHER editions of D&D) some amount of gear is expected as certain levels. Some don't like this - and for those people the optional rule of fixed bonuses you mentioned is there. It's an option to allow a different style of play!

Again, I understand the reasons why some people don't like 4e, but these should not be it!

Lord Raziere
2010-08-26, 07:17 PM
Ridiculous? This is made of WIN!

see? where does realism enter into DnD?

if you want realism cut out all magic, big monsters, demons, gods, angels, other-planar entities and elementals, undead and focus only on humans, elves, dwarves, goblins and orcs and drow with plausible explanations of how such beings evolved and why they are fighting each other other than those stupid "racism" or "they're evil" excuses.

then you can claim that its realistic.

Kaervaslol
2010-08-26, 07:21 PM
Since when was D&D adventures not at its core constructed as a series of stuff happening (linearly or non-linearly)? The idea of an "encounter" is as old as the game itself. And there has always been thoughts on how hard these encounters may be to defeat - in that sense every edition of D&D has an element of gamism (unless your DM is a real jerk - that's possible in any RPG). 3.5 tried to quantify how hard these encounters are, and ended up doing a poor job at it. Now 4e has improved upon it, and suddenly it is worng? That makes no sense!

I can understand if you think the idea of wishlists is silly, but once again (like ALL OTHER editions of D&D) some amount of gear is expected as certain levels. Some don't like this - and for those people the optional rule of fixed bonuses you mentioned is there. It's an option to allow a different style of play!

Again, I understand why some people don't like 4e, but these should not be it!

In the old versions (and the one that iI'm dm now) you were characters in a world made for you, go FIND adventure. The GM populated the world, made a few dungeons and left some hints and hooks here and there, the rest was up to the players.

There was no point in balance, because it was up to the players to know their limits. Yes, you can go out to Deadly Dragon Mountain and try to steal the treasure and even get away with it, but expect to die, a lot. This was also accompanied with henchman and fast character generation, so to have new chars handy.

Now the GMs are encourage to write adventures in which the characters face challenges tailor made for them, in which there is no real threat. More than one time we had to stop the game because we strayed off the path that the DM had planned and he runned out of material. This was not the case.

And I'm aware that you can still play the way the old way, but as with 3.5, it's not worth the hassle because it's too much work. The game encourages a kind of play that at it's core is linear.

Hope I made myself clear, i'm not a native english speaker and I find it hard to express my ideas properly.

kyoryu
2010-08-26, 07:22 PM
Play what you want as long as you dont force others to play what they do not want.

No, no, that's not how it works. I am going to break into your house and force you to play Paranoia. At gunpoint. The Computer ordered me to. The Computer is your friend. You do not doubt this, do you, citizen?



Adventures should be linear and controlled.

Errrrr... where does it say that?


All challenges should offer a fair ammount of err.. challenge, but pose no real threat.

That's been pretty much every RPG, ever. Encounters should be challenging enough to be fun, and constant TPKs aren't fun.


The "encounter" mechanic as it core is basically a linear corridor with rooms where **** happens.

4e hardly invented the concept of an encounter - basically, the time between when you roll for initiative and when you stop tracking time in turns - it just reified it.

And who said encounters have to be linear? Encounter A does not have to lead to Encounter B. It could lead to any of B, C, D, or E.


Character are expected to have certain magical items at certain levels, and as the DM you are heavily encouraged to give them what they "need".

The game balance and enemies are based on certain assumptions. That's always been true. In 4e, they just tell you what those assumptions are. I hardly see this as a bad thing.

Do you really want to tell me that a 12th level character in 3.x would be happy with a +1 Sling of Slightly Annoying the Opponent?


This is so heavily engrained in the system that there is actually a rule that gives the characters bonuses if you are playing a low magic campaign.

"The game is balanced around the players having certain levels of items. If you don't want to give them out, and don't want to adjust the power of enemies to compensate, here's some alternate rules to keep thing roughly in-line." This is bad, because...?


For the sake of balance the power mechanic was adopted, so that under the hood all classes function the same way.

"Function the same way?" You mean in terms of ability acquisition? Because even at 1st level, a Fighter doesn't play like a Wizard.

I'm not saying that 4e is without its problems, and I'm not saying that you, or anyone else, has to like it. I just don't think that what you've listed are really the real issues you have with the game. They mostly seem like "bad DM" issues, or general frustration with the lack of build optimization potential in the system. And that's fine, too - "I prefer game systems where there is more potential to be had in build optimization" is a very, very valid reason not to play 4e.

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 07:23 PM
@kyoryu: Come break into my house. I'll gladly join you in a game of Paranoia!
(Good times, good times.)

EDIT:
Has anyone else noticed how easily you could run a Portal RPG using Paranoia as a base system? I mean The Computer is already there, just add Aperture Technology and Black Mesa, and VOILA! Portal! Just. Like. That.

Kaervaslol
2010-08-26, 07:30 PM
@kyoryu: Come break into my house. I'll gladly join you in a game of Paranoia!
(Good times, good times.)

EDIT:
Has anyone else noticed how easily you could run a Portal RPG using Paranoia as a base system? I mean The Computer is already there, just add Aperture Technology and Black Mesa, and VOILA! Portal! Just. Like. That.

Imagine the need for 3D tiles.

And to kyoryu, quite the contrary. I'm not a fan of mechanical customization, because it makes no sense to me.

I like the approach everything which is not forbidden is allowed rather than beign required to have certain skill to do thing x.

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 07:31 PM
No, no, that's not how it works. I am going to break into your house and force you to play Paranoia. At gunpoint. The Computer ordered me to. The Computer is your friend. You do not doubt this, do you, citizen?


Heh So many people said the same thing. They where never seen again.

kyoryu
2010-08-26, 07:32 PM
There was no point in balance, because it was up to the players to know their limits. Yes, you can go out to Deadly Dragon Mountain and try to steal the treasure and even get away with it, but expect to die, a lot. This was also accompanied with henchman and fast character generation, so to have new chars handy.

Okay, I'll give you that, if you're heading way back in the WayBack machine. I've played in an old-school campaign like that, where mortality was high and players had (literal) decks of characters to play with. It was a custom game system based on the Fantasy Trip, and had been running for decades when I started playing with them.

But that's old, old, old school. RPGs pretty much diverged from that path in probably the mid-late eighties. (Nothing wrong with that era - I started in the 80s myself. I chose the avatar for a reason)


Now the GMs are encourage to write adventures in which the characters face challenges tailor made for them, in which there is no real threat. More than one time we had to stop the game because we strayed off the path that the DM had planned and he runned out of material. This was not the case.

Poor DMing. A good DM should never need to stop an adventure because they run out of material. Some of the best games I've ever run were completely off the cuff.


And I'm aware that you can still play the way the old way, but as with 3.5, it's not worth the hassle because it's too much work. The game encourages a kind of play that at it's core is linear.

I'll give that to you on the character creation and mortality. 1st ed (box set/AD&D) was a lot easier on the "roll up a new character" front, and the more detailed character rules do tend to discourage character mortality to a certain extent.

I still disagree with the linearity, though. But that's okay.

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 07:32 PM
Imagine the need for 3D tiles.

:smalleek:

3d tiles...oooooooo...the ideas are forming...this is gonna be so epic.

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-26, 07:35 PM
:smalleek:

3d tiles...oooooooo...the ideas are forming...this is gonna be so epic.

Can You Include a little System Shock?

kyoryu
2010-08-26, 07:35 PM
:smalleek:

3d tiles...oooooooo...the ideas are forming...this is gonna be so epic.

Hrm... you could describe skill levels as (descending):

TRIUMPH
Huge success
Satisfaction
Cake

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 07:41 PM
Hrm... you could describe skill levels as (descending):

TRIUMPH
Huge success
Satisfaction
Cake

So Cake = 0? (because the cake is a lie)

Working out the velocity thing is going to be a pain. I'm going to move this over to home brew, so as to not derail this thread any further.

kyoryu
2010-08-26, 07:41 PM
And to kyoryu, quite the contrary. I'm not a fan of mechanical customization, because it makes no sense to me.


Yeah, I get that now - you're *way* old school. The type of old school that says you should be able to play 20 human fighters in a row - and have them all be different. Even without customization.

That's basically my heritage, too :)

137ben
2010-08-26, 07:43 PM
I will say up front: I find 4e has a lot of benefits, but I really don't like it nearly as much as 3.5.
The first thing that felt very strange about 4e is the fact that the fighter does not automatically get proficiency with the best armors, while a paliden does. I'm not, at this moment, going to do an in-depth explanation of why I don't like 4e, but I will say this:

In 3.5, it takes a lot more work to create and balance a new monster. But once you do so, you have a huge amount of new options with that monster via adding hit dice, templates, and lots of combinations of class levels. In 4e, you can make a monster pretty easily...
then you can scale it up and down a few levels, which is nice. You can add a template or two (but three templates becomes too crazy). Oh, and giving it a class counts towards that limit of 2 templates. On top of that, you can't easily customize how much of a monster's power is coming from which class. For example, suppose I wanted to make a troll/fighter/barbarian. In 4e, I can take a troll and add 2 templates to make it a solo encounter, and that's about it. In 3.5, however, you can determine how focused the troll is on fighter and how focused on barbarian via different combinations of class levels and monster HD. This also means that you can do quite a lot of customization of 3.5 monsters/npcs with just the core rules. Also, while 4e makes it a lot easier to create new monsters, it is a lot more work to make a new class, whereas in 3.5 it was a lot less work (though still a substantial task) to create a new prestige class or even base class.

RebelRogue
2010-08-26, 07:43 PM
In the old versions (and the one that iI'm dm now) you were characters in a world made for you, go FIND adventure. The GM populated the world, made a few dungeons and left some hints and hooks here and there, the rest was up to the players.

There was no point in balance, because it was up to the players to know their limits. Yes, you can go out to Deadly Dragon Mountain and try to steal the treasure and even get away with it, but expect to die, a lot. This was also accompanied with henchman and fast character generation, so to have new chars handy.

Now the GMs are encourage to write adventures in which the characters face challenges tailor made for them, in which there is no real threat. More than one time we had to stop the game because we strayed off the path that the DM had planned and he runned out of material. This was not the case.
Have you ever actually read an old edition adventure? They tend to be constructed in exactly the same way as newer ones! Deadly Dragon Mountain is still there in 4e (and I have indeed sprung such encounters on players who insisted on going places they knew were out of their league in 4e), but the idea, that what the players face (on the "straight path", not "Dragon Mountain") should be somehow possible to defeat has always been an element of gaming. 4e does not say that every encounter has to be the same level as the party, but there's guidelines for how much harder it is a good idea to make it, if you want them to succeed. Do you happen to disagree? No problem, turn the difficulty up or down as you see fit. I fail to see how advice and the fact that there is in fact an easy way to read the setting of this "difficulty switch" for a given encounter is a bad thing!

Kaervaslol
2010-08-26, 07:44 PM
That is my experience anyway, as everything in life, it varies from person to person.

Another thing that I don't like from newer editions (and this is totally 100% subjective) it's that they are really complex. Complex in a way that impedes my favourite flavor of game, drunk gonzo madness. Adding lots of modifiers, checking rules, checking conditions, is all a huge load that takes away from the immersion and just isn't worth it.

And of course I mix both ways of playstyle. I have an inclination for the sandbox go steal **** from frost giants waaaay up your level thou :p.

Esser-Z
2010-08-26, 07:46 PM
2nd ed AD&D veteran here. i've been playing when you realize your psionic robot is fighting the wolfman on top of a magic train for possession of the Golden MacGuffin while aided by your velociraptor riding, boomerang throwing, midget berserker and being shot after by dwarves on an airship..

And that right there is when you realize that Eberron i AWESOME.

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 07:54 PM
Thread's up. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9231431#post9231431) w00t!

oxybe
2010-08-26, 07:58 PM
In the old versions (and the one that iI'm dm now) you were characters in a world made for you, go FIND adventure. The GM populated the world, made a few dungeons and left some hints and hooks here and there, the rest was up to the players.

There was no point in balance, because it was up to the players to know their limits. Yes, you can go out to Deadly Dragon Mountain and try to steal the treasure and even get away with it, but expect to die, a lot. This was also accompanied with henchman and fast character generation, so to have new chars handy.

Now the GMs are encourage to write adventures in which the characters face challenges tailor made for them, in which there is no real threat. More than one time we had to stop the game because we strayed off the path that the DM had planned and he runned out of material. This was not the case.

And I'm aware that you can still play the way the old way, but as with 3.5, it's not worth the hassle because it's too much work. The game encourages a kind of play that at it's core is linear.

Hope I made myself clear, i'm not a native english speaker and I find it hard to express my ideas properly.

i've never ran games like that, and i've only seen one guy run the game like that. and this is from a guy who was raised on 2nd ed the "here's a story" method is as old as the game itself.

and i'll be up front: i'm not a fan of the sandbox game... they just feel too episodic in general with little to connect 2 plots until you wander onto something interesting... which eventually turns into a plot...

RPGs in general, in my experience, work best when you have some sort of plot structure and the group agrees to follow it, while the gm agrees to gives the group freedom to alter events or take things in a whole other direction.

IMO the world should serve as a backdrop for the PC's exploits.

oxybe
2010-08-26, 08:10 PM
And that right there is when you realize that Eberron i AWESOME.
Eberron & Dark Sun are probably my 2 fav D&D settings and the only 2 published settings i would consider running.

Kaiser Omnik
2010-08-26, 08:12 PM
There is a lot of things to not like about 4th edition, but those that you pointed out are not (at least from my experience) the really important ones.

4ED introduced the paradigm of the really linear adventure. The game is obssessed with balance in all its forms.

Adventures should be linear and controlled. All challenges should offer a fair ammount of err.. challenge, but pose no real threat. The "encounter" mechanic as it core is basically a linear corridor with rooms where **** happens. Character are expected to have certain magical items at certain levels, and as the DM you are heavily encouraged to give them what they "need". This is so heavily engrained in the system that there is actually a rule that gives the characters bonuses if you are playing a low magic campaign.

For the sake of balance the power mechanic was adopted, so that under the hood all classes function the same way.

Of course 3.XED has it share of problems. It kept the sandbox feel of the old editions but introduced extreme customization, to the point that stat blocks became huge and unmaneagable. It eliminated the mechanism that kept classes balanced by unifying the XP tables and allowing open multiclassing.

It's more like apples and oranges really. I don't care for any of the two, even though I have played both of them (bad gaming is better than no gaming :smallbiggrin:).

Linear corridor with rooms?

How can you get more linear and less realistic than old-school dungeon crawls?

And balance before 3rd edition? You have a strange concept of game balance.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 08:16 PM
having limited experience with 4e I say this

4e is the great balancer of classmany hoped to see in their lifetime

the flaw of it is it is the great balancer many hoped to see in their lifetime, only to realize that some of that flavorful imbalance is liked it.

the over the top abilities of some classes over others made for a dynamic that worked in some parties. it changes of pace to play what many now dub "lower tier classes" which can keep things fresh and challenges can vary depending what you play and how you play it. and yes in spite of a lot of optimizers on boards am sure many of us have played and enjoyed unop'd characters.

of course I have played in 2e, and feel one of the lost gems in the rpg world is abberant, so take my feelings about class balance being taken with a grain of salt

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 08:29 PM
ok

gotta disagree with some of what has been said there

pose no real threat, TPKs aren't fun is a true statement but without a sense of "you or more of your party may die unless you and your friends think together" then you have largely sleepwalk game sessions. granted not every challenge need be a threat but not all challenges need to be something that has an almost prewritten success either. fear of failure needs to be in the game at some point or else the accomplishments of success mean less.

and 2e had some balance to it. the class xp charts made the less world altering classes gain exp faster, warrior classes gained multiple attacks which help give the damage output to somethin closer to what a blaster mage might do at the similar level. and hp was lower then so multiple sword swings could take chunks out of the hp of bigger things. saving throws were and made so certain classes almost had guarrenteed saves vs certain spells and items.

Kaervaslol
2010-08-26, 08:33 PM
ok

gotta disagree with some of what has been said there

pose no real threat, TPKs aren't fun is a true statement but without a sense of "you or more of your party may die unless you and your friends think together" then you have largely sleepwalk game sessions. granted not every challenge need be a threat but not all challenges need to be something that has an almost prewritten success either. fear of failure needs to be in the game at some point or else the accomplishments of success mean less.

and 2e had some balance to it. the class xp charts made the less world altering classes gain exp faster, warrior classes gained multiple attacks which help give the damage output to somethin closer to what a blaster mage might do at the similar level. and hp was lower then so multiple sword swings could take chunks out of the hp of bigger things. saving throws were and made so certain classes almost had guarrenteed saves vs certain spells and items.


And also, mages where more focused on damage rather than save or **** you spells. Also take into account that your average wizard died if someone sneezed near him or her, a high level wizard was really a force to be reckoned with. That's why there are so few high level wizards from legit campaigns out there, most reach level 13/14.

Tael
2010-08-26, 08:57 PM
{Scrubbed}

But really, but biggest issue is that most classes are 90% mechanically identical, with just a change of flavor.

Kaiser Omnik
2010-08-26, 09:02 PM
{Scrubbed}

But really, but biggest issue is that most classes are 90% mechanically identical, with just a change of flavor.

They SEEM that way.

In practice, it becomes clear that they play quite differently.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 09:06 PM
And also, mages where more focused on damage rather than save or **** you spells. Also take into account that your average wizard died if someone sneezed near him or her, a high level wizard was really a force to be reckoned with. That's why there are so few high level wizards from legit campaigns out there, most reach level 13/14.

yeah but it encouraged smarter players who didnt assume they were meant to live untill higher levels, the ugly brutish dead that could await them by a handful of guards with bastard swords meant something.

kinda miss that about 2e, but 3rd is still just fun.

AtopTheMountain
2010-08-26, 09:11 PM
They SEEM that way.

In practice, it becomes clear that they play quite differently.

This. Very much this.

Tell ya what, Tael. Go play a fighter. Then go play a wizard. Then come back and tell me about how they were similar.

Or heck, go play a Tempest fighter. Then go play a 2-blade ranger. And a Whirling barbarian. Even they are quite different in play style, despite all using two weapons and wearing lighter armor.

balistafreak
2010-08-26, 09:11 PM
They SEEM that way.

In practice, it becomes clear that they play quite differently.

Having a slightly more unified set of mechanics is pretty sweet, actually. It's not 3.5, but then again, what am I supposed to expect? :smalltongue:

I'm a HUGE fan of ToB, so my liking the 4th edition combat system is probably to be expected.

If 4th edition had a more 3.5-esque noncombat system with 3.5-esque skills, noncombat feats, and equipment customization (mainly through large libraries dedicated to such instead of additional combat powers and classes) I very well might call it better. But it doesn't, for the sake of simplicity, soooooo...

(Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.)

imp_fireball
2010-08-26, 09:49 PM
The multiclassing example you posted, as an example, would be utterly crippled and weak in most cases. And a sorcerer really doesn't have more offence than a wizard, in most cases.

I don't think he was trying to argue the point of that 'paladin/rogues are awesome'. He was just thinking of an example off the top of his head with absolutely no effort devoted to whether or not the example was up to CR or not because it didn't really matter with respect to the context of the post.

And even if he was drunk at the time of the writing of the post, he still made a point.

Enjoy 4e, but only if you're into 'D&D Lite' or have friends that aren't as big sci-fi/fantasy buffs as you are. That's the way I look at it anyway.

I haven't actually played 4e though, so I wouldn't lambast it by calling it 'D&D: World of Warcraft' or 'D&D: In the ****ter'.

I am all for wizards actually still expanding upon 3rd edition - or introducing an even more hardcore and realistic system (they could call it '3.6e' if they wanted to) - or at least supporting a company that does do that if they don't have the budget or don't care enough. To at least show that they care a smidgeon, y'know?

Also, they could still work on their beloved 4e that way.


If 4th edition had a more 3.5-esque noncombat system with 3.5-esque skills, noncombat feats, and equipment customization (mainly through large libraries dedicated to such instead of additional combat powers and classes) I very well might call it better. But it doesn't, for the sake of simplicity, soooooo...

To be 'better' it'd also have to be more homebrewable or at least as homebrewable as 3.5/3e/3.x.


if you want realism cut out all magic, big monsters, demons, gods, angels, other-planar entities and elementals, undead and focus only on humans, elves, dwarves, goblins and orcs and drow with plausible explanations of how such beings evolved and why they are fighting each other other than those stupid "racism" or "they're evil" excuses.

Verisimillitude and 'mimicry/similiarity of/to the real world' are entirely different things.

Verisimilitude can simply range from 'obey the laws of physics, except when magic breaks them slightly' to 'vampires can always defeat werewolves because <insert setting specific reason here>'.

Hence, you can still have big monsters, demons and gods in any game. Imposing verisimillitude might restrict the fantastic nature of 'gnomish magitech mech warriors' and 'warforged death machines' fighting 'gung ho gun toting fire elf half vampire quarter werewolf quarter shape shifters' and 'orcs with dakka' to 'gnome wizards' vs. 'werewolves' and 'regular warforged with swords and axes as their weapons'.

Or you could tone it down even more and include only what you detailed above.

Some settings are more dramatic and in-depth and serious too (and so inter-racial fighting occurs beyond reasons of racism or 'he's evil'). It all depends on the GM.
-------

I like to think of D&D as a 'roleplaying system' rather then 'one option within a variety of other role playing systems'. Hence I prefer 3e.

