PDA

View Full Version : The D&D 4e thread: because we don't appear to have one



Pages : [1] 2

Flarowon
2010-09-14, 10:34 PM
So, this is a thread for the general discussion of fourth edition. I haven't played much yet, but so far I know I like psionic characters. That's about it.

Wow, that was a lame opening post.

Albonor
2010-09-14, 11:06 PM
Oddly enough, I was thinking about a Shining Force themed game that I would like to run someday and I was surprised to find that 4e seemed perfect for it. Am I right? It has the square based movement, at-will attacks as well as per-encounter, team based with everyone having at least a weakness (I know, there are some exceptions in the games but still).

kyoryu
2010-09-14, 11:09 PM
Essentials is stealth version 4.4 and 4E is dumb because it's turned into WoW and I don't like 4E because all the classes are the same and it doesn't encourage roleplaying and you don't have any freedom and the rules sacrifice all fun in the name of balance and WotC are a bunch of poopyheads!

(just wanted to get that out of the way - did I miss anything?)

Disclaimer: I like 4E :D

MrSinister
2010-09-14, 11:50 PM
I just wanted to share this little story about 4E and how sick I am of hearing the "Blargh, it's just like WoW!" boo-hooing.

I was at a game store with some friends of mine and I had actual 4E products in my hand to buy. One of the clerks comes up to us to invite us to Friday Night Magic or something and my buddy brings up D&D. The clerk immediately starts bad-mouthing 4E with all the normal static, rote things to complain about and my buddy just walks away from the guy mid-sentence. It was lovely. Then I just quietly made my purchse and haven't been back since.

It's one thing to hate on a system, that's fine. But dude, come on, it's the current thing being SOLD in your store and I have some 4E IN MY HAND! Gotta love his salesmanship, right?

Zeofar
2010-09-14, 11:57 PM
Oddly enough, I was thinking about a Shining Force themed game that I would like to run someday and I was surprised to find that 4e seemed perfect for it. Am I right? It has the square based movement, at-will attacks as well as per-encounter, team based with everyone having at least a weakness (I know, there are some exceptions in the games but still).

No!!! You steal me idea! And intend to sully it with the vile 4th edition muck! You dastard!

(Seriously though, I'm surprised that there are other people that want to do a Shining Force game.)

Scubasteve0209
2010-09-15, 12:25 AM
I've been in four (and a third) 4e games so far, playing a wide range of characters and have so far been very pleased with the system.

From a player standpoint, a handful of the classes have some odd spots (splitting of primary ability score requirements, like with the paladin), but as a whole the system is streamlined and creates a system by which classes maintain their own individual flavors, and don't become useless after "blowing their wad" in a tough encounter. (pardon the term)

I hear that as a DM there are some issues with monster balancing (Monsters from the original MM are sorely underpowered, particularly once reaching paragon tier). There is hope that this will be repaired with Essentials, although that creates its own gripes, I know.

The comparison to video games is double edged in my opinion. It carries the stigma of being "dumbed down," but at the same time it creates an ideal platform to adapt video game worlds on the tabletop. Right now I'm in an outstanding Castlevania 4e D&D game, and couldn't imagine a better system to play it in.

My two cents is that it's fun for what it is. It isn't perfect, but it makes for a good game night.

~Steve

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 12:30 AM
The comparison to video games is double edged in my opinion. It carries the stigma of being "dumbed down," but at the same time it creates an ideal platform to adapt video game worlds on the tabletop. Right now I'm in an outstanding Castlevania 4e D&D game, and couldn't imagine a better system to play it in.

My two cents is that it's fun for what it is. It isn't perfect, but it makes for a good game night.

~Steve

The most MMO-like encounters I ever played were in 3.0. FWIW.

Grommen
2010-09-15, 12:36 AM
I just wanted to share this little story about 4E and how sick I am of hearing the "Blargh, it's just like WoW!" boo-hooing.

I was at a game store with some friends of mine and I had actual 4E products in my hand to buy. One of the clerks comes up to us to invite us to Friday Night Magic or something and my buddy brings up D&D. The clerk immediately starts bad-mouthing 4E with all the normal static, rote things to complain about and my buddy just walks away from the guy mid-sentence. It was lovely. Then I just quietly made my purchse and haven't been back since.

It's one thing to hate on a system, that's fine. But dude, come on, it's the current thing being SOLD in your store and I have some 4E IN MY HAND! Gotta love his salesmanship, right?