Also I don't think the d20 system bare bones by itself is published in any form. So it doesn't really encourage the 'it's a roleplaying system' mindset so much.

Vitruviansquid
2010-08-26, 10:15 PM
... how is this thread not what it looks like? :smallconfused:

But anyways, I don't understand a lot of the complaints I've seen about 4e.

1. I hear a lot of people saying the encounters and other obstacles a player will face is somehow always balanced to the players' ability to deal with it. This is outright untrue. Sure, you can break the game to unplayability by throwing a level 10 monster at a level 2 group, but isn't it even worse with 3.5, where things like save or die effects or exponential magic will only kill the players faster and harder? Even then, the DMG only makes a lot of recommendations as to what you should throw against the players. These recommendations are also pretty comprehensive - I know what a "hard" DC will be at a given level, or what an "easy" group of monsters will look like. These don't actually break my ability to give them hardER DC's or easiER monsters (and vice versa) if the plot called for them.

2. I also hear a lot about the classes feeling samey. Okay, I'll concede that compared to the power sources present in 3.5, 4e's classes do all work nearly the same way, even psionics compared to the standard powers. However, isn't the vastly different ways that different power sources work a *problem* in 3.5? Aren't there so many threads out there about a DM banning one power source or another he judges them to be overpowered? Aren't there many threads out there asking why people hate one power source or another? Don't those threads usually boil down to the DM not fully understanding how they work and not wanting to learn? Besides, despite having the same sets of at-will, encounter, and daily powers, the 4e classes still feel different enough if only because the at-wills/encounters/dailies they get access to are all different. Why have different mechanics working behind the curtain in 3.5 when, on the table, they give roughly the same feel as 4e's classes?

Anyways, to me, the edition war boils down to this.

3.5 has the advantage in that it has a lot more content and diversity due to having been around longer.

4.0 has the advantage of expanding in the future and its books are easier to find if I'm just starting.

These are the only objective advantages they have over the other.

imp_fireball
2010-08-26, 10:18 PM
The game balance and enemies are based on certain assumptions. That's always been true. In 4e, they just tell you what those assumptions are. I hardly see this as a bad thing.

It is if the GM wants to create their own assumptions.

If the GM wants to give the ECL 12 fighter a +1 sling shot of 'slightly annoying <whatever>', that's perfectly fine if the adventure is low powered and involves the caperings of the goonies.

In 3.5, you can actually run with that sorta game, using WBL to determine loot (scaling down magic accordingly) and severely limiting what players can actually purchase as well as raw monetary gang (the goonies never made it rich after all).


Don't those threads usually boil down to the DM not fully understanding how they work and not wanting to learn?

Not that I've seen. But if that's the case, sure move on over to D&D Lite.

I think the sole argument is that Wizards has forgotten about 3ed and all its merits. Which really sucks for people like me who swear to continue making use of 3ed until the end of days.


4.0 has the advantage of expanding in the future and its books are easier to find if I'm just starting.

Eh... just find the Pdfs online. If your a mature adult, you can also check out craigs list.

tcrudisi
2010-08-26, 10:19 PM
First, I read your entire post, OP. However, I've read enough posts like it to realize that it has probably turned into an edition war, so I didn't read any other posts. So if some (or all) of the things I say have already been addressed, I apologize.


Anyway Although I do find the rules quite stiff and the powers same to such a point that it doesnt matter, and all classes extremly similar (Except for the sorcerer who has the damage output of a striker and control properties of a Controler) and pigeonholed.

Right now in the official 4e character optimization boards, there is an argument raging about how crappy (or decent) the Sorcerer is compared to the Wizard. The argument? The Sorc doesn't have much control at all and their damage is matched by the Wizard -- the same Wizard who can still control the battlefield (decently) while blasting everything as well as a Sorc. While people are arguing this, one thing I feel safe saying: most everyone would agree the Sorc either has exactly the right amount of control or not enough. I've never seen anyone in the optimization boards (the people who bring you the best builds possible) argue that a Sorc has too much control... and if the Sorc did, they would abuse it, believe me.


A: The multiclassing is poor. You have to exchange both feats and Spells for WEAKER abilities! What a ripoff. But you might also say: "But the 3e Multiclassing system was broken!" Well that depended on your gm. Your gm should have said NO I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO MULTICLASS INTO A PALADIN/ Cleric/ Rouge/ Mega Ultra broken class.

I have to strictly disagree with most of this statement. First, I feel the ability to hybrid really brought back a lot of what people wanted when they complained about a lack of true multiclassing. But, this was really done as a design purpose because if you got a true multiclass... oh boy, the broken characters that I could make, and I am certainly not the best optimizer out there.

Second, you do not exchange both feats and spells for WEAKER abilities. Never. Why would you? If you are going to spend a feat and exchange a power, you are either going to do it for 2 reasons: 1) flavor or 2) it makes your character stronger (or some combination of the two). You would never just do it to make it more powerful. And yes, multiclassing is perfectly viable as there are some really, really good abilities out there that other classes want. In 3.5 would you multiclass if it made your character weaker? Would you take 10 levels of wizard and then go, "Hmm... I want a level of Monk and a level of Bard! That would be awesome!"

Third, why put the onus on the DM to figure out what will break his game? He's already having to make a campaign world, BBEG's, monsters, the story, etc ... why make him also have to scrutinize every detail of everyone's character to figure out if it will lead to an infinite loop/broken combination that will be more powerful than the other players? But, that's really, as you said, a personal preference. To me, that's just another extra thing required when I DM'ed 3.5 and I have definitely been spoiled by the ease of running 4e.


And Second The Limited amount of roleplaying. You can argue that there is roleplaying in everything but exactly. You can find an excuse for anything. You shouldnt have to find excuses for stuff like Poison Damage, And Psychic damage (Replacing Constitution damage and Wisdom damage respectivly). How Does a Moral boost heal my poison damage? Or how does it heal Psychic trauma? Or what about the BS Power system for marial powers. I can only launch 3 arrows at a time at highest lv? What kind of a wimp is this?

And I understand you can say Well the moral boost helps you forget about the poison. But we shouldn't have to make excuses.

Out of my 3 common groups, I saw no drop-off in roleplaying in two of them and an increase in role-playing from the last one with our change to 4e. In group A, the players just did their roleplaying like normal and our DMs have called for checks within the skill challenges as the players were roleplaying, based on what the players were doing. Everything else remained the same. In group B, the players were not much of roleplayers anyway, so nothing changed. In group C, the players kept the same amount of roleplaying... but suddenly in combat they wanted to describe what they were doing. It was no longer, "I full attack. 3 hits, 38 damage." It became, "GET AWAY FROM MY WIZARD! I stab at him as a feint while using my shield as a weapon to both conk him on the head and continue to push him away from the Wizard. I do 38 damage and I push him into the fire." (with Tide of Iron).

As for healing? Well, how is it any different than 3.5 healing? Or are you arguing that a Bard's heal in 4e is much different than a Bards heal in 3.5? Or a cleric no longer gets magic from the gods to heal in combat? No, the "main" difference is that it's a minor action versus a standard action. The rest is flavor. The Bard may yell at the Fighter that it's not such a serious wound, but the Bard is still using magic while yelling at the Fighter.

Finally, a Ranger can launch many more than 3 arrows at the highest level. Ignoring action points, the level 30 ranger that I played with managed to launch ~15 arrows with one power (the name slips my mind, but it allows you to shoot each enemy that you can see). If there had been 100 enemies in sight, that would have been 100 shots. Not bad, eh? I would compare this to 3.5, but my memory is hazy as to how many shots a Ranger can get in a round. I remember there was Rapid Shot and Improved Rapid Shot... Manyshot? That's all I can remember so I can't really make a comparison here. Regardless, a 4e ranger with Triple Shot (the encounter power you speak of, I bet), will be #1 in damage in the average-optimized party (or the fully maximized party... or any party unless the Ranger is not optimized and the rest are). In 3.5, the poor Ranger does his little bit of damage and looks poor in comparison with the Wizard or Cleric.

Kaun
2010-08-26, 10:20 PM
In 3.5, you can actually run with that sorta game, using WBL to determine loot (scaling down magic accordingly) and severely limiting what players can actually purchase as well as raw monetary gang (the goonies never made it rich after all).

and you cant in 4e?

imp_fireball
2010-08-26, 10:24 PM
and you cant in 4e?

Well you can, but I'm getting the feeling that the class features tend to increase so much in power, that magic items are only a minor aside to the actual class itself. Am I correct?


Finally, a Ranger can launch many more than 3 arrows at the highest level. Ignoring action points, the level 30 ranger that I played with managed to launch ~15 arrows with one power

Right but a Ranger in 3e doesn't need to be level 30 to launch 15 arrows in even a standard action if they're well optimized.

Also, any GM can encourage the traditional 'class means everything' that 4e encourages in 3e. They just need to beef up the base classes, limit magic items to low power stuff for higher cost, make money less meaningful, etc.

Also, they'd need to limit magic and powers itself to one thing or another (maybe a wizard only has access to one or two schools?). Also they'd go with one thing and then just reflavor it as 'psionics'. Instead of creating a psion, a psychic character only needs to say he's psychic in his background. It's a lot simpler, but there's less verisimillitude (in the sense of mechanics with the fluff). But anyway, that's how just one variant of 3e could be made into 4e.

Anyway I'm not arguing the above point further. Arguing specifics always gets incredibly messy.

Kaun
2010-08-26, 10:27 PM
Ehh you would be suprised.

The magic items still make a large differance.

Esser-Z
2010-08-26, 10:27 PM
Would you take 10 levels of wizard and then go, "Hmm... I want a level of Monk and a level of Bard! That would be awesome!"

I wouldn't, but I once played with a guy who did. His Wizard suddenly went archivist around then, making him useless seeing as we had both another wiz and a cleric.

valadil
2010-08-26, 10:29 PM
I like the game but I prefer a more Simulation feel rather than war game feel so yeah. dont hate the game.

This is the best part of your post. 4e is a gamist RPG. It makes no attempts to disguise this and is very consistent about it. Look at stuff like all movement being equal, ignoring the fact that diagonals are farther. It's designed to run smoothly as a game at the expense of simulation. If you want a simulation, look elsewhere.

imp_fireball
2010-08-26, 10:31 PM
I wouldn't, but I once played with a guy who did. His Wizard suddenly went archivist around then, making him useless seeing as we had both another wiz and a cleric.

That's sort of the problem again. Your class solely says what you do in 4e (so if there's a rogue in the party, you can't have another rogue; am I correct?). You could have as much as three wizards in a party in 3e and they'd all be quite useful. The same goes for five fighters. Or five barbarians even (each would have a different totem). None of those are multiclassed.


If fire elementals are immune to fire because they are made of it then why are humans not immune to punches?

Humans are immune to flakes of skin and blood being thrown at them but not raw vector pressure, and neither are fire elementals.

There, I just solved your paradox.

Kaun
2010-08-26, 10:35 PM
If you want a simulation, look elsewhere.

Yeah +1 to this.

If you want simulation dnd in any of its forms is the wrong place to look IMO.

Vitruviansquid
2010-08-26, 10:36 PM
In 4e, each class does something different. Even among the same role, say, Striker, a warlock will behave very differently compared to a barbarian. (Caveat: I am so far not sold on Ardents as a class that should exist when Bards already do)

However, there is no rule saying a group can't run two rogues if they wanted, and, in fact, a group of Fighter, Rogue, Rogue, Cleric, and Invoker is probably going to be more powerful than a group of Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer, Cleric, Invoker because Rogues synergize well with other rogues.

imp_fireball
2010-08-26, 10:37 PM
If you want simulation dnd in any of its forms is the wrong place to look IMO.

Actually, I'm fine with 3e really. Maybe 2e if you want more of the heroism part.


In 4e, each class does something different. Even among the same role, say, Striker, a warlock will behave very differently compared to a barbarian.

Yah but two of the same class are identical. You're trying to counter act my argument sir, aren't you?


because Rogues synergize well with other rogues.

But that's because it's more damage output and faster skill use right? Those rogues are still identical methinks.

Kaun
2010-08-26, 10:38 PM
Humans are immune to flakes of skin and blood being thrown at them but not raw vector pressure, and neither are fire elementals.

There, I just solved your paradox.

i checked human stat block.

No referance to blood and skin immunity or resistance.

imp_fireball
2010-08-26, 10:39 PM
No referance to blood and skin immunity or resistance.

That's because there's no such thing as blood and skin damage types. :smallamused:

You were arguing from a scientific stand point. If extreme heat (fire) kills humans, why are fire elementals immune just because they are composed of extreme heat?

Maybe because they can't feel pain (no actual nerves, unlike humans) unless the attack is directed at their incorporeal soul (so like 50% miss chance; I think elementals have that) and fire merely subsumes into their bodies, even when of a greater heat source (more damage), which would effectually only make them hotter?

mobdrazhar
2010-08-26, 10:44 PM
Yah but two of the same class are identical. You're trying to counter act my argument sir, aren't you?


Not true... The party in the game i run is running 2 rouges and they both are run different.

one has built themselves for ranged combat and skulking around at the back of the lines and hiding whilst the other steps up to flank with other party members. They have completely different play styles and powers

Vitruviansquid
2010-08-26, 10:45 PM
Yah but two of the same class are identical.

I'm not sure where you got that idea. Two of the same class can operate very differently.

For example, an archer ranger shoots people from afar while a dual wielding ranger stabs people in melee. Among warlocks, the Fey Pact warlock concentrates on surviving by superior manueverability and concealment while the Infernal Pact warlock concentrates on surviving with retaliatory powers that make it a losing proposition for enemies to attack him. Among rogues, a Brutal Scoundrel does more damage by hitting harder when he has combat advantage while an Artful Dodger rogue does more damage by being more able to find opportunities to get combat advantage.

edit: Rogues synergize well with each other because they do extra damage with combat advantage. Since rogues are melee classes (except maybe the Martial Powers 2 builds, which I haven't looked into in detail), the more melee classes in the party, the easier it will be to gain combat advantage by flanking. At the same time, rogues (and other classes) also have powers that make monsters grant combat advantage, so they almost become doubly effective if two rogues are attacking the same monster.

Kaun
2010-08-26, 10:48 PM
That's because there's no such thing as blood and skin damage types. :smallamused:

You were arguing from a scientific stand point. If extreme heat (fire) kills humans, why are fire elementals immune just because they are composed of extreme heat?

Maybe because they can't feel pain (no actual nerves, unlike humans) unless the attack is directed at their incorporeal soul and fire merely subsumes into their bodies, even when of a greater heat source (more damage), which would only make them hotter?

So how much damage does aFire elemental (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Medium_Fire_Elemental) take from a Fire Ball (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Fireball)?

Compared to a human from a punch?

Tael
2010-08-26, 10:48 PM
"I full attack. 3 hits, 38 damage." It became, "GET AWAY FROM MY WIZARD! I stab at him as a feint while using my shield as a weapon to both conk him on the head and continue to push him away from the Wizard. I do 38 damage and I push him into the fire." (with Tide of Iron).


Oh no, that's not a biased comparison at all. Surely the biased one would look like this:



"I full attack. 3 hits, 38 damage." It became, "I do 38 damage and I push him into the fire." (with Tide of Iron).


And hell, with Tome of Battle, it might even look like this:



"I push him back into the fire and do 38 damage." (with Charging Minotaur). It became, "I do 38 damage and I push him into the fire." (with Tide of Iron).


@ the responses my previous "The classes are all mechanically identical" post, yes, I exaggerated, but I have played a few different classes, and I guess my issue isn't really with class design (love the Warlock's pact mechanic), but with the whole system of powers. Even inside one class, all of the powers just felt identical to me, the same thing with a new skin and more damage. Also, there should be a LOT more utility powers. Like, at least double the amount. They were always the most interesting, and I was constantly lamenting that I couldn't get more of them.

imp_fireball
2010-08-26, 10:55 PM
Imagine the need for 3D tiles.

Some GMs do run games in 3-dimensions in 3e (and 4e if they wanted to but I don't know what it does about flying movement), but it probably requires writing down elevation and indicating 'sea level' on every map as well as making a new map for different floors - even if there's an easy to get to a higher floor like a ladder or a gaping hole or simply a rim or nook or cranny to jump to (which are all few between until the PCs are 'supposed' to get there, as one would expect).

Also, the PCs hardly ever fight in long dungeons that involve climbing upwards or ascending a continuous never ending stair case or rope network (towers are easy on the other hand; just draw a small map consisting of a few rooms at most for each floor and then an anonymous stair case at one end to take the players higher or lower like every RPG has ever done, even in video games like final fantasy).

Also, I find it hard to indicate slopes and steep cliffs, rolling hills and mogles beyond travel terrain (etc.) on any maps that I wanna create. People have always directed me to the 'cartographer's guild' but it's a bit of a problem considering I have to understand their odd racial dialect (or whatever that J word is) and the fact that I'm afraid they expect me to be pro at paint.net. :smalltongue:


So how much damage does aFire elemental (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Medium_Fire_Elemental) take from a Fire Ball (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Fireball)?

Compared to a human from a punch?

None as opposed to X non-lethal damage?


edit: Rogues synergize well with each other because they do extra damage with combat advantage. Since rogues are melee classes (except maybe the Martial Powers 2 builds, which I haven't looked into in detail), the more melee classes in the party, the easier it will be to gain combat advantage by flanking. At the same time, rogues (and other classes) also have powers that make monsters grant combat advantage, so they almost become doubly effective if two rogues are attacking the same monster.

Very good. And from that I can see why people enjoy combat in 4e and how everything is 'quicker and easier'. That still doesn't take away from me considering it 'D&D Lite' though.

In 4e, it also stands that class tends to drive the character more than the character itself - which drives the whole '4e is less roleplaying' argument.

tcrudisi
2010-08-26, 11:04 PM
Oh no, that's not a biased comparison at all. Surely the biased one would look like this:

Actually, it's not a biased comparison. I'll re-quote what I said before:


Out of my 3 common groups, I saw no drop-off in roleplaying in two of them and an increase in role-playing from the last one with our change to 4e. ... In group C, the players kept the same amount of roleplaying... but suddenly in combat they wanted to describe what they were doing. It was no longer, "I full attack. 3 hits, 38 damage." It became, "GET AWAY FROM MY WIZARD! I stab at him as a feint while using my shield as a weapon to both conk him on the head and continue to push him away from the Wizard. I do 38 damage and I push him into the fire." (with Tide of Iron).

So, what I was saying is that they went from "I full attack. 3 hits, 38 damage." to the "roleplaying their characters while in combat and describing what they were doing in combat with a bit more flare."

Is that system related? I think it is to a small degree: those players feel they have more lee-way within the system to do it, so they did. It made them (overall) better roleplayers and I am a happier DM for it. They never did anything like that in 3.5. However, I realize that is anecdotal evidence and could also be explained by other factors (perhaps they are older now and more comfortable roleplaying), but I think it's a combination of things mixed with the fact that 4e added some nice flavor to the powers. They took that flavor, ran with it and eventually made it their own. Combats with them may not be the fastest or most strategic, but by god it sure is pretty to listen to. :smallbiggrin:

imp_fireball
2010-08-26, 11:08 PM
So, what I was saying is that they went from "I full attack. 3 hits, 38 damage." to the "roleplaying their characters while in combat and describing what they were doing in combat with a bit more flare."

It seems your group was afflicted with 'bored player' syndrome. Players were unwilling to research the many books of 3e to optimize their characters. They just wanted to play an adventure.

Meanwhile, 4e presented a quicker system that introduced new stuff they could do with 4e's RAW. Hence, they wanted to describe what they were doing.

It's really just 'bored player' syndrome. Not necessarily '3e hates roleplaying' or even '3e is worse for roleplaying'.


but by god it sure is pretty to listen to.

I imagine some games of 3e consist of people with some of the most intense voice acting talent imaginable - this is coming from regular players who wouldn't consider making such a thing a career.

tcrudisi
2010-08-26, 11:31 PM
It seems your group was afflicted with 'bored player' syndrome. Players were unwilling to research the many books of 3e to optimize their characters. They just wanted to play an adventure.

Optimization has nothing to do with it. An optimized jump-charging Fighter in 3.5 is still optimized but they would not describe that. One of the characters loved playing Warmages, but he would not describe his fireballs. He would just say, "DC 23 for half and 18 damage."


Meanwhile, 4e presented a quicker system that introduced new stuff they could do with 4e's RAW. Hence, they wanted to describe what they were doing.

It's really just 'bored player' syndrome. Not necessarily '3e hates roleplaying' or even '3e is worse for roleplaying'.

I imagine some games of 3e consist of people with some of the most intense voice acting talent imaginable - this is coming from regular players who wouldn't consider making such a thing a career.

4e may have presented a quicker system, but they did not want to describe what they were doing before. Really, the difference was that they had a description of what the powers did at the top of each power. They took that and used it. Then they decided to build on it by coming up with their own versions.

So while I do not know what 'bored player' syndrome is, I assume it is not what you are talking about. And I am not saying that 4e is better than 3.5 for describing combat, only that it gives the players something to start with. Those players started with it and it improved the quality of their games for everyone. Finally, I am sure that some 3e games have this; I am certainly not arguing that they don't. My point is that 4e gave them the springboard and the players jumped on it.