Least he was honest. :smallbiggrin:

I have not sat down to read the 4th edition material, but from what I have heard and the little I have read. It is not the system myself or my friends are looking for. Can't say it is horrible.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-09-15, 12:41 AM
Hopefully I'll be joining a 4e game tommorow. Something about Dungeons and Dragons Encounters at the local game store.

I don't really know much about Essentials. What IS it? It looked like basically a means to introduce a younger audience to D&D, but judging by these "4.5" rumors floating around there's more to it than that.

Draz74
2010-09-15, 12:42 AM
It is not the system myself or my friends are looking for. Can't say it is horrible.

I don't weigh in on edition wars very often, so I'll take this moment to say that this is, essentially, my position as well.

4e is a good game. It is worthy of the moniker "Dungeons and Dragons."

However, it is not the perfect game I dreamed would come out when they first announced that they were planning another edition. I dislike how far it has moved in the Gamist direction, away from being any sort of Simulation. On the whole, I would prefer to play 3e as opposed to 4e. (As a DM, I might prefer 4e.)

I am happy to crib the best parts of the system and adopt them as houserules, though. :smallamused:

Jury's still out on Essentials. Depends how smoothly Essentials' claim of "complete compatibility with earlier 4e material" turns out to run, in practice.

Grommen
2010-09-15, 12:43 AM
Ya know. It's odd. I've been gaming long enough to know that when people say, "It is just like Warcraft" or "It's just like Everquest". Well it's just odd to think that both games were adapted from D&D in the first place. So ah, naturally 4th edition will follow that theme as well.

I know what you all mean though, RPG's have come full circle to the point where they are now emulating the very products that emulated them a decade ago.

A little goes a long way in my opinion on that front. Wile I like both MMORPG's and RPG's, I like them for different reasons. I don't need one copying the other. Perhaps with one notable acceptation. Blizard and Warcraft have created a wonderful game world. I have several of their RPG books and really like WoW. It is a good world.

Zaydos
2010-09-15, 12:53 AM
My opinion on 4e:
The one long running (okay a semester) 4e game I was in was set in the Doctor Who universe. It was... interesting. I was a Time Lord Swordmage who was in the process of becoming a TARDIS, and I managed to hack the Master's TARDIS (couldn't get in it though) and use it as a sword.

So that was the setting and it was... interesting. It wouldn't have been as good in 3.5 because you'd either have to ban full-casters or have them dominate everything. As it was we did have a rainbow themed sorceress, a bard, and me with the Arcane power source.

Game mechanically? I had a few combos of actions I could do and I could rearrange them by mixing and matching my encounter and at-will abilities. We tended to level twice after every adventure which was nice as it meant I got to change my tactics around every session which is always a plus. The fights did get dragged out long enough that it started to become I basic attack, although I suffered less of that than many of the players because I actually used my encounter (and daily) abilities. Part of that might have been 4 out of 5 of the other players hadn't played before; the new players used at-wills and mostly ranged attackers, the veterans used highly mobile melee with secondary controller elements (swordmage and monk). It was enjoyable, and I'd play it again, but I will say like every edition quality really depends upon the DM.

3.5 is still my favorite.
Red Box is still what I grew up on.
2e is still how I fell in love with the fluff (Spelljammer, Planescape, Darksun and Dragonlance).
but 4e has its place. Really just as a system I'd hazard to say it is probably better than 2e and Basic. It's a whole different game than Basic and 2e as well, just like 3.0 and 3.5 are a completely different game from 2e and earlier. 3.X might be closer in feel to 2e and Basic than 4e (the presentation has something to do with that) is to any of them 3.5 and earlier but that's fine. Judged as a system and not by the label D&D 4e is an excellent game (that said I'd probably never had played it if it hadn't been labeled D&D).

I enjoy 4e's combat system a fair bit and it still offers more options than 2e and earlier (although not the plethora of options that 3.5 had; especially spell casters who with Spell Compendium + other splats had too many options to really handle). So while it's not my favorite edition, it's still really enjoyable.

On the subject of it being like a video game. Looking at the rules they make me think video game and were a significant turn off. Having played it under 3 DMs (one for 2 sessions, one for 1 session, one for an actual campaign) in the first two cases it didn't get video game-like but it also wasn't very enjoyable generic fantasy with bad DMs (shooting from in bushes gives your enemies a +4 to AC and you take a -2 to hit). The long term game (with a better DM) eventually the battles felt a little video game-like with special moves and all, but it also reminded me of Magic the Gathering (one of my favorite non-RP games) and the battles were fun. Actually the battle system is what it has over 3.5 in my experience (I have little personal experience with class balance problems; I know they exist but my players just don't read the spells).

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 01:05 AM
The long term game (with a better DM) eventually the battles felt a little video game-like with special moves and all, but it also reminded me of Magic the Gathering (one of my favorite non-RP games) and the battles were fun. Actually the battle system is what it has over 3.5 in my experience (I have little personal experience with class balance problems; I know they exist but my players just don't read the spells).

I've always been mystified by the "4e = video game" comparisons, when M:tG seemed so much more appropriate.

ghost_warlock
2010-09-15, 01:44 AM
Hopefully I'll be joining a 4e game tommorow. Something about Dungeons and Dragons Encounters at the local game store.

Bad timing. Tomorrow is supposed to be the last encounter for the Dark Sun series. Next week should start the Keep on the Borderlands series, which uses the Essentials line characters.

From what I've heard, though, a lot of gaming stores aren't continuing Encounters after Dark Sun ends because it's just not fiscally effective (they're not selling enough product to keep it running). That might be a local issue, though. My group is, apparently, still going to run them, but they're only shop nearby that will be. I'm a bit surprised they're even going to continue with them, considering how little cash the Encounters players are kicking their way, all while demanding characters sheets and the like be printed there. :smallsigh:

I mean, shops can charge entry fees for M:tG tournaments, but not D&D Encounters (not really anyone would pay to play D&D, even if it is convenient to run games in the shop).

Anyway, there's two things that irk me about Encounters:
1) it's little more than a string of once-per-week combats
2) lately, at least, there's been an insistence upon playing pregen characters. I *hate* pregen characters, especially when they're as poorly built and terribly edited as the ones provided in Encounters so far. :smallmad:

jmbrown
2010-09-15, 01:59 AM
I've always been mystified by the "4e = video game" comparisons, when M:tG seemed so much more appropriate.

Why are you mystified? 95% of the books are about how to deal with combat; character paths, weapons, and feats. Gone are pretty much every non-combat option, skills, feats, and spells found in previous editions. Even rituals are ridiculously rare with maybe 3 pages at the most found in the average book.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, because I'm a firm believer in that mechanics shouldn't rule role play, but how are you mystified that people compare a system to a video game when 95% of its rules are how to play what's essentially a tabletop video game?

Krazddndfreek
2010-09-15, 02:03 AM
I like 4e because, as a DM it makes things very easy for me and its very easy to introduce to players who are new to tabletop rpgs. That said, I still like 3.5 very much but I haven't found friends who are enthusiastic enough to run a successful game with.

Xefas
2010-09-15, 02:03 AM
I've played every edition of D&D (1st edition only once, 2nd + 3rd edition extensively, and a surprisingly large amount of 4th edition when the only books out were Core), as well as a non-trivial amount of non-D&D roleplaying games.

And, so far as I can tell, 3.x and 4th edition D&D are fundamentally the same system. A couple of fiddly bits have been fiddled with, but nothing really changed. While I don't particularly like either (as far as roleplaying games go), and I don't consider either good roleplaying games by any stretch of the imagination, I do think 4th edition has reached the pinnacle of what D&D has always striven to be: a tactical, skirmish-based, man-to-man fighting wargame.

(My citation for 'the true intent for D&D' being this interview with Gary Gygax (http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/garygygax1.php). Not just coming up with this stuff on my own. I don't think there's any better source for the intent of a product than the creator of said product.)

And really, I think 3.5 and 4th edition both stand as better games when you consider them in a light of "Tactical, Skirmish-Based, Man-to-Man Fighting Wargame" than "Roleplaying Game". There are a lot of good roleplaying games. Not too many good Tactical, Skirmish-Based, Man-to-Man Fighting Wargames.

If someone said to me "Hey, lets play a roleplaying game." D&D would probably be near the bottom of my list for systems to suggest. But if someone said to me "Hey, lets play a Tactical, Skirmish-Based, Man-to-Man Fighting Wargame", I'd probably be like "Yeah, 4th edition D&D. Probably the perfect thing for that."

chaotoroboto
2010-09-15, 04:01 AM
Too many things to find them all and quote them... One: The Pregen stuff that was used for Dark Sun was so they wouldn't spoil the Dark Sun books. I don't think encounters is a good place to learn the system, because it focuses on a controlled environment. Boo!