One final thing: these players have played WoD before and I loved running Changeling with them. They got into the system, describing their own bunks and having a blast. In Mage, they did a wonderful job coming up with creative and visually-awesome (well, when appropriate) magic to cast. With Vampire? Well... they didn't. With 3.5 they didn't. They felt like Changeling, Mage, and 4e enabled them. That's not to say that people in Vampire and 3.5 don't, because obviously some groups do (and likely many of them do it better than my group). But this group took what was offered on a silver platter and used it.

Ihouji
2010-08-27, 12:16 AM
I have never really understood why people argue about 3.X or 4th being better.

They both have pros and cons and what it really boils down to is...

3.X has more customization, but extreme balance issues, and is more complicated.

4th is far more balanced, is less complicated, but has far less customization.

Every thing beyond that is just opinion and most rules can be bent or broken or ignored to balance 3.X or give 4th more customization. That is the best part about role playing games, if you don't like something...change it.

Don't like casters being over powered in 3.x? You can find a myriad of ways on these forums alone to balance them.

Don't like the way martial powers work in 4th change them. My group plays martial classes using a psionic like system. We change powers as we see fit, everything is at-will and you can use "effort points" to augment them.

Balain
2010-08-27, 12:18 AM
I should have known not to come and read this thread. I should have known it would become a which version is better. Some things I just had to point out is 4th Edtion is not 3.x Lite. 3.5 Lite would be the players hand book and that is all you can use.

Some one was complaining that Wizards dropped 3.5 once 4.0 came out. Of course they did. They want to support the new system and promote it so they can make money off of it. Wizards of the cost is a company (actually owned by Hasbro now if I remember correctly) looking to make money. If they can get people to buy tons of new books why wouldn't they?

Comparing 4.0 to 3.5 is like comparing 3.5 to AD&D or the original D&D(basic). If you like 3.5 and don't like 4.0 then play 3.5. Don't say you don't like 4.0 with out trying it. You could be playing 3.5 or 4.0 or amber or T&T or Warhammer Fantasy or any system you can imagine it's as good or bad as the people that play the game.

Tael
2010-08-27, 12:25 AM
4e may have presented a quicker system, but they did not want to describe what they were doing before. Really, the difference was that they had a description of what the powers did at the top of each power. They took that and used it. Then they decided to build on it by coming up with their own versions.


You should really give your players Tome of Battle. It's everything I like about the 4e combat power system, in 3.5 form. And some pretty kickass descriptions of maneuvers and flavor behind them too.
Opening to a random Iron Heart page:
DANCING BLADE FORM
Stance
You strike forward like a slithering snake,
extending yourself almost beyond your
ability to maintain your balance. Your foe
stumbles backward, surprised that you could
reach him from such a great distance.

EXORCISM OF STEEL
Strike
You attack, striking not your foe, but his
weapon, sending a shockwave up his arm
that leaves him unable to strike with
full force.

What I don't get is the Warmage example. Spells in 3.5 generally had pretty good descriptions.

Ashiel
2010-08-27, 12:33 AM
4th ed is not 3rd ed. it never claimed to be and actively said "i'm not 3rd ed".

4th ed tries to simulate a pulp-action feel rather then give a set of world-building rules:

-a common trope is a solider wounded by the explosion and his commanding officer tells him to tough it out. solider musters up the courage, knowing he'll feel it in the morning. that right there is the warlord in action.

That's not a good example of 4E at all. Specifically, you won't feel it in the morning. In fact, you won't even feel anything in the morning, because a night's rest heals your HP completely; which also makes stuff like poison and diseases really stupid. Take a night's sleep and you're A-OK.


-martial powers are the special techniques you see heros in novels & movies pull off. does it make sense you can only use it once a day or encounter? not anymore sense that a barbarian can only get "really angry" X amount of times a day in 3.5. it's a conceit of the genre & tropes the game tries to emulate and it's nice for someone other then casters to get nice things.

One of the things that bothered me really, really bad after I bought all the 4E core books was that you can't - within the rules - have a dual wielding fighter. A paragon of weapon mastery, the only way you can have a dual-wielding character - that actually can attack - is by being a ranger. A 30th level fighter, in core 4E, cannot do something I myself can do in real life (hit and inflict damage with two weapons within 3-6 seconds).


-poison damage/pyschic damage. HP is plot armor... always has been, always will be and rather then having to potentially track various cascading effects by tracking damage done in different ways (HP damage, stat damage, subdual damage, level drain, ect...), 4th ed uses HP as a measure of "can you keep going on? yes/no". it also uses various conditions like slowed, weakened, stunned to emulate these things. what could be a Con poison in 3.5 might deal some Poison damage and leave you weakened for an encounter in 4th ed.
"Can you keep going?" doesn't really adequately describe becoming physically weaker due to a poison or similar effects. Things such as a strength damage inflicting poison for example. It also makes it meaningless. Again, you'll be fine in a few minutes to a night, tops.


-multiple attacks are covered by powers rather then a flat extra attacks every few levels. in 3.5 does that last attack in your 17/12/7/2 really matter other then "hope i roll high"?
Depends on who you ask. Given average ACs for a lot of 3.x monsters, higher level warrior types (who incidentally have the most attacks) tend to get a surprising number of hits in. These hits do not only deal damage but can come with extra effects (such as negative levels with a life-drinker or strength damage via strength of my enemy or even a spell with a spell-stored vampiric touch).

Just tossin' it out there.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 12:39 AM
I should have known not to come and read this thread. I should have known it would become a which version is better. Some things I just had to point out is 4th Edtion is not 3.x Lite. 3.5 Lite would be the players hand book and that is all you can use.

I suspect you misunderstand the complaints with 4th ed. It's not so much an expectation of it being 3.5 lite, as it is an expectation of being similar to 3.5 in some ways, as 3.5 was similar to 3, which was similar to 2.

In comparison, it doesn't even feel like E&E.


Some one was complaining that Wizards dropped 3.5 once 4.0 came out. Of course they did. They want to support the new system and promote it so they can make money off of it. Wizards of the cost is a company (actually owned by Hasbro now if I remember correctly) looking to make money. If they can get people to buy tons of new books why wouldn't they?

3.5 sold tons of new books. There's a reason they made a gigantic pile of supplements for them, and it wasn't generosity. Of course, D&D has now become such a big name, that you could slap it on a box of poo, and still sell a fair number of copies before people catch on.

The "why wouldn't they" is more of a "why would they split their own market?" Sure, some will love 4e, and continue to buy merrily. A significant number will prefer 3.5, and buy used, or buy pathfinder. Good for Pazio, bad for WoTC.


Comparing 4.0 to 3.5 is like comparing 3.5 to AD&D or the original D&D(basic). If you like 3.5 and don't like 4.0 then play 3.5. Don't say you don't like 4.0 with out trying it. You could be playing 3.5 or 4.0 or amber or T&T or Warhammer Fantasy or any system you can imagine it's as good or bad as the people that play the game.

I've tried it. I hate it. Don't assume that people who disagree with you haven't tried it, plenty have.

Systems are also not entirely subjective. I hate that argument as well. Anyone who uses it has never seen FATAL.

tcrudisi
2010-08-27, 12:43 AM
Stuff about Tome of Battle

That does sound awesome. One of us did have Tome of Battle (I bought it for him as a gift), but after he got it he disappeared for a while, so we never got a chance to use it. That's a pity; it certainly would have helped this group.


That's not a good example of 4E at all. Specifically, you won't feel it in the morning. In fact, you won't even feel anything in the morning, because a night's rest heals your HP completely; which also makes stuff like poison and diseases really stupid. Take a night's sleep and you're A-OK.

One of the things that bothered me really, really bad after I bought all the 4E core books was that you can't - within the rules - have a dual wielding fighter. A paragon of weapon mastery, the only way you can have a dual-wielding character - that actually can attack - is by being a ranger. A 30th level fighter, in core 4E, cannot do something I myself can do in real life (hit and inflict damage with two weapons within 3-6 seconds).

Diseases do not go away in the morning. They go away either through toughening it out or having a healer who's good enough get rid of it (also maybe a ritual). You cannot, however, just sleep it off. Also, you are confusing poison damage with poisons. If someone does poison damage, it's just damage (well, except typed poison). They are not poisoned. However, if you wanted to actually poison someone, you could easily just refluff the diseases.

As for the Fighter -- it's there.There are dual-wielding Fighters. They get one of the best melee at-wills in the game, called Dual Strike, which specifically lets them attack two different creatures. And that's at-will. If you want to talk about the PHB1, they had Cleave which sorta did what you are talking about at-will, as well as Passing Attack (a level 1 encounter power) which let them attack two different creatures as well. And that's just off the top of my head for level 1. I'm sure there are a lot more options... like Rain of Blows, a level 5 daily where you lash out with automatic weapon damage against any enemy that starts his turn near you.

Meta
2010-08-27, 12:48 AM
I haven't read every single post but I'm seeing many people posting incorrect statements about the rules of 4e. Some games are more fun when you throw the rule book out the window but I don't see DnD 4e as one of those.

Also, multi-class is Awesome.

Still don't understand the point of the OP.

If anyone is playing 4e and not having fun, and doesn't like the logical choice of playing something else, feel free to take a road trip to sit in on one of our sessions :smallsmile:

EDIT: Avatar man beat me to the punch. Dual Implement Spellcaster btw. Real men/women dual wield staves. Dual wield Avenger is also bangin

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 12:48 AM
Also, you are confusing poison damage with poisons. If someone does poison damage, it's just damage (well, except typed poison). They are not poisoned. However, if you wanted to actually poison someone, you could easily just refluff the diseases.

If poisons do untyped damage that you can in fact sleep off, it strikes me that he has the essentials correct.

The ability to refluff diseases as poisons seems fairly irrelevant. Especially because it would involve house-ruling for things such as poisoned blades and such. You can house rule anything, that's not a property of the system.

tcrudisi
2010-08-27, 12:49 AM
If anyone is playing 4e and not having fun, and doesn't like the logical choice of playing something else, feel free to take a road trip to sit in on one of our sessions :smallsmile:

Can I make the roadtrip if I already enjoy 4e and I want to play in a game? :smallbiggrin: Unless you are on the other side of the country. I'm not driving days to get to the west coast. :smalltongue:

Meta
2010-08-27, 12:52 AM
Can I make the roadtrip if I already enjoy 4e and I want to play in a game? :smallbiggrin: Unless you are on the other side of the country. I'm not driving days to get to the west coast. :smalltongue:

East Coast sir. And you seem legit, but we meet at a neutral location so we have the chance to flee if necessary :smallwink:

edit for grammar

Vitruviansquid
2010-08-27, 12:54 AM
If poisons do untyped damage that you can in fact sleep off, it strikes me that he has the essentials correct.

The ability to refluff diseases as poisons seems fairly irrelevant. Especially because it would involve house-ruling for things such as poisoned blades and such. You can house rule anything, that's not a property of the system.

I do not know what tcrudisi is talking about. Poisons as you describe them are right in the DMG on page 50-51. Poison is also one of the possible types of damage. As well, poisons often have secondary effects effects, like when a monster's power says, "and the target takes X poison damage and is slowed (save ends both)."

tcrudisi
2010-08-27, 12:55 AM
If poisons do untyped damage that you can in fact sleep off, it strikes me that he has the essentials correct.

Poison damage is like lightning damage is like a normal dagger damage. Even in 3.5, if someone did lightning damage, was there any real difference than sword damage? Sure, when it comes to resists. Once the damage is taken though, it's all the same. Lightning damage doesn't require something special to heal beyond what sword damage requires.

Poison damage is the same in 4e in that regards.

Ahh, and you were talking about poisoned blades and what-not. Well, I thought you were talking about poisons you would slip into someones drink.

And yeah, DMG has the rules on poisons you would apply to a blade or use in combat.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 01:01 AM
Most RPGs don't perfectly simulate poisons, and they range from instant to long delays.

A key feature of 3.5 is that most poisons do ability damage(often con), which heals at a slow rate. There are instant poison things(such as breath weapons), but there is also primary/secondary effects on poisons, with delay involved, and a slow recovery time. So in many instances of taking poison, you don't heal the same as you do from being hit with a sword.

tcrudisi
2010-08-27, 01:04 AM
Most RPGs don't perfectly simulate poisons, and they range from instant to long delays.

A key feature of 3.5 is that most poisons do ability damage(often con), which heals at a slow rate. There are instant poison things(such as breath weapons), but there is also primary/secondary effects on poisons, with delay involved, and a slow recovery time. So in many instances of taking poison, you don't heal the same as you do from being hit with a sword.

Ground Thassil Root, level 5 poison from the DMG1:
... second failed save: Target unconscious for 1d4 hours.

And that's a level 5 poison.

oxybe
2010-08-27, 01:51 AM
That's not a good example of 4E at all. Specifically, you won't feel it in the morning. In fact, you won't even feel anything in the morning, because a night's rest heals your HP completely; which also makes stuff like poison and diseases really stupid. Take a night's sleep and you're A-OK.

One of the things that bothered me really, really bad after I bought all the 4E core books was that you can't - within the rules - have a dual wielding fighter. A paragon of weapon mastery, the only way you can have a dual-wielding character - that actually can attack - is by being a ranger. A 30th level fighter, in core 4E, cannot do something I myself can do in real life (hit and inflict damage with two weapons within 3-6 seconds).

"Can you keep going?" doesn't really adequately describe becoming physically weaker due to a poison or similar effects. Things such as a strength damage inflicting poison for example. It also makes it meaningless. Again, you'll be fine in a few minutes to a night, tops.


not that poison in 3.5 was any good due to so many things being immune to it or had a half decent fort save VS low DCs of the cheaper poisons. plus with how readily available magic is, at best it's a bump in the road.

this is what the overnight healing in 4th ed is: you tend your wounds and go to sleep. the next day you're ready to press onwards. you still hurting, but you're in a good enough shape to continue. the same darn way it's always been. you get stabbed, slashed, bitten, clubbed and stung, you bandage yourself up, apply a little bit of magic, go to sleep and you press forwards the next day.

does this require rules to say "you feel sore, a minus X..."? no, because D&D is not trying to emulate reality. you're fantasy heroes. you get hurt, you lick your wounds overnight, you press forwards.

4th ed accurately describes a fantasy hero. i don't know what game you want to be playing, but one where your hero lies bedridden for weeks and hopes to fend off gangrene without the need for amputation due to a stab wound is one i'm glad i'm not part of.

as for TWF... why should the fighter be a master of two-weapons when there is a whole other class that does just that? seriously... if you want to play a dual wielder, play a ranger and call yourself a fighter. one class should not be able to do all things. i never understood why they made the tempest fighter other then "people wanted a fighter who could TWF and could somehow not fathom playing a ranger".

your class is not your profession but it is an archetype of abilities, you pick the class who's abilities fit thematically better with your PC.

like i said, 4th ed does not try to be 3rd ed. a class in 4th ed is an archetype, whereas in 3rd it was... i'm not quite sure truthfully.

4th ed does use niche protection and a stricter class definition yes, but IMO that's the whole point of a class based game. if i wanted to play a game where i could potentially go any which way with my PC, well i have that game: it's called GURPS and it does customization far better then ANY edition of D&D. i play a class-based game because i WANT definition. i WANT the pre-packaged abilities.

Lord Raziere
2010-08-27, 02:01 AM
yea and if the pre-packaged abilities still bother me- I can always change the fluff, in 4E fluff is divorced from the crunch; in fact the PHB itself states you can pretty much change the fluff however you want.

want to play a futuristic cyberpunk campaign? just have magic become nano-robotics, wizards be people with chips in their brain with specific programs for what they do for those nanobots, fighters become soldiers with futuristic weapons and all that, and rogues skills at thievery and such can easily translate into knowing how to get around techno-security systems.

heck, in theory I can just homebrew my own class by just taking various features and powers from other classes and patching them together to fit the fluff I think up, the stuff already printed has a pretty wide range of powers and could be pieced together to form a new kind of class.

WitchSlayer
2010-08-27, 02:21 AM
I don't know why someone said 4e is more linear and forced, and also more safe. For one, while I do have a bit of a story planned out, if my players feel like, say, going to the Astral Sea, buying a Spelljammer and going to the Nine Hells, hey, more power to them. Although that probably wouldn't be a good idea because they have a lot of trouble with encounters. The monk is almost ALWAYS knocked unconscious. And I send level appropriate encounters at them.

They just roll terribly.

Balain
2010-08-27, 02:55 AM
I suspect you misunderstand the complaints with 4th ed. It's not so much an expectation of it being 3.5 lite, as it is an expectation of being similar to 3.5 in some ways, as 3.5 was similar to 3, which was similar to 2.

In comparison, it doesn't even feel like E&E.



Actually it is as similar to 3.5, as 3.5 was to 2.0 that's why it's called 4.0 and not 3.6 or 3.75. I remember when 3.0 came out and there were people that didn't like 3.0 cause 2.0 did this different or did that different. I also remember when 2.0 came out and there were people that said they would never play anything but AD&D cause 2.0 just doesn't feel like AD&D.

Anyways I'm getting off on a tangent, I was just making comments to the posts in this thread calling 4.0, 3.x Lite




I've tried it. I hate it. Don't assume that people who disagree with you haven't tried it, plenty have.



Sorry that could have been more clear on my part I wasn't assuming they hadn't. I know a lot have tried it and don't like it. Good for them don't play it. But I have seen posts of people that haven't tried it and just go by what other people say and assume they hate it too.




Systems are also not entirely subjective. I hate that argument as well. Anyone who uses it has never seen FATAL

Okay there is a difference between saying "you can play any rpg and have fun with it because all system have flaws", and saying "I can play F.A.T.A.L. and have fun."

So I will correct my statement for people that are picky.

When it comes to 3.x and 4.0 my group just rolls with it and can have fun playing either, just like we can have fun playing CoC, TMNT, War Hammer Fantasy, Runequest, MERP, Rollmaster, Busido, Necromancer, tank girl, James Bond, Boothill, any of the Whitewolf systems, paranoia, toon, Ghostbusters, Pendragon, Ars Magica, or any of the other dozen or more Systems that don't come to mind :smalltongue:


I have played games with way worse rules than F.A.T.A.L. The character sheet was more like a charcter book. It had 20 or more stats, even more derived stats and had to take into account things like how tall you are, how long your arms are, how long your fingers are how wide your stance was and a few dozen more things when trying to figure out inititive.

As for content/story well I'm sure some homebrew stuff is worse. An RPG a friend tried to make once was pretty bad.



Anyways As I said I should never have even opened this thread up. Like someone else said to the OP how is this not what it looks like. Anyways I should stop reading this so my Blood pressure doesn't sky rocket and get to bed.

Can't we all just get along in one big happy RPG world...Give peace a chance :smalltongue:

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-27, 08:39 AM
Well Im Glad this Thread resulted in allot of good Discussions.

I hope that we can find it within ourselfs to allow other to state thier minds, as long as the minds arent offencive.

Dragosai
2010-08-27, 08:40 AM
Ah once again we have post after post of people stating things about 4E that are just not true. We also once again for 4,060,735th time have posts were people are stating their dislike for 4E and not giving any points to the RAW as to why.

dsmiles
2010-08-27, 08:55 AM
those players feel they have more lee-way within the system to do it, so they did. It made them (overall) better roleplayers and I am a happier DM for it. They never did anything like that in 3.5. However, I realize that is anecdotal evidence and could also be explained by other factors (perhaps they are older now and more comfortable roleplaying), but I think it's a combination of things mixed with the fact that 4e added some nice flavor to the powers. They took that flavor, ran with it and eventually made it their own. Combats with them may not be the fastest or most strategic, but by god it sure is pretty to listen to. :smallbiggrin:

Consider that nail to be hit square on the head! This is one of the things I love about 4e (that and the old-school-pulp-action-novel overall feel of it - which works spectacularly with the Steampunk genre that I am so fond of.)
If you don't like it, or if feels to "video-gamey," or you see it a "DnD Lite," that's your choice.

EDIT:
@ Potion Sale: East Coast, you say? Hmm...interesting...I, too, am East Coast...

Meta
2010-08-27, 09:20 AM
Consider that nail to be hit square on the head! This is one of the things I love about 4e (that and the old-school-pulp-action-novel overall feel of it - which works spectacularly with the Steampunk genre that I am so fond of.)
If you don't like it, or if feels to "video-gamey," or you see it a "DnD Lite," that's your choice.

EDIT:
@ Potion Sale: East Coast, you say? Hmm...interesting...I, too, am East Coast...
Bout 40 minutes from Pittsburgh. You can carpool with tcrudisi

dsmiles
2010-08-27, 09:24 AM
Bout 40 minutes from Pittsburgh. You can carpool with tcrudisi

Hrm...50 miles south of D.C. You proposition intrigues me...

Meta
2010-08-27, 09:35 AM
Hrm...50 miles south of D.C. You proposition intrigues me...

Epic but interesting derail. This thread would probably become more useful if it became a:

"wanna play 4e with the playgrounders?" thread.

Obligatory addition to 4e supporters: i've always fluffed diseases as happening after that first battle because during combat, your adrenaline is going and your less likely to notice the gradual onset of a sinister disease. Most combats are usually around 30 seconds long so that's always worked for me

Ohh and I have a couple thousand points of ultramarines. Get at me.

PS: ever try vassal?

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 09:36 AM
Actually it is as similar to 3.5, as 3.5 was to 2.0 that's why it's called 4.0 and not 3.6 or 3.75. I remember when 3.0 came out and there were people that didn't like 3.0 cause 2.0 did this different or did that different. I also remember when 2.0 came out and there were people that said they would never play anything but AD&D cause 2.0 just doesn't feel like AD&D.

It's not the same. I played 2nd e. Sure, you had differences of opinion as to which was preferable...you will always have that. But the scale of difference wasn't even close. It was relatively easy to translate, say, a character from 2nd ed to 3. I still routinely take stuff from 2nd ed to use in 3.5. It's quite easy. There is no similar upgrade path from 3.5 to 4.

You have to ask...what defines D&D? Well, obviously, there must be dungeons. Monsters(including dragons). Fantasy setting. Those certainly are not enough though, because that includes essentially every fantasy RPG.

How about resource conservation and management? This has been a central part of every version of D&D prior to 4th, and now it's all but gone.

The classic classes and roles they filled are all but destroyed. Cleric and healer traditionally went together like peanut butter and jelly. Sure, you could use clerics for things other than healing, and heal in other ways...but that was the default healing option across settings. That's gone. Classes used to be distinct, with tank-styled characters having 2-3 times the hp of the squishy casters...who could wield great power until they ran dry...this is essentially gone. There's little effective difference between all strikers, for example, save for fluff, which is not integrated.

At it's very root, 4th ed has departed from all prior editions of D&D. A while ago, I saw a blog post I wish I could find. He'd done word searches of all D&D editions, and showed them by frequency, etc. It's interesting as you see different themes become more popular as editions changed, and track why it happened. 4th ed is not connected to the rest in any way.Okay there is a difference between saying "you can play any rpg and have fun with it because all system have flaws", and saying "I can play F.A.T.A.L. and have fun."


So I will correct my statement for people that are picky.

When it comes to 3.x and 4.0 my group just rolls with it and can have fun playing either, just like we can have fun playing CoC, TMNT, War Hammer Fantasy, Runequest, MERP, Rollmaster, Busido, Necromancer, tank girl, James Bond, Boothill, any of the Whitewolf systems, paranoia, toon, Ghostbusters, Pendragon, Ars Magica, or any of the other dozen or more Systems that don't come to mind :smalltongue:

That's great. But I can have fun with a chunk of wood and a ball. That doesn't make baseball a roleplaying game, let alone a good one.

It's useful to compare rpg's against each other, and while I understand the desire to avoid differences of opinion, ignoring objective differences between systems and declaring it all a matter of person preferences is obviously incorrect. Yet....you see it all the time on threads such as these, why? Surely preference is part of game selection, but preference for what, and why is obviously relevant. Imagine if Zagat rated all resteraunts as "it depends on what you like to eat". Well gee, that's helpful.

Meta
2010-08-27, 09:45 AM
How about resource conservation and management? This has been a central part of every version of D&D prior to 4th, and now it's all but gone.

If you believe this statement to be true, I cant help but feel you're doing it wrong. The combination of healing surges, magic item powers, and daily powers takes the 'conservative' nature some 3.X spell casters had to ascribe to and gave it to every single class.

dsmiles
2010-08-27, 09:48 AM
If you believe this statement to be true, I cant help but feel you're doing it wrong. The combination of healing surges, magic item powers, and daily powers takes the 'conservative' nature some 3.X spell casters had to ascribe to and gave it to every single class.

BAM! Another nail hit right on the head! I couldn't have said it better myself (no, really, I couldn't have :smalltongue:).

RebelRogue
2010-08-27, 09:57 AM
I agree: if there's one thing 4e focuses on (for better or worse), it's resource management!

Esser-Z
2010-08-27, 10:01 AM
(actually owned by Hasbro now if I remember correctly)
If only they'd make Transformers from the Monster Manual. :smallfrown:

tcrudisi
2010-08-27, 12:30 PM
East Coast sir. And you seem legit, but we meet at a neutral location so we have the chance to flee if necessary :smallwink:

edit for grammar

Hah - tricked you. I am a 4e bot, programmed by WotC to troll forums whenever a 3.5 vs. 4e thread starts up and defend 4e in an attempt to bring WotC more money. I must say that 4e is better than 3.5 in all ways and default to "but its more balanced!" if I feel that someone is bringing up a good point.


That's great. But I can have fun with a chunk of wood and a ball. That doesn't make baseball a roleplaying game, let alone a good one.

But 4e is more balanced than baseball! Baseball has superstars like Chipper Jones who can only play for one team. This is in obvious comparison to Wizards, who if you had a Wizard on your team is an "instant World Series win" button. I think. Or something like that. Balance, people, balance!

On a more serious note (and god I hope people realize I was joking with everything I've said thus far in the post): I'm actually living in Raleigh now. I'll have to google it and see how far away Pittsburgh is from Raleigh. DC is only about 4.5 hour drive from here, which isn't too bad at all. If there is actually interest, I think it would be cool for some playgrounders to meet up and play some D&D and discuss why Belkar is now CG (hint: I suspect he will be mostly reformed by the time he dies... though he's still CE right now) or Celia is not the most annoying character ever (hint: she is/was) or even what the MitD is (hint: you are likely to suggest tarrasque). (And with that, I complete my epic thread de-rail, as everyone now responds back with things that might actually be more contentious than 3.5 vs. 4e).

dsmiles
2010-08-27, 12:43 PM
Hah - tricked you. I am a 4e bot, programmed by WotC to troll forums whenever a 3.5 vs. 4e thread starts up and defend 4e in an attempt to bring WotC more money. I must say that 4e is better than 3.5 in all ways and default to "but its more balanced!" if I feel that someone is bringing up a good point.

Cleverbot is...clever. :smalltongue:

BlckDv
2010-08-27, 03:33 PM
I'm actually going to attempt an honest answer to the OP, and see if I can be clear, as I don't think the answer needs to involve editions in any way.

As I understand your general point, the question is:

"If I try Game X and do not like it, is it not Okay for me to share that opinion as freely as a person who does like it?"

If I am wrong on that point, please let me know, as it will moot my below arguments.

In response, I would say that voicing said opinion is just fine and indeed reasonable, however their is an implicit (or in this case even explicit) continuance that voicing an opinion is equal to making a thread on a message board. I do not agree with this.

When one creates a thread, it is a given that the goal is to elicit replies and have a conversation, if you wish to make statements without the desire for reply or rebuttal, a blog would make far more sense than a message board.

That said, let's look at possible setups of posters having an opinion of Game X.

1. I like Game X, can other people help me like it more?
This is a reasonable position to start a thread, such as help with a build, looking for more game materials, help with plots, etc.

2. I like Game X, but hear bad things, am I not right in what I think Game X is?
A player who likes FATAL but then learns that they have been playing WH40K and the Gamemaster called it FATAL as a cruel joke benefits from learning this.

3. I like Game X, what else might I like?
Players looking to try something new can help others assist them by giving an example of what they like, to help people know what types of games to suggest.

4. I like Game X, just wanted to tell you.
Not really cool. This doesn't really give any hooks for ways others can help or a direction for conversation. With a possible exception if you are trying to make others aware of a game they may not know exists.

5. I do not like Game X, why do you?
Possibly okay, if you really mean the second part. If I discover that looking at something with fresh ideas changes how it is received by me, maybe I can enjoy it too, or at least understand why other people do.

6. I do not like Game X, neither should you.
Not really cool, very likely to cause flamewars.

7. I do not like Game X, am I misunderstanding something?
Can be okay. A player who thought he joined a WH40K group but is really playing FATAL might like to know that WH40K may not really suck.

8. I do not like Game X, just saying.
Not really okay, like the I like Game X above, this doesn't open the door for any sort of real conversation or provide a way to talk that isn't just "Well.. I do!" which helps no-one. Sharing this opnion in one of the other types of threads is fine, but making a threead just for it is not really productive.

Hope that helps.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 03:45 PM
Cleverbot is...clever. :smalltongue:

Heh, that is an epic derail.

In the DC area myself, as is at least one other giantitp'er I know in RL. Popular area for gamers. If you decide to do the meetup thing, you might get more milage outta a seperate thread, though.

Esser-Z
2010-08-27, 11:29 PM
That's sort of the problem again. Your class solely says what you do in 4e (so if there's a rogue in the party, you can't have another rogue; am I correct?). You could have as much as three wizards in a party in 3e and they'd all be quite useful. The same goes for five fighters. Or five barbarians even (each would have a different totem). None of those are multiclassed.

Well, he became useless because he dropped multiple spell levels behind as a wizard while having no divine spells of note. And died several times. So...

But, yeah, in general, you *can* run more than one of the same class and still play a part. Can work out real nicely--Red Oni, Blue Oni type situation maybe!

tcrudisi
2010-08-28, 12:19 AM
Well, he became useless because he dropped multiple spell levels behind as a wizard while having no divine spells of note. And died several times. So...

But, yeah, in general, you *can* run more than one of the same class and still play a part. Can work out real nicely--Red Oni, Blue Oni type situation maybe!

There was an incredible group build on the 4e charop board where someone created 5 Barbarians which can out-heal, out-last, and out-damage any other party of 5. It was kinda sick... but beautiful to behold.

And while you may not want more than 1 of each class, you can easily do it. In fact, 2 rogues would make great partners since they would become flanking buddies. Furthermore, each class has a smaller subset, so each class plays a little bit differently depending on your smaller role.

Using the wizard example, you could have a Genasi Wizard (AoE damage on par with a Sorc), an Orb Wizard (to lock down multiple foes) and a Tome of Readiness Wizard (to be prepared for any encounter while bringing some decent single-target lockdown). Heck, 5 Wizards would rock together using Storm Pillar shenanigans.

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 12:23 AM
Well, I'm discussing 3.5e, in that post. I'm totally cool with repeated classes. Like I said, can be fun dynamics.

Someday, I want to play one of a pair of rogues who practice their skills pranking and stealing from each other, constantly evolving new strategies to one up the other.

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-28, 09:43 AM
Hmmmmmm. I was hoping this wouldn't devolve to this but it did. Although a roundabout way of understanding but here it is: Both (Pro and Con) arguments about 4e are correct. Its just a matter of perspective. You can view poison damage as a nonsensical piece of rubbish or as something that makes alot of sense. As much as I want to scream "4e is stupid it doesnt make sense lols 4e tecj sycks ya" I realized that it all depends on what you want and how you view something. In fact I realized that even 3e/Pathfinder doesn't fulfill my cravings for realist-ism. So I decided to create my own RPG. Anyway People alot of stuff doesn't make sense in dnd4e but hey its a game, it can never cover everything, for that we have life...

Meta
2010-08-28, 10:41 AM
Hmmmmmm. I was hoping this wouldn't devolve to this but it did. Although a roundabout way of understanding but here it is: Both (Pro and Con) arguments about 4e are correct. Its just a matter of perspective. You can view poison damage as a nonsensical piece of rubbish or as something that makes alot of sense. As much as I want to scream "4e is stupid it doesnt make sense lols 4e tecj sycks ya" I realized that it all depends on what you want and how you view something. In fact I realized that even 3e/Pathfinder doesn't fulfill my cravings for realist-ism. So I decided to create my own RPG. Anyway People alot of stuff doesn't make sense in dnd4e but hey its a game, it can never cover everything, for that we have life...

It makes absolutely 0 sense that I can have the lowest strength in the party and swing my full blade the hardest. It's still bad***. Pretty much any character with a stat over 20 shouldn't make sense, they're all beyond every human we've seen in recorded history.

So yea, it's not realistic at all, you're right. I think where your wrong though is assuming realism in a fantasy RPG is ideal. The word you're looking for is verisimilitude I believe. Or basically how well aspects of the game makes sense within the context of the rest of the game. That is what more game designers try to achieve and what almost all 'gamers' I know want to experience.

That said, its entirely possible that isn't what you want and you would like a fictional world build strictly on the same universal laws you witness outside your bedroom window. In that case I would consider leaving ALL versions of DnD for awhile and looking at 'realistic' RPGs or what other moniker they go by as I'm afraid I don't know; I've never been interested in developing a world that I already experience, quite happily I assure you, the vast majority of my waking hours.

Edited for a weird spacing issue

SpekterofDavid
2010-08-28, 11:17 AM
It makes absolutely 0 sense that I can have the lowest strength in the party and swing my full blade the hardest. It's still bad***. Pretty much any character with a stat over 20 shouldn't make sense, they're all beyond every human we've seen in recorded history.

So yea, it's not realistic at all, you're right. I think where your wrong though is assuming realism in a fantasy RPG is ideal. The word you're looking for is verisimilitude I believe. Or basically how well aspects of the game makes sense within the context of the rest of the game. That is what more game designers try to achieve and what almost all 'gamers' I know want to experience.

That said, its entirely possible that isn't what you want and you would like a fictional world build strictly on the same universal laws you witness outside your bedroom window. In that case I would consider leaving ALL versions of DnD for awhile and looking at 'realistic' RPGs or what other moniker they go by as I'm afraid I don't know; I've never been interested in developing a world that I already experience, quite happily I assure you, the vast majority of my waking hours.

Edited for a weird spacing issue

Dude I know, I know of making sense within a fictional realm. I know that over 20 ect strengths usual does not make sense.

Meta
2010-08-28, 11:24 AM
Dude I know, I know of making sense within a fictional realm. I know that over 20 ect strengths usual does not make sense.

Okay then, but many of your posts contain the words or ideas "realism" and "sense" so I tried to elaborate on those ideas to make more coherent 'sides' to the argument because I don't always follow your train of thought and perhaps others might have a similar issue.

Just being helpful :smallwink:

Edit: ninajed the mod so well, didn't even make note of my ninja powers! Also three arrows in a round is definitely not the highest total. It's over 10 sir

The Glyphstone
2010-08-28, 11:28 AM
The better word to use is usually 'versimilitude'. It's 'realism', but applied to a set of rules and laws that are different than ours.

I.E. a Teleport or Fireball spell. Teleportation is (for all intents and purposes) impossible in our world. Thus, for us, Teleportation is not realistic and doesn't make sense. In D&D, though, teleportation is perfectly acceptable and normal, it is realistic by the terms of its own universe. Fire conducts heat in our universe, but in the D&D universe, a Fireball spell doesn't burn anything outside its radius - this is unrealistic for us, but acceptable for them. But a BBEG who can Teleport into and out of a 'shielded' dungeon that players cannot Teleport into or out of (to dredge an example from a recent thread) is violating the established laws of the universe, and breaking versimilitude, the ability of the players to accept what is going on as 'normal'.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-08-28, 11:54 AM
And Second The Limited amount of roleplaying...
I think you mean 'realism,' or its politically correct cousin, veri...whatever.


...You can argue that there is roleplaying in everything but exactly. You can find an excuse for anything. You shouldnt have to find excuses for stuff like Poison Damage, And Psychic damage (Replacing Constitution damage and Wisdom damage respectivly). How Does a Moral boost heal my poison damage? Or how does it heal Psychic trauma? Or what about the BS Power system for marial powers. I can only launch 3 arrows at a time at highest lv? What kind of a wimp is this?
And I understand you can say Well the moral boost helps you forget about the poison. But we shouldn't have to make excuses. I like the game but I prefer a more Simulation feel rather than war game feel so yeah. dont hate the game. Its Ok. If you dont like anything about my post contact me and I will change it.
Yeah, D&D just isn't about realism. In any edition.

The simplest explanation for why your high level fighter can swim through lava (3e) or why your warlord can heal poison damage with a shout (4e) is: you're magical. Even if your class doesn't mention anything about magic, you are. You're an awesome demigod of action, who can survive lethal injuries and perform feats of impossible cartoonish proportions, because your very body and soul are MAGICAL. And you know it!

PS: Your country is spelled 'Ukraine' in English. :smallsmile:

TraadosDarksund
2010-08-28, 12:11 PM
Ok, my opinion of the 4th edition.... Not as great as people make it out to be. Alot of the rules help to prevent, say, 10 level characters from becoming gods, which is great. But the combat system has become as complex as Nale's multiclass'. My view of 3.5: great....but Rigged beyond beleif. An example of this may be, say, 2nd level characters killing a gargantuan black dragon. And so I came up with a brilliant compromise of this, which is taking some of the rules of 4e and mixing them with 3.5 to prevent broken characters but keep the grand aspects of 3.5e. And keep bards and most of the other classes that got killed of due to no one knowing exactly HOW to use them to the party's advantage. I am not biased, I've played both versions and enjoyed them both very much....but I was a little dissapointed by 4e.

Ashiel
2010-08-28, 01:27 PM
The better word to use is usually 'versimilitude'. It's 'realism', but applied to a set of rules and laws that are different than ours.

I.E. a Teleport or Fireball spell. Teleportation is (for all intents and purposes) impossible in our world. Thus, for us, Teleportation is not realistic and doesn't make sense. In D&D, though, teleportation is perfectly acceptable and normal, it is realistic by the terms of its own universe. Fire conducts heat in our universe, but in the D&D universe, a Fireball spell doesn't burn anything outside its radius - this is unrealistic for us, but acceptable for them. But a BBEG who can Teleport into and out of a 'shielded' dungeon that players cannot Teleport into or out of (to dredge an example from a recent thread) is violating the established laws of the universe, and breaking versimilitude, the ability of the players to accept what is going on as 'normal'.

Well said, Mr. Glyphstone, and very true.

It's this kind of verisimilitude that I missed with playing 4E. For the most part, 3E is very stable in the way its rules apply to everyone. NPCs and PCs used pretty much the same rules, and can often possess the same abilities as PCs (monster HD are essentially class levels in "monster type", and if someone uses a spell then you probably can too). While its rules don't always mimic real life perfectly, they a consistent internally and often make sense within the system.

In 4E, there is a completely different rule-set for PCs and NPCs. You lack countless options that have been prevalent in D&D since its conception; such as the ability to use animate dead or even charm person style effects. The core 4E monster manual is loaded with undead enemies, skeletons, zombies, and the like; but no way to create or animate them beyond GM fiat. It breaks verisimilitude every time you encounter a wizard with an army of undead mooks (a classic trope). "Oh it's not a wizard, it's a necromancer" - "Well I wanna play a necromancer instead." - "Sorry, there are no necromancers in this game" - "But we just fought one!" - "That's an enemy, it uses different rules than you".

Other things that make it bad roleplaying system for my group is the lack of rules self-contained rules for things like hardness. In Core 4E, you can punch your way through an adamantine door (or anything really) because they include rules for object hit points but there is nothing for dealing with how hard something is to damage - just how much damage it can sustain.

Things like dual-wielding not being an option without special powers gained in splat books also rubs me the wrong way really bad. A 30th level fighter (or anything except a ranger, actually) cannot dual wield without house-ruling; which just seems like such a failure to me. A failure because you have to house rule something so simple, that virtually every RPG system I have ever played covers dual-wielding in its core.

So it doesn't even feel like a good roleplaying game in general to me.

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 01:39 PM
I absolutely agree, Ashiel, with the caveat that I do enjoy playing 4e. It's just not what I'll looking for in D&D.


I'll throw Firecube and Tenser's Mischievous Gravity Vortex (aka Grease) into the verisimilitude issues pile.

tcrudisi
2010-08-28, 02:07 PM
"Oh it's not a wizard, it's a necromancer" - "Well I wanna play a necromancer instead." - "Sorry, there are no necromancers in this game" - "But we just fought one!" - "That's an enemy, it uses different rules than you".

Things like dual-wielding not being an option without special powers gained in splat books also rubs me the wrong way really bad. A 30th level fighter (or anything except a ranger, actually) cannot dual wield without house-ruling; which just seems like such a failure to me. A failure because you have to house rule something so simple, that virtually every RPG system I have ever played covers dual-wielding in its core.

First, no necromancers? Level 6 ritual to create an undead that obeys your orders. Various other rituals to give you utility powers around undead (perceive the area around them, undead see you as undead, preventing undead from crossing a threshold, using a corpse as a means of teleportation) and of course, becoming a lich.

But - they can't summon undead legions to fight for them! Easy: we make you a summoning wizard and reflavor your powers to be undead. Instead of Summon Fire Warrior you now have Summon Skeleton. Etc. Mechanically they work the exact same and no house-ruling required.

Second, no dual-wielding Fighters? See Tempest Technique - a type of Fighter that specializes in using two weapons (and gets bonuses for doing so). Here are some of their powers (all of which require you to have two weapons in hand):

level 1- at-will: Dual Strike (make one attack with each weapon)
enc: Funneling Fury (make one attack with each weapon) and Surprising Stab (hit with the first, surprise the target with the second weapon)
daily: Bristling Defense (lash out at two foes, one weapon at each) and Ruinous Assault (lash out at two foes, one weapon at each)
Level 3 - Sweeping Slash (Use your primary weapon to force foes back, move adjacent to one and attack him with your off-hand)
Level 5 - Spinning Razor Strike (Slash at foe 1, shift and slash at foe 2 with off-hand weapon, shift and slash at foe 3 with both weapons) and Dancing Defense (a stance only available to fighters who duel wield, turning them into whirling death or a defensive juggernaut)
Level 7 - Hampering Flurry (attack foe with both weapons, if you hit with both, deal extra damage) and Opportunist's Rend (attack the target twice when he does something stupid) and Twofold Torment (attack twice and deal tons of damage)
Level 9 - Punishing Storm (attack twice with your main weapon, then bash a foe to the ground with your off-hand weapon)

I was going to go all the way up to 30, but I figure the first 10 levels works nicely. And for those who don't know 4e that well - I just listed at least 1 power from each level that you get a new attack power. I would say the Fighter does have the option of fighting with two weapons and does so quite well.

kyoryu
2010-08-28, 02:35 PM
First, no necromancers? Level 6 ritual to create an undead that obeys your orders. Various other rituals to give you utility powers around undead (perceive the area around them, undead see you as undead, preventing undead from crossing a threshold, using a corpse as a means of teleportation) and of course, becoming a lich.

But - they can't summon undead legions to fight for them! Easy: we make you a summoning wizard and reflavor your powers to be undead. Instead of Summon Fire Warrior you now have Summon Skeleton. Etc. Mechanically they work the exact same and no house-ruling required.

Personally, I'd be happy with fewer, broader classes. Let Ranger be a Fighter build.

Of course, that doesn't sell books.

But, I'm old-fashioned that way. We don't need Wizards! In my day, we had Magic-Users and were happy with 'em! Average 3 hit points at level 1! Get offa my lawn!



Second, no dual-wielding Fighters? See Tempest Technique - a type of Fighter that specializes in using two weapons (and gets bonuses for doing so). Here are some of their powers (all of which require you to have two weapons in hand):

In all fairness, Martial Power probably does qualify as a splat.

If you want to dual-wield with PHB1, you make a Ranger. I don't necessarily see a problem with that.

Also, it's not like D&D has always had dual-wielding as a core concept. I don't think it existed in AD&D, and I'm not even sure it was generally available in 2nd ed.

The New Bruceski
2010-08-28, 02:55 PM
Any one-handed weapon class can dual-wield just by picking up a second weapon. Your character is ambidextrous and can use either weapon for an attack at any time. In addition there are feats to make the off-hand weapon add some static bonuses, which represents using your second weapon to help the attack or defense of your first one.

There's more to dual-wielding than simply taking a weapon damage and multiplying by 2. It exists in 4e, even if it doesn't exist in the way you think it *should*. Rangers just happen to have developed a fluid fighting style that comes from being Aragorn clones some "in tune with nature" stuff. I find it particularly useful for a rogue, even if they don't specialize in daggers they can carry one in the off-hand for the extra accuracy and range attacks.

AtopTheMountain
2010-08-28, 02:59 PM
Rangers just happen to have developed a fluid fighting style that comes from being Aragorn clones some "in tune with nature" stuff.

:smallconfused: When did Aragorn ever dual-wield anything?

EDIT: Other than his sword and a torch.

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 03:02 PM
If you want to dual-wield with PHB1, you make a Ranger. I don't necessarily see a problem with that.

Because I want to be a man who holds off hordes with a pair of weapons, standing strong to protect his allies, not a man who dashes about killing foes.

Bruceski, I don't get to actually support dual wielding in my mechanics that way. Nothing about what my sheet says I do actually has any real connection to TWF.

Meta
2010-08-28, 03:11 PM
I believe this was already covered earlier in this thread, but the "rangers being the only dual-wielders" idea is definitely a myth. Any class can dual wield. Rangers just happen to do it better than most if not all. That's not a bad thing, there's almost always someone who's the best at an aspect of play. Assuming you're dexterous enough, take as many twf feats as you'd like.

Reiteration: anyone can dual wield.

Also, 4e focuses more on the 'light' side of Heros probably to further their push into mainstream culture and to avoid being called the devil's game like has happened in the past. So things like necromancers and blackguard were probably not very high on the priority list. Though I believe a splat book coming out will have shadowy heroes presented

Leeham
2010-08-28, 03:13 PM
Also, it's not like D&D has always had dual-wielding as a core concept. I don't think it existed in AD&D, and I'm not even sure it was generally available in 2nd ed.

If I'm not mistaken, only rangers could dual-wield.

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 03:23 PM
Others can dual wield, sure. But only Rangers get to attack extra, which is pretty much the ultimate mechanical representation of dual wielding.

Ashiel
2010-08-28, 04:05 PM
First, no necromancers? Level 6 ritual to create an undead that obeys your orders. Various other rituals to give you utility powers around undead (perceive the area around them, undead see you as undead, preventing undead from crossing a threshold, using a corpse as a means of teleportation) and of course, becoming a lich.

But - they can't summon undead legions to fight for them! Easy: we make you a summoning wizard and reflavor your powers to be undead. Instead of Summon Fire Warrior you now have Summon Skeleton. Etc. Mechanically they work the exact same and no house-ruling required.

Second, no dual-wielding Fighters? See Tempest Technique - a type of Fighter that specializes in using two weapons (and gets bonuses for doing so). Here are some of their powers (all of which require you to have two weapons in hand):

level 1- at-will: Dual Strike (make one attack with each weapon)
enc: Funneling Fury (make one attack with each weapon) and Surprising Stab (hit with the first, surprise the target with the second weapon)
daily: Bristling Defense (lash out at two foes, one weapon at each) and Ruinous Assault (lash out at two foes, one weapon at each)
Level 3 - Sweeping Slash (Use your primary weapon to force foes back, move adjacent to one and attack him with your off-hand)
Level 5 - Spinning Razor Strike (Slash at foe 1, shift and slash at foe 2 with off-hand weapon, shift and slash at foe 3 with both weapons) and Dancing Defense (a stance only available to fighters who duel wield, turning them into whirling death or a defensive juggernaut)
Level 7 - Hampering Flurry (attack foe with both weapons, if you hit with both, deal extra damage) and Opportunist's Rend (attack the target twice when he does something stupid) and Twofold Torment (attack twice and deal tons of damage)
Level 9 - Punishing Storm (attack twice with your main weapon, then bash a foe to the ground with your off-hand weapon)

I was going to go all the way up to 30, but I figure the first 10 levels works nicely. And for those who don't know 4e that well - I just listed at least 1 power from each level that you get a new attack power. I would say the Fighter does have the option of fighting with two weapons and does so quite well.

I don't recall seeing any of that stuff in my PHB, MM, or DMG; which is exactly my point. I don't want a system that can't even cover basic things without a variety of splat books. You have to have a splat-book to get the option to dual-wield as something other than a ranger; and you have to have a splat book and web content to have a wizard that's something other than "I throw teh fireballz". Far too much stuff is missing for me to like it.

And I really, really wanted to like it. I was excited about 4th edition. I even tried a few games prior to the release of the game, since the pdfs were leaked; but I became disenchanted shortly after.

I'm not paying out huge amounts of money for a sub-par game, when instead of adding new stuff, it's patching things that are incomplete with the main. Everything you named is splat-book material, and so I don't really care; because I said every time that you "can't even do this in core".

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-28, 04:55 PM
You have to have a splat-book to get the option to dual-wield as something other than a ranger;

You don't want the option to duel weild. Anyone not using a two-handed weapon can duel weild in phb1 only. It's easy. pick up two weapons, you are now dual weilding. Attack with your prefered as required. I'm pretty sure there are PHB1 powers that include secondary attacks that could quite happily be made with a second weapon, even.
You want more benefits? Take the feats, get AC and Attack bonuses, etc.

What you are asking for and missing is free attacks purely from having a second weapon. Which the Ranger, and anyone taking ranger multiclass powers gets even in phb1 only.

The two things are very different and frankly unrelated. That's not to say it's invalid to dislike 4e because weilding two weapons doesn't let you attack more often, or that it's wrong to dislike a system which has a lot of supplementary material, but it does help to keep some thing straight I think. :smallsmile:

Meta
2010-08-28, 04:57 PM
Others can dual wield, sure. But only Rangers get to attack extra, which is pretty much the ultimate mechanical representation of dual wielding.

Twf, TW defense, TW flurry and TW opening all seem pretty indicitive of twf and any one can take those. Plus a lot of classes can dual wield for those added attacks you like. But really it's a bit nit picky, everyone can dual wield and even snag some of those extra attacks but some do it better than others. I'd like for a dual wielding salad fork mage to be effective but alas.

Edit: what tiki said is right

Ashiel
2010-08-28, 05:40 PM
Twf, TW defense, TW flurry and TW opening all seem pretty indicitive of twf and any one can take those. Plus a lot of classes can dual wield for those added attacks you like. But really it's a bit nit picky, everyone can dual wield and even snag some of those extra attacks but some do it better than others. I'd like for a dual wielding salad fork mage to be effective but alas.

Edit: what tiki said is right

So basically you're spending multiple feats for benefits that are arguably just putting you on par with how you would be by wielding a 2 hander or a sword & board? Yeah...right.

Also, yeah, "dual wielding" implies using both of the weapons. Holding a weapon in a hand and not using it is no more dual-wielding than holding something else in your hand, because you're not wielding it. To wield would suggest use; but you're only wielding one at a time. Alternating sure; but wielding? No.

Definition of Wield (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wield)

So no. You can't.
And something really bugs me that I, a lowly commoner who isn't out fighting dragons and what-not, can strike effectively with two different weapons - as a hobby - within 3 to 6 seconds from one another and a 30th level godlike being of war can't...unless you have that splatbook.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-28, 05:49 PM
If you are only weilding something whilst actively attacking with it, then Rangers can't Duel-Weild, and neither can 99% of things in 3.5.

Infact, I think only a few Fighter Powers and Whirling barbarian powers might let you attack with both simultainiously.

Otherwise you are just alternating within 6 seconds. :smallwink:

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 05:58 PM
No, I'm attack with both during the same attack action, with separate attacks that I could not simply assign to one weapon.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-08-28, 06:43 PM
I'd just like to point out that while any 3e dirt farmer can attack twice per round by dual wielding, there're a very limited number of classes which actually benefit from dual wielding. [Over say, wielding a two handed weapon.] For every other character, it's a trap option. And depending on your PoV, less options may be better than trap options.

Blackfang108
2010-08-28, 06:43 PM
No, I'm attack with both during the same attack action, with separate attacks that I could not simply assign to one weapon.

... What are you saying here?

Seriously. It makes no sense.

vicente408
2010-08-28, 06:45 PM
Splatbooks are less necessary when DDI is an option. The character builder gives you access to all those splatbook builds, feats, etc, correct?

Blackfang108
2010-08-28, 06:53 PM
Splatbooks are less necessary when DDI is an option. The character builder gives you access to all those splatbook builds, feats, etc, correct?

Correct. A one-month purchase of DDi gets you the most up to date version of the character builder at the time of purchase, and that version will always be avaliable to you even if you let the subscription lapse.

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 06:59 PM
... What are you saying here?

Seriously. It makes no sense.
I take a full attack action. This allows me to attack with both weapons.

The 4e core non-ranger TWF is 'use multi-attack power, assigning some attacks to each weapon'. This could be done just as effectively with only using one weapon.

huttj509
2010-08-28, 07:00 PM
a) I think rangers have Two Weapon Fighting more because of Drizzt, actually. That "so well known he's become cliche" Drow TWF Ranger with an animal companion (ok, a statue that became an animal companion)? Of course, at the time Drizzt could use Two Weapon Fighting because he was a Drow, not due to Ranger.

b) Dual Wielding as mainly providing bonuses to hit/defend etc. does seem odd if you're in the assumption of "one swing, one attack roll". In that case, well, you have another weapon, why not swing it too?

However, the combat system is intended to be more of a fluid combat, that one attack roll is just where you managed to find an opening, etc. Normal use of two weapons, in real life, uses one to block attack, or deflect the opponent's weapon in order to create an opening for the other weapon. Now, you can certainly switch it up to keep the opponent off guard. Parry with the "main" weapon and follow up with the "off-hand".

Actually making solid strikes with both weapons at once is nontrivial to be effective with, and would need special techniques or training to not simply leave yourself open to counterattack.

Now as to the game design part of it, they did implement multi-weapon strikes for classes other than Ranger. Not in the first book, sure, but they have provided more flexibility in styles for various classes and character ideas.

Nu
2010-08-28, 07:01 PM
I take a full attack action. This allows me to attack with both weapons.

The 4e core non-ranger TWF is 'use multi-attack power, assigning some attacks to each weapon'. This could be done just as effectively with only using one weapon.

For the second part, only as much as a full attack action would be just as effective attacking twice with the same weapon at a penalty. It's an arbitrary distinction for the purposes of game play either way.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-28, 07:03 PM
I take a full attack action. This allows me to attack with both weapons.

The 4e core non-ranger TWF is 'use multi-attack power, assigning some attacks to each weapon'. This could be done just as effectively with only using one weapon.

You do realise that the Ranger TWF can be similarly summed up as 'Use Multi-Attack Power, with Weapons pre-assigned', right?

Some of the TWF ranger powers don't even attack with both weapons, like the excellent burst-1 attack, dire-wolverine strike, which requires Two weapons but you only roll damage using the better of the two, really.

It just doesn't model things in the same way. *shrug*

Blackfang108
2010-08-28, 07:05 PM
I take a full attack action. This allows me to attack with both weapons.

The 4e core non-ranger TWF is 'use multi-attack power, assigning some attacks to each weapon'. This could be done just as effectively with only using one weapon.

Huh?

Full attack action? This is 4e we're discussing here. there is no such thing as a full attack action.

Meta
2010-08-28, 09:38 PM
I'm failing to see the debate here. If super effective dual wielding is a prerequisite for a character you want to play then choose a class that does it well. This seems like a non-issue.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-28, 09:43 PM
However, the combat system is intended to be more of a fluid combat, that one attack roll is just where you managed to find an opening, etc. Normal use of two weapons, in real life, uses one to block attack, or deflect the opponent's weapon in order to create an opening for the other weapon. Now, you can certainly switch it up to keep the opponent off guard. Parry with the "main" weapon and follow up with the "off-hand".

Actually making solid strikes with both weapons at once is nontrivial to be effective with, and would need special techniques or training to not simply leave yourself open to counterattack.

It's not terribly hard, and it's essential to fighting effectively with two weapons. If you're only ever striking with one weapon at a time, you should replace one of your weapons with a shield. It's much better at blocking attacks than a weapon is. The entire purpose of using two weapons at once is so that you can strike rapidly, and using a variety of angles. It's not a good defensive setup, it's inherently aggressive. At least, unless you want to die.

-I've done a fair bit of foam fighting, as well as a bit with blunt metal. The above is common wisdom, and using one sword to block with is a common noob mistake.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-08-28, 10:00 PM
Of course, at the time Drizzt could use Two Weapon Fighting because he was a Drow, not due to Ranger.
Was Drizzt spawned before 2e?

In 2e, he could dual wield because he was a ranger and he was OP because he was a drow. He was super-special-unique because rangers had to be Good in 2e, and well, we all know the rest.

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 10:36 PM
You do realise that the Ranger TWF can be similarly summed up as 'Use Multi-Attack Power, with Weapons pre-assigned', right?

Some of the TWF ranger powers don't even attack with both weapons, like the excellent burst-1 attack, dire-wolverine strike, which requires Two weapons but you only roll damage using the better of the two, really.

It just doesn't model things in the same way. *shrug*

Ranger, yes. But what if I don't want to be a mobile woodsman, but a big man who stands there and hits with two weapons, holding his ground in a circle of death?




Huh?

Full attack action? This is 4e we're discussing here. there is no such thing as a full attack action.
I was contrasting them! That should be clear!

I note that the lack of full attacks was one of my first beefs with 4e. I like rolling that extra hit. :smallyuk:

Nu
2010-08-28, 10:42 PM
Ranger, yes. But what if I don't want to be a mobile woodsman, but a big man who stands there and hits with two weapons, holding his ground in a circle of death?

Well,
A. The ranger doesn't have to take mobility-oriented powers. Heck, the bonus feat for the twin blade fighting style is "Toughness." Rangers can even choose to do away with Dexterity and take heavy armor feats if they so choose.
B. There's also a two-weapon build for fighters now.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-28, 10:47 PM
*shrug* I went into a thread that promised to convert any 3.5 concept to 4e. I listed the character I was currently playing. I was told that it simply couldn't happen.

Grey Elf Domain Wizard(Storm domain)/Incantatrix(with heavy metamagic use)/IoT7V. Im not going to list minor details, Im just curious as to if the feel can be replicated by say, level 14. At that level, he'd been rocking for some time.

uglymartini13
2010-08-28, 10:47 PM
Well I started with 4e and now am trying to switch to 3.5....I would say yes they are many diffrences but 4e is a great introduction or segway into learning a prior edition of the game. 4e can be fixed up a bit. I also think it was meant to be a game for people who do not have as much time to be abel to keep a game they love going without investing the amount of time runnign say a 3,5 game would take.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-28, 10:54 PM
3.5 doesn't really take long to run...now granted, Im likely biased by my knowledge of 3.5, and systems you are familiar with are much easier to prepare for, but with the exception of Paranoia, I haven't seen a great deal of difference in preparation times of different game systems. Building the world is usually the sticky bit, actually statting stuff up is generally relatively quick, and at most, Im gonna spend a coupla hours before the game. Usually, more like 20 minutes, most of which is spent on clearing junk off the tables.

I could see the argument that 4e is easier to learn, if only because of the great volume of material for 3.5, but I suspect this will be less of an issue as 4e gains splatbooks. Probably still a little easier, though, since all the classes work more or less the same.

The New Bruceski
2010-08-28, 10:54 PM
Ranger, yes. But what if I don't want to be a mobile woodsman, but a big man who stands there and hits with two weapons, holding his ground in a circle of death?

What's in a name? Take the Ranger's powers and drop the fluff. Hell, I could make a Warforged Sorceror who is actually a mech piloted by a gnome, using magipunk flamethrowers and other gadgets. Aside from an agreement with the DM on what the gnome can do if outside the mech, I wouldn't need to change a single actual rule.

Meta
2010-08-28, 11:00 PM
Ranger, yes. But what if I don't want to be a mobile woodsman, but a big man who stands there and hits with two weapons, holding his ground in a circle of death?




I was contrasting them! That should be clear!

I note that the lack of full attacks was one of my first beefs with 4e. I like rolling that extra hit. :smallyuk:

A high str high con ranger. For a few feats he can even be in plate mail. Rangers's aren't just woodsmen, that's a 3.5 thing

huttj509
2010-08-29, 12:09 AM
Was Drizzt spawned before 2e?

In 2e, he could dual wield because he was a ranger and he was OP because he was a drow. He was super-special-unique because rangers had to be Good in 2e, and well, we all know the rest.

Drizzt was created in 1987, a character in a book published in 1988 (The Crystal Shard). ADnD 2E was February 1989.

So yes, Drizzt was spawned before 2e.

Crossfiyah
2010-08-29, 01:39 AM
What's in a name? Take the Ranger's powers and drop the fluff. Hell, I could make a Warforged Sorceror who is actually a mech piloted by a gnome, using magipunk flamethrowers and other gadgets. Aside from an agreement with the DM on what the gnome can do if outside the mech, I wouldn't need to change a single actual rule.

My girlfriend created a half elf ardent with a blade of the eldritch knight.

In game she was a psychic kitty that had mind controlled an old woman and piloted a mechanical walking suit with 25 foot long arms.

What's in a name indeed.

Crossfiyah
2010-08-29, 01:41 AM
*shrug* I went into a thread that promised to convert any 3.5 concept to 4e. I listed the character I was currently playing. I was told that it simply couldn't happen.

Grey Elf Domain Wizard(Storm domain)/Incantatrix(with heavy metamagic use)/IoT7V. Im not going to list minor details, Im just curious as to if the feel can be replicated by say, level 14. At that level, he'd been rocking for some time.

If you give me all the details I can probably do it.

Sir Homeslice
2010-08-29, 03:38 AM
If you give me all the details I can probably do it.

Don't even bother to attempt it.

Psyx
2010-08-29, 08:30 AM
I basically despise 4e because it takes all the worst aspects of 3e and keeps them, which creating some kind hybrid child of a of tabletop skirmish wargame and WoW.

3e was always a system that was prone to dungeon-bashyness over RPing. 4e just makes it worse.

oxybe
2010-08-29, 09:22 AM
I basically despise 4e because it takes all the worst aspects of 3e and keeps them, which creating some kind hybrid child of a of tabletop skirmish wargame and WoW.

3e was always a system that was prone to dungeon-bashyness over RPing. 4e just makes it worse.

i'm sorry 4th ed killed your imagination, you and your group have my deepest condolences.

flowers carried by the purest of elven maidens will be sent to the memorial for your characters' personalities.

:smallwink:

Esser-Z
2010-08-29, 09:26 AM
Well,
A. The ranger doesn't have to take mobility-oriented powers. Heck, the bonus feat for the twin blade fighting style is "Toughness." Rangers can even choose to do away with Dexterity and take heavy armor feats if they so choose.
B. There's also a two-weapon build for fighters now.
For B, that's non-core!

For A, I have to spend a lot of feats getting heavy armor, thereby greatly reducing my capacity to get other ones, because 4e Classes are so stuck in a single mold.

Ranger's powers are specifically designed for DPS. I can't play a *defender* using him, because he has no defender-like abilities. I can't keep things off my allies like I could as a Fighter. Now, yes, Martial Power fixes this, but...

Or, what about a charismatic, instinct-based caster? Oh hey, not until Arcane Power, and even then, only as a blaster.


Now, again, I do enjoy 4e.


Oh right. The reason a Ranger's not a woodsman? Almost nobody gets anything non-combat, outside of skills. This is incredibly lame. (Utility powers are mostly combat)

oxybe
2010-08-29, 09:34 AM
For B, that's non-core!

For A, I have to spend a lot of feats getting heavy armor, thereby greatly reducing my capacity to get other ones, because 4e Classes are so stuck in a single mold.

Ranger's powers are specifically designed for DPS. I can't play a *defender* using him, because he has no defender-like abilities. I can't keep things off my allies like I could as a Fighter. Now, yes, Martial Power fixes this, but...

Or, what about a charismatic, instinct-based caster? Oh hey, not until Arcane Power, and even then, only as a blaster.


Now, again, I do enjoy 4e.


Oh right. The reason a Ranger's not a woodsman? Almost nobody gets anything non-combat, outside of skills. This is incredibly lame. (Utility powers are mostly combat)

so 4th ed is bad for forcing the ranger into a certain combat style and 3rd ed is awesome for forcing the ranger into a woodsman? :smallconfused:

Ashiel
2010-08-29, 09:58 AM
so 4th ed is bad for forcing the ranger into a certain combat style and 3rd ed is awesome for forcing the ranger into a woodsman? :smallconfused:

Well considering there's not really much other than "combat" in 4E, I guess it's hard to really compare the enhanced skill set of the 3.5 ranger and his array of combat options to the 2 combat options the 4E ranger has.

See, a 3.5 ranger begins as an archtype - much like the 4E classes I suppose - but then you can build on that. If you want, your ranger can be Aragorn or Legolas, or he could be Kaelsh the Nightstalker Bounty Hunter, using his skills to track down wanted criminals for the law or a military scout, or heck he could wield a pole-arm and not suck.

Then at the end of the day, when you had exhausted the ranger's options in core. Oh wait, oh no, oh crap, here it comes...he could multiclass. You can combine ranger/barbarian, ranger/sorcerer, ranger/druid, ranger/rogue, ranger/fighter, or even ranger/bard to make an effective character that branches out into other fields or areas of expertise.

You can't even multiclass ranger with with stuff in the core books of 4E; if you want to get to their paragon paths; since a "multiclass" anything/ranger doesn't even get the abilities needed for the ranger's paragon paths.

Out of all my playing of 3E, I've only seen 3 characters who could be summed up as a "woodsman", and two of them were druids. Out of 4E, I've seen the same characters over and over again; with different names.

tcrudisi
2010-08-29, 09:58 AM
Ranger's powers are specifically designed for DPS. I can't play a *defender* using him, because he has no defender-like abilities. I can't keep things off my allies like I could as a Fighter. Now, yes, Martial Power fixes this, but...

Oh right. The reason a Ranger's not a woodsman? Almost nobody gets anything non-combat, outside of skills. This is incredibly lame. (Utility powers are mostly combat)


so 4th ed is bad for forcing the ranger into a certain combat style and 3rd ed is awesome for forcing the ranger into a woodsman? :smallconfused:

And, 4e is bad because the Ranger can't "protect the party from a rampaging monster" like a 3.5 fighter can. Oh, wait... /boggle Really, one of the best ways to keep the monsters attention is to hit it hard. If you are the one putting the most damage on it, chances are it wants to eat you. Since nobody does that better than a Ranger, they actually don't do bad as a defender, in the sense that you can keep the monster attacking you.

What sort of non-combat things do you want, Esrz? Spells? Those have been replicated with rituals. Skills? They are still in the game. Granted, I haven't played 3.5 in a long time, but that's all the "mechanical stuff" I can think of when it comes to outside combat. I feel that the main difference is 3.5 puts more of a focus on the spells and 4e puts more of a focus on the skills (with rituals being a fall-back in case you can't get it done with skills), which I approve of.

Meta
2010-08-29, 10:01 AM
For B, that's non-core!

For A, I have to spend a lot of feats getting heavy armor, thereby greatly reducing my capacity to get other ones, because 4e Classes are so stuck in a single mold.

Ranger's powers are specifically designed for DPS. I can't play a *defender* using him, because he has no defender-like abilities. I can't keep things off my allies like I could as a Fighter. Now, yes, Martial Power fixes this, but...

Or, what about a charismatic, instinct-based caster? Oh hey, not until Arcane Power, and even then, only as a blaster.


Now, again, I do enjoy 4e.


Oh right. The reason a Ranger's not a woodsman? Almost nobody gets anything non-combat, outside of skills. This is incredibly lame. (Utility powers are mostly combat)

Sorcerer is player's handbook 2. I think you're being overly picky. 3.X pigeonholed base classes more than 4e does.

The ritual system is designed for out of combat use and now even martial gets to have their own type of rituals.

Of course you'll likely just complain it's not core. Because the 3.X player's handbook was a thing of beauty and no one needs ToB to get no-casters even close to in the same league as casters, but still not as useful.

EDIT: @Ashiel the player's handbook classes started pretty simply, sure, but I'd rather buy splat books to widen the scope of the classes I like than pay $110 for a 1200 page monstrosity that included some of the first line of splat information

Kish
2010-08-29, 10:07 AM
Was Drizzt spawned before 2e?

In fact, Drizzt is the reason 2ed rangers had dual-wielding abilities--even though his dual-wielding was entirely a drow style, nearly universal among drow fighters, which made his ranger teacher go, "Huh, I'd expect you to tangle yourself up using two long blades like that."

tcrudisi
2010-08-29, 10:08 AM
Well considering there's not really much other than "combat" in 4E, I guess it's hard to really compare the enhanced skill set of the 3.5 ranger and his array of combat options to the 2 combat options the 4E ranger has.

Finally, I have run entire 4-hour sessions where there was no combat. I did the same thing in 3.5. Going from 3.5 to 4e did not diminish any of my groups ability to roleplay. Considering roleplaying is all about the characters, do you really need a spell that does everything role-play related? No, just use your skills (and rituals if the skills fail) and ... well, roleplay. I don't get why some people say that you can't roleplay in 4e when it's a roleplaying game. Can you not roleplay in GURPS when you are using tons of skills but no spells?


See, a 3.5 ranger begins as an archtype - much like the 4E classes I suppose - but then you can build on that. If you want, your ranger can be Aragorn or Legolas, or he could be Kaelsh the Nightstalker Bounty Hunter, using his skills to track down wanted criminals for the law or a military scout, or heck he could wield a pole-arm and not suck.

This can be done in 4e as well. Your Ranger can be Aragorn or Legolas. Heck, polearms are quite possibly the strongest weapon in 4e... and a Ranger, just like a Wizard or Sorcerer, can use them with the right build.


Then at the end of the day, when you had exhausted the ranger's options in core. Oh wait, oh no, oh crap, here it comes...he could multiclass. You can combine ranger/barbarian, ranger/sorcerer, ranger/druid, ranger/rogue, ranger/fighter, or even ranger/bard to make an effective character that branches out into other fields or areas of expertise.

You can't even multiclass ranger with with stuff in the core books of 4E; if you want to get to their paragon paths; since a "multiclass" anything/ranger doesn't even get the abilities needed for the ranger's paragon paths.


You can't multiclass in 4e with the PHB? Then what are pages 208 and 209 about? The pages that tell you how to multiclass, take powers from the class you've multiclassed, and even do paragon multiclassing where you progress as your multiclass instead of as a normal paragon path?

And, this is core here, so I'm gonna quote it:

A character who has taken a class-specific multiclass feat counts as a member of that class for the purpose of meeting prerequisites for taking other feats and qualifying for paragon paths. That is also on page 208.

Esser-Z
2010-08-29, 10:09 AM
What sort of non-combat things do you want, Esrz? Spells? Those have been replicated with rituals. Skills? They are still in the game. Granted, I haven't played 3.5 in a long time, but that's all the "mechanical stuff" I can think of when it comes to outside combat. I feel that the main difference is 3.5 puts more of a focus on the spells and 4e puts more of a focus on the skills (with rituals being a fall-back in case you can't get it done with skills), which I approve of.
Rituals are terrible. They cost gold and take ridiculously long to do. I note this is a fault of a lot of 3.x noncasters, too, and something that erally needs to be rectified.




so 4th ed is bad for forcing the ranger into a certain combat style and 3rd ed is awesome for forcing the ranger into a woodsman?

No, 4e is bad for forcing certain combat styles into only being certain classes, which then from skill lists and sometimes class features and powers are still somewhat linked to archetypes.


Sorc exists in PHBII, yes. But until then, you could either be a warlock (Pact with something, blaster, not what I'm looking for) or wizard (int based, allegedly control but relies way too much on attack rolls to really classify). No summoning. No illusions. And then Sorc is all blasting, when it DID come out, so I can't be a cha based summoner or illusionist or battlefield alterer or debuffer.


Speaking on debuffing, don't get me started on how those last, like, a round. Wow.


And hey, I never said 3.x did concepts better. Just that 4e doesn't do 'em either. Of course, if I play a Warblade, I could indeed pick up stances and maneuvers that draw enemies towards me, away from my allies, while being TWF....

AtopTheMountain
2010-08-29, 10:14 AM
For B, that's non-core!

For A, I have to spend a lot of feats getting heavy armor, thereby greatly reducing my capacity to get other ones, because 4e Classes are so stuck in a single mold.

Ranger's powers are specifically designed for DPS. I can't play a *defender* using him, because he has no defender-like abilities. I can't keep things off my allies like I could as a Fighter. Now, yes, Martial Power fixes this, but...

Or, what about a charismatic, instinct-based caster? Oh hey, not until Arcane Power, and even then, only as a blaster.

So you're pretty much complaining because that one book doesn't have every single character concept in it, reflected mechanically.

... :smallsigh:

I'll just be going now.

tcrudisi
2010-08-29, 10:15 AM
And hey, I never said 3.x did concepts better. Just that 4e doesn't do 'em either. Of course, if I play a Warblade, I could indeed pick up stances and maneuvers that draw enemies towards me, away from my allies, while being TWF....

Since you are talking about the Warblade, which is not core, how about this?

A hybrid Fighter/Swormdage, wearing armor like a Fighter and wielding two weapons, using powers like "Come and Get It" to bring all enemies within 15 feet beside him and his SM powers to teleport the ones that get away adjacent to him as well. Then he opens up with either Dual Strike, to smack two of them, or Sword Burst to hit all of them. The Fighter and Swordmage both have incredibly good stances that both damage and increase defenses.

Esser-Z
2010-08-29, 10:15 AM
I'm just looking at previously-core designs. Say what you will about balance, but there's a theoretically huge number of concepts represented in 3.5 core. Now, some aren't viable thanks to systemic issues, but....

That's a lesser issue anyway. I don't like how limited character abilities are, as a much much bigger thing. It's basically impossible to have any long term effects with your powers (in combat anything over a couple rounds, out of combat... much of anything), and epic feels incredibly not-epic. The fluff's there, but the mechanics... aren't.

Meta
2010-08-29, 10:16 AM
Rituals are terrible. They cost gold and take ridiculously long to do. I note this is a fault of a lot of 3.x noncasters, too, and something that erally needs to be rectified.




No, 4e is bad for forcing certain combat styles into only being certain classes, which then from skill lists and sometimes class features and powers are still somewhat linked to archetypes.



And hey, I never said 3.x did concepts better. Just that 4e doesn't do 'em either. Of course, if I play a Warblade, I could indeed pick up stances and maneuvers that draw enemies towards me, away from my allies, while being TWF....

Warblade isn't core either, so your argument doesn't hold water. In fact TWF fighter's definitely came relatively sooner than warblades.

Also rituals are amazing, pretty sure you're doing it wrong. I once had a character who could make millions fake gold pieces and convince ANYONE he/she was looking at real gold.

And that's just one example, I'm sure people could flood the boards with their own unique experiences from 4e, be it rituals, character creation, or w/e else you think 4e lacks. With a new thread mind you

tcrudisi
2010-08-29, 10:18 AM
I'm just looking at previously-core designs. Say what you will about balance, but there's a theoretically huge number of concepts represented in 3.5 core. Now, some aren't viable thanks to systemic issues, but....

That's a lesser issue anyway. I don't like how limited character abilities are, as a much much bigger thing. It's basically impossible to have any long term effects with your powers (in combat anything over a couple rounds, out of combat... much of anything), and epic feels incredibly not-epic. The fluff's there, but the mechanics... aren't.

Just as there are a theoretically huge number of concepts represented in 4e core. See the previous posts about mechina and what-not. The beautiful thing about 4e is that they encourage you to change around the fluff, which truly does make for a near-infinite amount of character concepts.

Ashiel
2010-08-29, 10:26 AM
And, 4e is bad because the Ranger can't "protect the party from a rampaging monster" like a 3.5 fighter can. Oh, wait... /boggle Really, one of the best ways to keep the monsters attention is to hit it hard. If you are the one putting the most damage on it, chances are it wants to eat you. Since nobody does that better than a Ranger, they actually don't do bad as a defender, in the sense that you can keep the monster attacking you.

What sort of non-combat things do you want, Esrz? Spells? Those have been replicated with rituals. Skills? They are still in the game. Granted, I haven't played 3.5 in a long time, but that's all the "mechanical stuff" I can think of when it comes to outside combat. I feel that the main difference is 3.5 puts more of a focus on the spells and 4e puts more of a focus on the skills (with rituals being a fall-back in case you can't get it done with skills), which I approve of.

That's kind of funny. Rituals aren't spells. Never will be spells from what I can tell. There was a handful of them in the core book, and the vast majority of them suck. Also knock is pointless because in the time it would take you to open a door or something, you could have burrowed your way through the door's HP by punching it repeatedly or using at-will powers.

A friend of mine who loves 3.x wizards - unoptimized mind you, unoptimized - hates 4E rituals because "they're boring and pointless".

Also missing all the staples like shapeshifting, enchanting, illusion, necromancy, or even abjurations for the most part. Evocations are pretty much built into wizards and the blastey-sorcerer (which you get in a splat-book for another 30 bucks).

Ok, I pose to you a challenge. Let us make the following characters using both systems, using only the core material of the games.

A jack of all trades who dabbles in party buffing magics who can also fight fairly decently and be sneaky and such, as well as dabbling in illusion based magic. I call him Bard. What's 4E's name for him?
A seedy dark anti-hero who trudges through his opponents with an army of undead at his side, arming them with the gear of his fallen enemies. I call him cleric or wizard or sorcerer (with specializations such as Death-Knight kinds going to cleric, and stuff like dark sorcery going to sorcerer and wizard).
A sword and board ranger (who is effective in 3.5 with a heavy shield with shield spikes, going the two-weapon-fighting route) who uses thrown weapons such as darts and throwing axes.
A standard enchanter or mind manipulating magician.
Someone who turns into a bear (like in the Hobbit) through some sort of shapeshifting magical powers.
Transform someone into a toad.


I'll wait.

Leeham
2010-08-29, 10:28 AM
I'm just going to pitch in my two CP...

1) I'm sorry, are you seriously pinning this argument on TWF? come on guys. So what if you have to take feats to do it well in 4e without being a ranger? The same is true of 3.x. You just happen to get them if you're a ranger.
And another thing, in what 3.5 PHB are you looking in, because I only see two combat options for the ranger in there.

2) There's just as much non combat stuff going on with 4e. There's even a chapter on non-combat encounters. The skill list may be smaller, but you can get just as much use out of the few broad skills.

3) I'm going to be horrendously biased here. i frakkin' love rituals. Love em. To me, this is the way non-combat magic should be. Everywhere. Meaningless point to make, I know.

Esser-Z
2010-08-29, 10:29 AM
Only ones the mechanics still agree with. There's a limit there, at least for somebody who likes what the rules say to match how he describes it.


And, say, finesse-TWF is right out, as all TWF powers use str! Or, uh. finesse as anyone but Rogue or later Monk.


ON THE OTHER SIDE.

Warlord is awesome. Like, really awesome. I love this class so much! So awesome. And some bard stuff is cool. My Charles Finley almost always succeeded on his bluffs, thanks to a couple of the features.

And it IS balanced. Not in the way I'd like, that being lower casters a bit while raising melee a lot, but it IS balanced. As such, it works great as a tactical squad situation. It's not at all a simulation--see Grease--but it's a really fun tactical game. And one can roleplay in a tactical game just fine!


(Note: Don't take me TOO Seriously. Looking back, I've exaggerated some of my grievance with 4e, for the sake of having a more fun debate.)

AtopTheMountain
2010-08-29, 10:31 AM
Ok, I pose to you a challenge. Let us make the following characters using both systems, using only the core material of the games.

A jack of all trades who dabbles in party buffing magics who can also fight fairly decently and be sneaky and such, as well as dabbling in illusion based magic. I call him Bard. What's 4E's name for him?
A seedy dark anti-hero who trudges through his opponents with an army of undead at his side, arming them with the gear of his fallen enemies. I call him cleric or wizard or sorcerer (with specializations such as Death-Knight kinds going to cleric, and stuff like dark sorcery going to sorcerer and wizard).
A sword and board ranger (who is effective in 3.5 with a heavy shield with shield spikes, going the two-weapon-fighting route) who uses thrown weapons such as darts and throwing axes.
A standard enchanter or mind manipulating magician.
Someone who turns into a bear (like in the Hobbit) through some sort of shapeshifting magical powers.
Transform someone into a toad.


I'll wait.

Once again:
So you're pretty much complaining because that one book doesn't have every single character concept in it, reflected mechanically.

... :smallsigh:

I'll just be going now.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-29, 10:32 AM
If you give me all the details I can probably do it.

Here ya go. Typical level of optimization for our games. This character was played from level 1. Going to 4th, it seemed like everything had suddenly gotten very boring, but perhaps we judged it hastily. I played this character for several more levels, but this is the best snapshot I have of it laying around.

Grey Elf Storm Domain Wizard 5/Incantatrix 4/IoT7V 3

Stats:

These are raw stats, buffed stats were drastically higher. The point buy system used was...generous. Flawed would be more accurate, as everyone received 25 points to slap wherever, and buying below 8 was allowed for additional points. Obviously, replicating the standard point buy instead of this homebrewed idea would be quite acceptable.

Str: 3-This was a royal pain w regards to carrying capacity. When you get down to my gear, you'll understand.
Dex: 20
Con: 16
Int: 23
Wis: 10
Cha: 10

Skills: A lot. Exact replication is unimportant, but he had the stock wizard ones maxed. Concentration, spellcraft, know:arcana. Also, crafting skills, UMD cross-class, and various minor dips in things that seemed handy, like sense motive.

Spells known: All up to 4th. I do mean all. L5: Cloudkill, CoP, Daylight, Dismissal, Fabricate, False Vision, Major Creation, Nightmare, Permanency, Heart of Fire. L6: Contingency, Circle of Death, Antimagic Field, Wall of Iron, Flesh to Stone.

Domain spells known so far: Ray of Frost, Obscuring Mist, Gust of Wind, Lightening Bolt, Ice Storm, Control Winds, Chain Lightening.

Familiar: Weasel
Banned: Enchantment
Permanencied effects: Detect Magic, See Invisibility, Darkvision.

Feats:
Iron Will
Scribe Scroll
Fell Drain
Extend Spell
Persist Spell
Spellcasting Prodigy
Spell Focus(Abj)
GSF(Abj)
Storm Bolt
Skill Focus(Spellcraft)
Invisible Spell

Also, Flaw: Binge Drinker(from D&D wiki)


Languages:
Common
Elven
Draconic
Gnoll
Gnomish
Goblinoid
Orcish


Magical Items:
Goggles of the Golden Sun, Belt of the Wide Earth, Gloves of the Starry Sky from the Rainment of Four, MiC.
Amulet of Nat Armor +2
Ring of Counterspells(typically loaded with Dispel Magic)
Burning Veil, Veil of Storms from MiC, the set that is themed after prismatic wall.

Relevant boosts from enchanting items via MiC add-on rules: +4con, +6 int, +2 wis, +2 dex.

Robe of Useful Items.
Pearl of Power 1.
Handy Haversack
Bag of Holding Type IV.
Survival Pouch(used frequently, invariably for donkey abuse).
Spool of Endless Rope
Jumping Caltrops
Pearl of the Sirines

Non magical Items:

1x MW longsword
6x longsword
spellbook
backup spellbook. Both trapped. A lot.
Crystal ball
MW Manacles
Commoners Clothes
2 Spell component pouches
Deck of cards, 1 with a sepia snake sigil on it, 19 with explosive runes on them.
MW spellcraft item.
Backpack, enchanted with Magic Mouth inside flap.
An underground fortress, built by me.
A spiffy hat.


Scrolls, Potions, and Wands:

Eternal Wand - Prot from Evil.
Eternal Wand - Mage Armor.
Eternal Wand - Mage Hand.
Eternal Wand - Cat's Grace.

Wand of Dispel Magic CL 10, 6 chg
Wand of Wings of Cover CL 4, 5 chg
Wand of Wings of Cover CL 4, 42 chg
Wand of Magic Missile CL 10, 17 chg
Wand of Orb of Force, 50 chg
Wand of Hold Person, 42 chg

2x Potions of Heal
Potion of CLW
Potion of Heroism
Potion of Bear's Endurance

Scroll of Shield
Scroll of Grtr Mage Hand
Scroll of Burning Hands
Scroll of Prismatic Spray
Scroll of Transmute Mud to Rock
Scroll of Daylight
Scroll of Polymorph Self
Scroll of Deathwatch
Scroll of Remove Paralysis


Playstyle: Heavy buffing, using persist via incantatrix. Veils were saved for boss fights. Typically would buff entire party for the day, and use the odd short term buff in combat, and plink away with the reserve feat against mooks. Against more threatening opponents, would either metamagic the party mystic theurge's spells, or use CC. Blasting happened only when I had nothing better to do, which was rarely. Used heavily for out of combat utility purposes.

Esser-Z
2010-08-29, 10:37 AM
Once again:

That's not even every concept, though. That's a selection of core concepts.


On the other side... show me where 3.5 can make a good tough melee combat party buffing dude, or basically the Warlord.

(seriously, I like 4e)

SmartAlec
2010-08-29, 10:39 AM
Ok, I pose to you a challenge. Let us make the following characters using both systems, using only the core material of the games.

You do know that all the Player's Handbooks in 4th Ed are Core, right? The name for 4th Ed's equivalent of Bard... is Bard.

Esser-Z
2010-08-29, 10:41 AM
Well, that's because they redefined Core. Here, I do believe 'Core' refers to the traditional definition of first PHB, MM, and DMG.

Meta
2010-08-29, 10:41 AM
Gonna have to agree with metalhead.

You seemed determined to dislike 4e and that's not going to make the game any less fun for us, so I see no reason to continue trying to placate you and in the interest of not causing a flame war, I feel this discussion needs a new turn.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-29, 10:42 AM
You do know that all the Player's Handbooks in 4th Ed are Core, right? The name for 4th Ed's equivalent of Bard... is Bard.

In fairness, comparing core is supposed to be a roughly equal amount of books. Therefore, the equivalent to 3.5 core would be just the initial 3 books for 4e.

If you prefer, 3.5 core + completes is probably similar to what 4e core is.

Trying to compare splatbooks + basic 3 of one to just the basics of the other isn't really fair.

Esser-Z
2010-08-29, 10:46 AM
Gonna have to agree with metalhead.

You seemed determined to dislike 4e and that's not going to make the game any less fun for us, so I see no reason to continue trying to placate you and in the interest of not causing a flame war, I feel this discussion needs a new turn.

Me? I'm actually taking a position and arguing for it, meanwhile expressing some of what I feel are legitimate issues with the game. Personally, I actually really enjoy playing it. It has some design philosophy I disagree with, but it's still a good game.

SmartAlec
2010-08-29, 10:46 AM
In fairness, comparing core is supposed to be a roughly equal amount of books. Therefore, the equivalent to 3.5 core would be just the initial 3 books for 4e.

In fairness, they're different systems.

3rd Ed - small amount of classes, high customisation.

4th Ed - large amount of classes, high specialisation.

Penalising 4th Ed because its' core material is spread over more than one book doesn't seem fair either.

Meta
2010-08-29, 10:48 AM
In fairness, comparing core is supposed to be a roughly equal amount of books. Therefore, the equivalent to 3.5 core would be just the initial 3 books for 4e.

If you prefer, 3.5 core + completes is probably similar to what 4e core is.

Trying to compare splatbooks + basic 3 of one to just the basics of the other isn't really fair.

It's a good indication of design philosophy. 3.X had A LOT of stuff in it. Those spell lists were ridiculous.

4e focused more on it's first PHB being 'core' in a way the 3.X books were. In a good way I think. It was easy for a novice player to get bogged down in the 3.X books.

I'm not really sure why there's a need to compare to begin with but it's just as unequal to compare just PHB, MM, DMG in each edition because they were published with very different objectives

EDIT: not referring to you esrz, you have let your TWF Ranger issues die and I feel that will bring you nothing but increased happiness in your life

Esser-Z
2010-08-29, 10:48 AM
Right. They're very differently designed games, only really unified by the d20 mechanic and the D&D name. It's pretty hard to actually compare them, because they're not meant to do the same things.

Leeham
2010-08-29, 10:49 AM
I thought i was the only one who liked warlord :smalltongue:

And can any one here (on EITHER side of the discussion) honestly say they only use the big three in there games? I personally have a bunch of supplements for both 3.5 and 4e.

And to the above post: FINALLY! Someone gets it...

Meta
2010-08-29, 10:52 AM
I thought i was the only one who liked warlord :smalltongue:

And can any one here (on EITHER side of the discussion) honestly say they only use the big three in there games? I personally have a bunch of supplements for both 3.5 and 4e.

Warlords are fantastic. From a charop standpoint they'd be tier 1.

Edited my post above to show i wasn't referring to you esrz

AtopTheMountain
2010-08-29, 10:53 AM
Warlords are fantastic. From a charop standpoint they'd be tier 1.

Edited my post above to show i wasn't referring to you esrz

Yeah, taclords are probably the best leaders in the game. Resourcelords are my favorite though.

Blackfang108
2010-08-29, 10:53 AM
I thought i was the only one who liked warlord :smalltongue:

And can any one here (on EITHER side of the discussion) honestly say they only use the big three in there games? I personally have a bunch of supplements for both 3.5 and 4e.

Well, I know my DM in one 4e game has yet to touch the MMII and MMIII...

And still no possibility of inherent bonuses. (******* 2e-vet DM and his attitudes towards treasure..)

nightwyrm
2010-08-29, 10:54 AM
Comparing the first three book of 3e and 4e (I'm avoiding the word core for now since everyone have their own definition) can be misleading. Non-caster classes in 3e takes up about 2-3 pages. All classes in 4e (including their own paragon paths) takes up 10-15 pages each. Size alone dictates that creating 4e classes takes more time and resources.

Esser-Z
2010-08-29, 11:03 AM
Warlords are both great from a mechanical standpoint and the best class flavorwise in 4e. They're just so awesome.


Anyone have a 4e game I can join that needs one? I wanna play one now!

Leeham
2010-08-29, 11:08 AM
You know, i was just thinking that... Anybody know how it plays PbP? I've got a campaign setting I like to run past some people...

Esser-Z
2010-08-29, 11:10 AM
I've not tried. Last couple times I've done PBP, it's died pretty quickly, but... I'd be up to try again. :smalltongue:

Meta
2010-08-29, 11:20 AM
I have made a new thread with the intent on getting 1+ sessions of GitPers off the ground so as not to derail this one

edit: now under player recruitment

kyoryu
2010-08-29, 02:52 PM
Sorcerer is player's handbook 2. I think you're being overly picky. 3.X pigeonholed base classes more than 4e does.


Yeah. It appears that 3.x encourages customization by multiclassing, while 4e encourages customization within a class by choosing differing powers.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-29, 03:29 PM
Yeah. It appears that 3.x encourages customization by multiclassing, while 4e encourages customization within a class by choosing differing powers.

Agreed. When I played 4E, my character was a Dragon Sorcerer, and I only took burst and blast powers for him, with only one single-target attack from a PP.

Crossfiyah
2010-08-29, 03:34 PM
Here ya go.

I threw this together quick. It's not overly optimized, but I could easily do that by swapping Dex for Wis or Con. Still completely playable, and will do well.

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
level 15
Eladrin, Artificer|Wizard, Spellstorm Mage
Hybrid Artificer: Hybrid Artificer Fortitude
Hybrid Talent: Arcane Empowerment

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 9, Con 14, Dex 22, Int 22, Wis 12, Cha 11.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 8, Con 13, Dex 16, Int 16, Wis 11, Cha 10.


AC: 28 Fort: 23 Reflex: 26 Will: 26
HP: 81 Surges: 8 Surge Value: 20

TRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +20, Perception +13, Insight +13, Arcana +20

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Bluff +9, Diplomacy +7, Dungeoneering +8, Endurance +9, Heal +8, History +15, Intimidate +7, Nature +8, Religion +13, Stealth +13, Streetwise +7, Thievery +13, Athletics +6

FEATS
Level 1: Arcane Familiar
Level 2: Implement Expertise (Wand)
Level 4: Hybrid Talent
Level 6: Unarmored Agility
Level 8: Accurate Magic Weapon
Level 10: Ritual Caster
Level 11: Iron Will
Level 12: Enhanced Resistive Formula
Level 14: Dual Implement Spellcaster

POWERS
Hybrid at-will 1: Magic Weapon
Hybrid at-will 1: Ray of Frost
Hybrid encounter 1: Empowering Lightning
Hybrid daily 1: Freezing Cloud
Hybrid utility 2: Arcane Insight
Hybrid encounter 3: Altered Luck
Hybrid daily 5: Corrosive Sigil
Hybrid utility 6: Energy Conversion
Hybrid encounter 7: Gale-Force Infusion
Hybrid daily 9: Ice Storm
Hybrid utility 10: Dancing Shield
Hybrid encounter 13: Prismatic Burst (replaces Altered Luck)
Hybrid daily 15: Ice Archon's Armor (replaces Corrosive Sigil)

ITEMS
Shielding Accurate wand +3, Master's Accurate wand of Illusory Ambush +3, Amulet of Life +3, Robe of Scintillation Githweave Armor +3, Handy Haversack (heroic tier)
RITUALS
Explorer's Fire, Magic Mouth, Make Whole, Purify Water, Secret Page, Silence, Detect Secret Doors
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======


Didn't fully flesh-out the items or the rituals, but you could grab permanent darkvision that way if you wanted. You would primarily be a buffer, working towards emboldening your allies, but you'd still have your wizard blasting abilities to fall back on. I tried to stick with powers revolving around Cold and Storm, which would allow further optimization at higher levels if you so desired.

You could also pick up Quick Draw and add a bunch more wands for utility purposes.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-29, 04:04 PM
In fairness, they're different systems.

3rd Ed - small amount of classes, high customisation.

4th Ed - large amount of classes, high specialisation.

Penalising 4th Ed because its' core material is spread over more than one book doesn't seem fair either.

Yes, it does. Buying 8 books instead of 3 is a legitimate complaint.

However, I think it's silly to argue that you need to buy all the "core" books in order to play 4e. You can play just fine with the normal 3 that match up to the previous definition of "core". Compare them head to head if you wish to compare. Any thing else is clearly biased.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-29, 04:14 PM
Didn't fully flesh-out the items or the rituals, but you could grab permanent darkvision that way if you wanted. You would primarily be a buffer, working towards emboldening your allies, but you'd still have your wizard blasting abilities to fall back on. I tried to stick with powers revolving around Cold and Storm, which would allow further optimization at higher levels if you so desired.

You could also pick up Quick Draw and add a bunch more wands for utility purposes.

Im not seeing the buffing aspect, Im afraid. I admit Im not familiar with all those powers, but I see a lack of the battlefield control options, which was the main focus in major combats, and there's the lack of the at-will lightning, which I frankly assumed would be what would be easiest for 4e to replace.

Unless I've overlooked something, there's also no metamagic, which is pretty significant, considering I only spent two feats on anything that wasn't metamagic, or a way to boost class features to use metamagic more.

The spont casting via items isn't replicated, though I assume scrolls could substitute for my wand/scroll stockpile if you wished to detail them.

Also, there is nothing like the veils in there, which are the main reason for taking one of the three classes I had. For being three levels higher than the original, Im afraid it only manages to give me a fraction of the buffing I had available, without replicating the other aspects of the build. In particular, it's greatly lacking in defensive power.

Meta
2010-08-29, 04:38 PM
Im not seeing the buffing aspect, Im afraid. I admit Im not familiar with all those powers, but I see a lack of the battlefield control options, which was the main focus in major combats, and there's the lack of the at-will lightning, which I frankly assumed would be what would be easiest for 4e to replace.

Unless I've overlooked something, there's also no metamagic, which is pretty significant, considering I only spent two feats on anything that wasn't metamagic, or a way to boost class features to use metamagic more.

The spont casting via items isn't replicated, though I assume scrolls could substitute for my wand/scroll stockpile if you wished to detail them.

Also, there is nothing like the veils in there, which are the main reason for taking one of the three classes I had. For being three levels higher than the original, Im afraid it only manages to give me a fraction of the buffing I had available, without replicating the other aspects of the build. In particular, it's greatly lacking in defensive power.

Lightning weapon for at-will lightning. It changes your damage type and keyword. disembodied hand familiar making draw/stow a free action. Now you can use w/e item you'd like to replicate your powers. The consumables you can use will replicate the metamagic you'd like. Buffing is an artificer thing. Magic weapon is a great at-will buff. Resistive formula is a good defensive touch and if he flushed it out there could be more. But really he's just proving a point that you CAN recreate your character he just doesn't have the incentive to flesh it out because the people who know what their talking about recognize that it can indeed be recreated.

If you're not familiar with a system you can't accurately say that your character can't be recreated

RebelRogue
2010-08-29, 04:41 PM
I remember that char from the old thread, and I must say that it's a losing battle trying to do a decent conversion of it to 4e. This is mostly, because a lot of its shticks are prohibited from 4e by design. Also, let's face it: that build is bordering on cheesy mechanically, and since 4e tried to limit 'rules abuse', naturally a lot of what the character does is simply not an option. So yes, you 'win' this one, I'd say :smallsmile:

Again: it has to do with design philosophy. There's number of things 4e avoids, such as long time buffs/debuffs, characters in control of (lots of) other creatures, in-battle stat changes (so you don't have to re-calculate everything every other round), emulation of monster abilities to name some of the "worst" offenders. Very reasonable changes from a balance/ease of play perspective. Some don't mind the resulting imbalance (or keep it in a strict leash) and tracking these things, and if that's your idea of fun, more power to you. Others find these things to bog down the game and/or don't really think they are essential for defining what D&D is. It's all a matter of preference.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-29, 04:47 PM
Lightning weapon for at-will lightning. It changes your damage type and keyword. disembodied hand familiar making draw/stow a free action. Now you can use w/e item you'd like to replicate your powers. The consumables you can use will replicate the metamagic you'd like. Buffing is an artificer thing. Magic weapon is a great at-will buff. Resistive formula is a good defensive touch and if he flushed it out there could be more. But really he's just proving a point that you CAN recreate your character he just doesn't have the incentive to flesh it out because the people who know what their talking about recognize that it can indeed be recreated.

If you're not familiar with a system you can't accurately say that your character can't be recreated

Lightning weapon? Is that a weapon enchant? That's entirely different from a lightning bolt.

Im aware that Magic Weapon is a nice buff. It was in 3.5 too, as was it's greater cousin. However, a single buff does not make someone a buffer. IIRC, I could apply a total of 26 metamagics per day between the incantatrix abilities for free. The most obviously useful were persist and extend, allowing most buffs to last for 2 days, creating an ongoing rotation of buffs that require no combat actions to maintain.

The battlefield control is also a significant part of a wizard, and despite not dedicating any PRCs to it, he was quite proficient off it based mainly off of core spells. That's a pretty significant aspect to have missing. So is the entire Iot7v aspect. He is struggling simply to replicate the domain wizard portion of the build, which is a whopping five levels.

Im also a bit confused about your advice to replicate metamagic via consumables. I admit to not being very familiar with 4th ed, but are metamagics available in consumable form, and is it cost-effective to use them like that? In 3.5, you can replace actual class abilities with consumables to some degree too, as Giamoco has shown, but take it too far, and it becomes unsustainable. How much of this is doable?

Kish
2010-08-29, 05:54 PM
Yes, it does. Buying 8 books instead of 3 is a legitimate complaint.
I'm glad someone said that.

DeltaEmil
2010-08-29, 07:14 PM
Yes, it does. Buying 8 books instead of 3 is a legitimate complaint. If you don't buy all the books, God will come down and kill all your pets, and give you never-ending itches that are really annoying, especially when you try to sleep.

Also, core in 4th edition only means that everything's legal and seemingly balanced, because people had the crazy idea back then in 3rd edition that only core was balanced and legal, and refused to buy or use additional material.

It's a marketing ploy, intended to sucker in people who really did believe that. If they were so naiv to only use things that were labeled core, they might also buy more books labeled core in the new edition. And should that really work, they might declare all splat-books to be core too in 5th or Vista edition.

tcrudisi
2010-08-29, 07:16 PM
Lightning weapon? Is that a weapon enchant? That's entirely different from a lightning bolt.

It is a weapon enchant that changes any power that you cast through it into lightning. It basically turns all the Artificers powers (or any classes powers, for that matter) into lightning bolts.


Im aware that Magic Weapon is a nice buff. It was in 3.5 too, as was it's greater cousin. However, a single buff does not make someone a buffer. IIRC, I could apply a total of 26 metamagics per day between the incantatrix abilities for free. The most obviously useful were persist and extend, allowing most buffs to last for 2 days, creating an ongoing rotation of buffs that require no combat actions to maintain.

I do not know Incantrix, as myself nor anyone in my groups ever played one. However, doing more than combat-length buffs just isn't happening in 4e. Buffs last for either 1 round or the entire combat. However, you can take feats to improve the buffs you do, it just improves them in ways that are not duration-based. For instance, a simple example would be one that changes buff A to be +2 to hit instead of +1 to hit.

Also, most buffs are single-target, though quite a few do work for the whole group. I would speak for the Artificer, but for whatever reason, my groups have never played one and I do not want to comment on a class that I've only read about and not actually experienced.


The battlefield control is also a significant part of a wizard, and despite not dedicating any PRCs to it, he was quite proficient off it based mainly off of core spells. That's a pretty significant aspect to have missing. So is the entire Iot7v aspect. He is struggling simply to replicate the domain wizard portion of the build, which is a whopping five levels.

Once again, I can't speak for the Artificer, but he does have a hybrid Wizard attached to it. The Wizard is, bar none, the best controller in the game. Nobody can lock down a battlefield like a Wizard. In one of my games, the 4e Wizard (through the help of his allies setting him up) managed to lock down and make trivial a combat which should have TPK'ed them. It was one of my proudest moments as a DM. That player used to play a blaster Wizard, but now you can't convince him to play anything other than a control-focused Wizard.


Im also a bit confused about your advice to replicate metamagic via consumables. I admit to not being very familiar with 4th ed, but are metamagics available in consumable form, and is it cost-effective to use them like that? In 3.5, you can replace actual class abilities with consumables to some degree too, as Giamoco has shown, but take it too far, and it becomes unsustainable. How much of this is doable?

See, this is a bit tricky. Metamagics don't exist in 4e because the magic system is so different. What, exactly, are you wanting to replicate? If by "metamagic system" all you really want to do is have tricks to make your spells more powerful, well, that's easy. (It's amazing how quickly my intricate knowledge of 3.5 has left me since I haven't been using it.) Isn't there a metamagic feat that allows you to expand the burst of a spell? There's a feat that does that in 4e (instead of increasing the "level" of the spell, it does less damage). Isn't there a metamagic that allows you to quicken a spell? There's a feat for that (albeit epic levels). I'm not saying that it's all there, as this is a much different system of magic. But at least some of it is.

Meta
2010-08-29, 07:33 PM
Lightning weapon? Is that a weapon enchant? That's entirely different from a lightning bolt.

Im aware that Magic Weapon is a nice buff. It was in 3.5 too, as was it's greater cousin. However, a single buff does not make someone a buffer. IIRC, I could apply a total of 26 metamagics per day between the incantatrix abilities for free. The most obviously useful were persist and extend, allowing most buffs to last for 2 days, creating an ongoing rotation of buffs that require no combat actions to maintain.

The battlefield control is also a significant part of a wizard, and despite not dedicating any PRCs to it, he was quite proficient off it based mainly off of core spells. That's a pretty significant aspect to have missing. So is the entire Iot7v aspect. He is struggling simply to replicate the domain wizard portion of the build, which is a whopping five levels.

Im also a bit confused about your advice to replicate metamagic via consumables. I admit to not being very familiar with 4th ed, but are metamagics available in consumable form, and is it cost-effective to use them like that? In 3.5, you can replace actual class abilities with consumables to some degree too, as Giamoco has shown, but take it too far, and it becomes unsustainable. How much of this is doable?

K ill try to do this one point at a time. How well you can translate your character into a different game system is not even on the map in good ways to rate a game but w/e, ill bite.

Lightning weapon will make every power you use (if you choose) lightning. Lightning fireballs, lightning rays of frost, lightning cloudkill. Carry multiple wands if you'd like different elements.

you're not going to have powers that last 2 days. 4e is much more oriented towards good use of resources and tactical decisions than 3e. I see no point in a buff if it lasts for days at a time in the 4e system and am extremely glad their gone, I consider them only a bad thing as they are complete non-choices and require 0 intelligence (OoC) to use well.

Battlefield control is the wizard's specialty. His role is even called controller. Even just in the first book he creates fire walls, storm pillars, prismatic walls, what have you. Status effects are his thing. There's nothing he does better so if people said your wizard couldn't do battlefield control, idk what they're thinking.

And there are far too many consumables available for me to break them down for you but they can pull off some meta-magicy things. Plus there are similar feats.

You can do all of these roles you've described. I think the real issue here is that you're trying to compare a 3.X wizard to a 4e wizard in terms of power level relative to the other characters in the game. of COURSE you were a gamebreaking bad*** wizard in 3e. pretty much any wizard was?

In 4e the wizard is awesomely cool and can fulfill all of the roles you ask of him with some good character building. He's not an 'I win' button for your party though, so if you're looking for that you would indeed be happier playing 3e

tcrudisi
2010-08-29, 08:01 PM
Battlefield control is the wizard's specialty. His role is even called controller. Even just in the first book he creates fire walls, storm pillars, prismatic walls, what have you. Status effects are his thing. There's nothing he does better so if people said your wizard couldn't do battlefield control, idk what they're thinking.

A Wizard in 4e can do battlefield control better than anyone. However, the player can pick powers that are damage-oriented rather than control-oriented and change that. And for a beginner, it's easier to think that "more damage = better power." In the example above, I said that I had a Wizard player that completely owned an encounter. There's a bit more to it than that.

I created his character for him. I know what he likes to play and I know how good a controller wizard can be. So, I gave him one power each level that he would like and one in his spellbook that was control-oriented. After he played a few sessions, I said, "Okay, now you see what you can do damage-wise. But -- for just this one session, try your other powers and see what they can do."

After that session, I had every player come up to me and talk about how awesome his wizard was. After that, he was a pure control wizard and ignored his damage powers completely. He was okay doing less damage because he saw that he truly impacted the battlefield and made more of a difference by doing less damage but more control.

My point? If someone said that his wizard couldn't do battlefield control, it probably had to do with the powers chosen.

Chrono22
2010-08-29, 08:30 PM
I'd say 4e is very good at what it provides. Which is balanced and dynamic combat. 3.5, even heavily houseruled, cannot come close to 4e's level of balance. As far as combat dynamic, though... well, one of 3.5's strengths is that it did try to emulate reality. Coming up with clever plans to defeat your enemies, contriving traps, and bypassing challenges is a minigame that has existed within D&D since the beginning.
So, I'll say this: 4e's combat is dynamic, but it isn't for the most part player-driven, it's hard wired. To me, using a power in the "right way", such as during a flank, isn't innovation- it's canned fun. 4e prioritizes balance over everything else- and in my experience this principle is the antithesis to clever or creative use of a power, spell, or other ability. Going outside the box throws out 4e's balance... but in 3.5, this type of thinking is both a consideration and expectation. Many, many combats I've played using 3.5 (and now, pathfinder) would have resulted in total party death if not for a risky and daring plan. And that's part of the fun of D&D for me. Facing impossible odds and overcoming them. It's the essence of heroism. In my experience, the 4e games I played in were just a race to see who could do the most damage to the enemy in the shortest span of time. The thing is, if all I wanted was dungeon delving, and canned fun, I would play an even simpler game: Descent. Why play 4e, if it's offering me the same experience as a less expensive game that's easier to set up and play with friends?

tcrudisi
2010-08-29, 09:38 PM
I'd say 4e is very good at what it provides. Which is balanced and dynamic combat. 3.5, even heavily houseruled, cannot come close to 4e's level of balance. As far as combat dynamic, though... well, one of 3.5's strengths is that it did try to emulate reality. Coming up with clever plans to defeat your enemies, contriving traps, and bypassing challenges is a minigame that has existed within D&D since the beginning.
So, I'll say this: 4e's combat is dynamic, but it isn't for the most part player-driven, it's hard wired. To me, using a power in the "right way", such as during a flank, isn't innovation- it's canned fun. 4e prioritizes balance over everything else- and in my experience this principle is the antithesis to clever or creative use of a power, spell, or other ability. Going outside the box throws out 4e's balance... but in 3.5, this type of thinking is both a consideration and expectation. Many, many combats I've played using 3.5 (and now, pathfinder) would have resulted in total party death if not for a risky and daring plan. And that's part of the fun of D&D for me. Facing impossible odds and overcoming them. It's the essence of heroism. In my experience, the 4e games I played in were just a race to see who could do the most damage to the enemy in the shortest span of time. The thing is, if all I wanted was dungeon delving, and canned fun, I would play an even simpler game: Descent. Why play 4e, if it's offering me the same experience as a less expensive game that's easier to set up and play with friends?

Last week, I was able to go to one of my old gaming groups (I now live in another city, so I am still looking for a gaming group. If you are in Raleigh, NC, hit me up!). They were teaching a new guy how to play 4e and asked me to play a couple of characters and function as sort of a "mentor" to him.

The DM was running a module (like always /sigh) and I was handed a Druid and Rogue. At one point, I look over at the FNG and say, "Don't try this at home." I move the Rogue into the fireplace (and yeah, it had a fire in it) and use Bait and Switch - a power that allows me to switch places with the bad guy. I then proceeded to immobilize him in the fire. When that wore off, I simply moved my characters in such a way as to block his exit. Needless to say, hilarity ensued. Also, from then on, I told the FNG that "Any time you get a chance to put a bad guy in a fire, you do it, even if they are immune. It's just the cool ... err, hot, thing to do."

I had a Wizard in a game that I was running proceed to use his rituals and cantrips brilliantly - in such a way that it completely bypassed the challenges set before the group.

In a LFR module that I was running, the players had possession of an artifact that, when held, would force the players to tell the truth. They were supposed to hold it high over their heads and say something like, "I swear to not let this leave my possession until such a time that.. blah blah blah". Well, each group had their own way of getting past this. One group had a Wizard use Mage Hand to levitate it just slightly over his hands so it looked like he was holding it. Another group had the Wizard use Prestidigitation to make a different cup look like the real one. But hey - each group had their own way of bypassing the challenge in a fun way.

As for Descent - do you really think that game is quick to set up? I know it normally takes us about 30 minutes to set up the game, which normally lasts 2-5 hours. When I DM 4e, I prep for about 30 minutes before each session. It taes about the same amount of time. But when I ran 3.5? Oh god, I would literally prep for hours just to create the BBEG. Now, 3.5 was fun, for sure, but if you are arguing prep time, no version of D&D beats 4e.

Besides, in Descent, it's literally a board game. You can't do any of the shenanigans I listed above. You can't really make a good comparison with a board game to any version of D&D. 4e is not simply dungeon delving unless your group makes it that way. It is no more dungeon delving than 3.5 was. If your DM ran dungeon delves in 3.5, chances are that's what you get with him/her in 4e. If your DM ran murder mysteries in 3.5, chances are that's what you'll get from your DM in 4e. That didn't change, at all.

Except, I will say this: my first couple of months running 4e, I did run a lot of dungeon delves (while I normally run social/mystery type games). I did it so that myself and my players could become more comfortable with the new edition. Now, however, I'm back to my normal self when it comes to running games.

Leolo
2010-08-29, 09:51 PM
I would say you should not play such games. Obviously you had not that much fun as with other games.

But to bring a simple anecdote: i once played a Wizard who was infiltrating a castle disguised as a juggler among with other actors. It was a skill challenge where we have to prove that we where indeed traveling actors, get information about the castle and find out where a individual is we are searching.

We have stolen the guards keys to the inner castle where i created a magic curtain near the cellar to hide behind for the group and used the illusion of a little girl to get someone into a silent room to ask him for the prisoner of this castle.

The game is what you make out of it. If you play it as if your only options is to deal a certain amount of damage than it sure looks limited. But this is no inherit limit of the system. In fact i have found no other edition of d&d that encourages more clever ideas or to solve problems by acting in your characters role.

The New Bruceski
2010-08-29, 10:55 PM
The DM was running a module (like always /sigh) and I was handed a Druid and Rogue. At one point, I look over at the FNG and say, "Don't try this at home." I move the Rogue into the fireplace (and yeah, it had a fire in it) and use Bait and Switch - a power that allows me to switch places with the bad guy. I then proceeded to immobilize him in the fire. When that wore off, I simply moved my characters in such a way as to block his exit. Needless to say, hilarity ensued. Also, from then on, I told the FNG that "Any time you get a chance to put a bad guy in a fire, you do it, even if they are immune. It's just the cool ... err, hot, thing to do."

Leaf on the Wind is the reason I never play a Warlord without a pole-arm. I can swap either myself or an adjacent ally with the target? Instant flanking, pulling enemies into hazards, pulling them OUT of safe areas (and putting yourself in the safe area), it's a blast. I once poked a foe through an arrow slit and tried to swap with him, but everyone agreed to veto that shenanigan.

Chrono22
2010-08-30, 01:28 AM
Actually 4e's lack of persistent (more than one or two round) status effects, and the number of hitpoints the enemies possess is what usually renders creative strategies ineffective. In the long term, over the span of an entire combat, such strategies don't usually amount to more than if you had used a daily power. That and the attitude of the DM that runs it- some DMs give alot of pushback against such plans because they consider them to be "cheating" an encounter.
Games aren't only what you make them. They have strengths and weaknesses. I wouldn't say Soccer is known for its elaborate hand movements, but I'm sure there are people that use magic fingers while they kick:smalltongue:. I'd rather say, soccer is an endurance sport that requires alot of precision and nimbleness. But that also doesn't preclude the obese or clumsy from playing it either. Yes it's my opinion, but it isn't unjustified and it isn't entirely subjective. My reasons for not enjoying 4e in the way you do isn't just some delusion. It has strengths and weaknesses, and I think its strengths support a style of play I can find more easily in other games, and its weaknesses detract from the experience I'm looking for in D&D.

jseah
2010-08-30, 02:43 AM
Coming up with clever plans to defeat your enemies, contriving traps, and bypassing challenges is a minigame <...>
Actually, that is it. Exactly what I found wrong in my first (and currently only) game of 4e.
It's not so much that you can't do it, but that you can't specialize in it.

There is also that ambushes in 4E are pretty underwhelming. Some minor to-hit bonus for one round and one extra action... which can't do much because everything deals damage (and not enough to kill in one action) or imposes a small/medium penalty for a few rounds.

Getting that out of combat advantage was heavily nerfed, and so the portion of the game is likewise smaller.
- Some of the best moments I had in 3.5 games were the players pulling off a roundabout plan that took advantage of enemy oversights. They managed to totally bypass 3 out of the 5 encounters (including the supposed boss fight) and demolished the other two. When I say demolished, it was killing a CR+2 encounter with not even a threat of damage.


That said, I like the way the powers are written in 4E. By that I mean the strict keyword system + clear delineations of what happens when. Makes clearly conveying what you want a power to do very very easy.

I have been considering houseruling 4E to be more like a system that I like although I haven't worked out all the details.

Leolo
2010-08-30, 04:11 AM
Games aren't only what you make them. They have strengths and weaknesses.

Of course, and in fact i do not agree if people say that rules does not matter for roleplaying. Because they can encourage or hinder roleplaying.

But one of the strengths of 4e is that it encourages creative ideas, roleplaying and out of combat solutions. It has improved these aspects compared to previous editions by adding new rules for improvised actions, a modified skill system that let more players be part of out of combat challenges to make those easier to implement, as you won't have to worry about bored players watching a single character filling his niche. Traps now have a way to overcome them with tricks, and if you create new traps you are guided to provide such possibilities. That is true in fights, too. As the system encourages DMs to provide obstacles, traps or terrain that can be used with creativity. And the DM guidelines tell you to say yes as often as you can when a player has a idea

dsmiles
2010-08-30, 04:12 AM
Here's what I get out of this, after being gone for a couple of days:

Blah, blah, blah...4e =/= 3.5, blah, blah, blah.
Nobody ever said that 4e would be like 3.5. Granted, when it first came out, I was resistant. I said, "There's no roleplaying in my roleplaying game." I said, "Powers? WTF are powers?" Then I played it. Then I liked it. No, it's not the same game, and 3.x is not the same game as 1e/2e. You know why?

Things change to keep up with changing audiences.

I've played all editions, and personally, I like 1e the best. Do I play it? No, not very often, since nobody else does. But 4e games are available, and 3.5 games are available. If I have to choose, I'll play 4e.

jseah
2010-08-30, 04:34 AM
But one of the strengths of 4e is that it encourages creative ideas, roleplaying and out of combat solutions.
Interesting. I get the exact opposite effect. My GM asked us what we wanted to do in a skill challenge and we all used the logical skill to apply or aid another.
I think that's because we don't have powers that apply to a broad range of situations. Spellcraft might qualify... if they gave us a guideline as to what it could do.


As a GM, I can't just say yes to "X" application of a skill without considering what it'll do. If I allowed it to make minor telekinesis, my players would abuse it faster than you can blink.
Would also have to explain why every single caster NPC I had before then didn't know how to do it.


It strongly depends on what you consider a creative idea.
You imply that making a previously non-existent connection between X skill or power with a certain effect is creative. Eg. using spellcraft to pull the guard's keys to you, or using a refluffed fireball to set a house on fire (when normal fireball doesn't hit objects)

Chrono22
2010-08-30, 04:56 AM
4e's "improvised actions" are anything you would normally be able to do anyway, in 3.5. Do I really need to be told I can throw sand in someone's eyes to blind them? Do I need to be told I can lay a rope across a darkened corridor so that it trips opponents?
I just can't see how having your "creativity" handed to you in a table, or through the use of a standard power, or through a skill challenge is anything close to being innovative. All of these extra mechanics point to a perspective that encounters are events that are to be acted out, not attempted.
I feel no sense of risk, no sense of having a chance to fail, when I play 4e. Everything is so balanced, so planned out, that it holds no surprises for me. When I'm told that swinging across a rope to bullrush someone off a ship is an athletics check with a fixed DC (according to my level, of all things), I am underwhelmed. Even more so when I find out the guy I knocked off can get back on the ship again the following turn. Then the combat proceeds for ten or more rounds before one of us finally succeeds the 45-55% chance to hit the final villain with a daily. Statistically my strategy, no matter how badass, is just one small event in a series of whiffs and hits. When I play 4e, I don't feel like a Big Badass Hero. I feel like a toddler on training wheels, who also happens to be a 340 lb dragonborn warlord. I don't like knowing what the outcome of a battle is going to be an hour before it's supposed to end.
My inability to take 4e combats seriously is kind of compounded by the fact that 4e combats happen in some kind of disconnected mirror world with no resemblance to a conceivable (or at least internally consistent) reality. I mean, I've DMed players existing in the far realm. Nonsensical random violence is expected in such a world. But shrodinger's deaths, inconsistent rules (minions in a living world), and actions that fly in the face of reason abound in what would otherwise be a world that's supposed to be superficially like our own. I've been under the curtain- I've DMd almost exclusively- but these problems just shatter any suspension of disbelief that I have.
And yes I know 4e's disregard for any attempt at realism was a designer choice. And yes I know their rebalancing of challenges and encounter design was so that the outcomes would be more predictable for DMs. You call these things strengths, I call them weaknesses. Why should I care about what happens in a world that only exists to facilitate the kool stunts of a handful of imaginary characters? Why should I care that I defeated an encounter that is carefully measured and balanced to allow me to win? Why should I care that I defeated an army, if an outbreak of the common cold can do the same?
I'm blathering at this point, but I hope I've made myself clear. My priorities, the experiences I'm looking to acquire through the medium of tabletop roleplaying, aren't supported by the 4e rules system or its design goals. Obviously I'd prefer to play something else.
Well, I guess I've said my piece. Cya
*gets on WoW to do a raid*

Lord Raziere
2010-08-30, 05:01 AM
Right. They're very differently designed games, only really unified by the d20 mechanic and the D&D name. It's pretty hard to actually compare them, because they're not meant to do the same things.

and I think that is really the point.....because hey if you designed a system then everyone started breaking it with things like CoDzilla, batman wizard and fracking pun-pun, wouldn't you eventually make something that makes sure such game-breaking stuff doesn't happen- ever again? 4E is the result of the DnD fandom's own faults: they keep trying to find ways to break the game and as a result the designers must find ways to fix that.

I mean who honestly expected for WotC to put up with that kind of stuff forever? if anything people should have saw 4E and its new balanced system coming the moment pun-pun became common knowledge.

Lord Raziere
2010-08-30, 05:16 AM
*gets on WoW to do a raid*

{Scrubbed}

FelixG
2010-08-30, 05:18 AM
{Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed}

Lord Raziere
2010-08-30, 05:29 AM
{Scrubbed}

first of all bad form/manner: don't care, I'm me. I do what I wanna do.

:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:

I don't get this....I've played both 4E and WoW.....and your saying that WoW allows you more ways to customize your character? um yeah....whatever....on second though I'm leaving this thread to, its starting to heat up in here.

Sir Homeslice
2010-08-30, 05:42 AM
4e's "improvised actions" are anything you would normally be able to do anyway, in 3.5. Do I really need to be told I can throw sand in someone's eyes to blind them? Do I need to be told I can lay a rope across a darkened corridor so that it trips opponents?
No, the oft referenced page 42 provides a guideline for damage for improvised actions and leaves the effects to the DM.


I just can't see how having your "creativity" handed to you in a table, or through the use of a standard power, or through a skill challenge is anything close to being innovative. All of these extra mechanics point to a perspective that encounters are events that are to be acted out, not attempted.
This snippet makes no sense whatsoever. Just because a table exists doesn't mean that the event/events it represents automatically become something to act out.
{Scrubbed}


I feel no sense of risk, no sense of having a chance to fail, when I play 4e.
Ah, so you haven't actually played it with a decent DM who knows what he's doing.


Everything is so balanced, so planned out, that it holds no surprises for me.
Again, shoddy DM, not a failing of the system. I may be speaking from personal experience flavored with other people's experiences since I lurk 4e's charop, but an encounter that isn't sloppily put together will always pose a risk to the PCs, and even though generally the PCs will win, the path there is never clear and they'll have to fight for it.

{Scrubbed}


When I'm told that swinging across a rope to bullrush someone off a ship is an athletics check with a fixed DC (according to my level, of all things), I am underwhelmed.
No it's not. Whoever told you this doesn't know the rules. Bullrushing involves using the actual Bullrush maneuver, which is a combat action, which is found in the combat chapter.


Even more so when I find out the guy I knocked off can get back on the ship again the following turn.
If the man falls off a boat and doesn't manage to grab on somehow (typically by passing his saving throw to grab hold), then he's going to be plunging into the water which is probably quite a bit lower than the ship's edge, unless you're fighting on the world's tiniest rowboat, in which case you have your own problems.


Then the combat proceeds for ten or more rounds before one of us finally succeeds the 45-55% chance to hit the final villain with a daily.
Or the percentage is greatly swung in your favor because of utilities, combat advantage, or a previous set up.


Statistically my strategy, no matter how badass, is just one small event in a series of whiffs and hits. When I play 4e, I don't feel like a Big Badass Hero. I feel like a toddler on training wheels, who also happens to be a 340 lb dragonborn warlord. I don't like knowing what the outcome of a battle is going to be an hour before it's supposed to end.
{Scrubbed}


My inability to take 4e combats seriously is kind of compounded by the fact that 4e combats happen in some kind of disconnected mirror world with no resemblance to a conceivable (or at least internally consistent) reality.
Sure.


shrodinger's deaths,
Doesn't exist. Also, Schrodinger, you're missing a 'c.'


inconsistent rules (minions in a living world),
Minions are a narrative device. {Scrubbed}


and actions that fly in the face of reason abound in what would otherwise be a world that's supposed to be superficially like our own.
You mean like magic, your mere existence as PCs, and creatures that biologically should not be able to exist? Because I'm sure 4e invented all three of those.


I've been under the curtain- I've DMd almost exclusively- but these problems just shatter any suspension of disbelief that I have.
You're one of the strangely many people I've spoken to with an extremely weak suspension of belief.


And yes I know 4e's disregard for any attempt at realism was a designer choice.
Yes it was, to an extent.


And yes I know their rebalancing of challenges and encounter design was so that the outcomes would be more predictable for DMs.
No it wasn't, the creation of a working CR system was to create a working CR system that meaningfully (to an extent) acted as a guide to monster power levels, thus making it a good metric for knowing how to push your players. I've seen steamrolled EL+5 encounters and unexpectedly terrifying EL+2 encounters.


You call these things strengths, I call them weaknesses. Why should I care about what happens in a world that only exists to facilitate the kool stunts of a handful of imaginary characters?
Well, if you create a world that you don't care one whit about, why did you create it in the first place? Alternately, why haven't you spoken to your DM that you'd like a different campaign, preferably with player backup and a good amount of reasonableness.


Why should I care that I defeated an encounter that is carefully measured and balanced to allow me to win?
Because (good) encounters aren't "push button, receive victory" affairs like you've been lead to believe.


Why should I care that I defeated an army, if an outbreak of the common cold can do the same?
{Scrubbed}


I'm blathering at this point, but I hope I've made myself clear. My priorities, the experiences I'm looking to acquire through the medium of tabletop roleplaying, aren't supported by the 4e rules system or its design goals. Obviously I'd prefer to play something else.
Sure.


Well, I guess I've said my piece. Cya
*gets on WoW to do a raid*
Have fun.

Leolo
2010-08-30, 05:50 AM
I think you have to watch at it from a dm perspective. you can always try to do something creative but the dm needs to provide the environment. And have to plan in that players will use creativity. so a system that binds in such things encourage dms to provide this more often. For example a dm could always count in that players infiltrate a castle. But if i have skill challenges implemented i am encouraged to detail this out as something dangerous and difficult where multiple characters could work together. The anecdote above regarding the group disguised as actors jugglers and an oracle is a good example. It would be possible in 3.5 even if there are no actual rules for it as a complete task. But it would not happen in most groups because the system does not encourages dms to provide such encounters. And of course because simple spells would do the job easier and without effort or any clever idea.

jseah
2010-08-30, 07:32 AM
You're one of the strangely many people I've spoken to with an extremely weak suspension of belief.
Could it be that your suspension of disbelief is higher than the norm?

Some people like their explanations to be consistent. My preferred level of versimilitude includes a simple principle, "rules are universal".
I would also like a fully explanatory rule-fluff correlation but that's neither here nor there.

Of course, people like me are unsatisfied at the use of narrative devices. To us, an RPG is not a place you write stories in. It's a game, in a world that doesn't just revolve around the PCs.

EDIT:
About tactics, I think this nicely summarizes the difference between 3.5 and 4.

In 4, the tactics are focused on maximizing your chances of winning an encounter.
In 3.5, the tactics are focused on winning the encounter before it starts.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-30, 09:32 AM
Great Modthulhu: This thread was going nowhere good to begin with, and has apparently run its course of viable discussion. Locked.