I can't see the benefit in Essentials for any experienced players/DMs.

My two big games are tabletop DnD and Civilization on the PC. The new Civ drops next week, and a whole bunch of people are freaked out that they've done things like "Streamlined the interface." People are terribly worried that they've "sacrificed realism for gameplay." But when you watch the videos of the game being played that show up on the preview release, it's very clear that all of the depth from the previous Civilization games is still there, just how you plumb those depths has changed.

And I will always argue that gameplay trumps realism, every time. The same basic premise is true in tabletop rpgs too.

When I was in high school, we used to go to a used/bootleg cd store, and we'd buy cds. The employees (high school, college kids) would sit behind the counter and talk bad about every single band that ever made a record. In the 30 minutes you might flip through crates, they were guaranteed to insult at least one of your favorite bands where you could hear.

I think it's endemic to any type of geeking out that the people who work at the stores all hate the products that are their bread and butter.

I've played Savage Worlds, I love Savage Worlds. Last time I went into the game store to buy a 4E book, the clerk told me I should really check out Savage Worlds, once I'd played it I'd never go back to 4E. He, of course, had never sullied his fair hands with 4E, but he knew for a fact that it was the worst system ever, and that only a madmen could play it when such a superior system exists! He was legitimately angry that I would not purchase books I already owned, but stubbornly insisted on purchasing the book I had gone to the store with the intent of purchasing.

4E is amazing. In terms of tactical, cooperative combat, there is no better system extant. There are plenty of systems that are better at other things, no doubt. Savage Worlds, for one, is better for cooperative storytelling. Warhammer is better for War simulations. Hero system is better for learning arithmetic, and GURPS is better for gestalt universes.

But nothing in gaming compares to the way 4E lets you envision a scenario, create the stats for relevant monsters, traps, environmental effects, place them onto a map and watch as your players, grappling with the implications, are fully immersed in a visual, tactile projection of that scenario onto your dining room table.

Just saying.

dsmiles
2010-09-15, 04:49 AM
If someone said to me "Hey, lets play a roleplaying game." D&D would probably be near the bottom of my list for systems to suggest. But if someone said to me "Hey, lets play a Tactical, Skirmish-Based, Man-to-Man Fighting Wargame", I'd probably be like "Yeah, 4th edition D&D. Probably the perfect thing for that."


Savage Worlds, for one, is better for cooperative storytelling.

[$0.02]

This is what bothers me about all of the 'edition wars.' Some people say that there's no roleplaying in 4e. Roleplaying isn't something that needs to be 'written into' a system, it's just something you do. You could just as easily roleplay in F.A.T.A.L. (if you could ever get past character creation), or in Rolemaster/H.A.R.P., or in WHFRP, or whatever system you like. It doesn't need to be written in 'THE BOOK' because roleplaying is 'system-independent', as I like to call it. 'THE RULES' are just guidelines anyways, so if something isn't covered by 'THE BOOK,' feel free to implement a rule to cover it. Seriously, 'THE BOOK' is really just a book. It is not the be-all, end-all of the game. Do you really expect a book to be capable of telling you how to roleplay? That's something that can't be defined. My way of roleplaying is different from yours, and both of ours are different from everybody else's.
I grew up on AD&D, played 2e, and suffered through the horrible imbalance that was 3.x. Finally, there's a product that has both the Dungeons and Dragons name and system balance. The system has evolved to streamline combat encounters, IMO, not to be more 'combat-centric,' but to make room for more roleplaying. There's less rules that define 'out of combat experiences' because you don't need rules to cover that. I'm not saying that people who complain about the lack of roleplaying in 4e can't roleplay, I'm saying 'Why do you need explicit rules to tell you how to roleplay?'

[/$0.02]

Chrono22
2010-09-15, 05:00 AM
I'm not saying that people who complain about the lack of roleplaying in 4e can't roleplay, I'm saying 'Why do you need explicit rules to tell you how to roleplay?'
I'll just lob a guess out there-
for the same reasons you need combat mechanics. When the rules of a game emphasize certain activities, those rules give players latitude to commit those activities, and they can have predictable and somewhat consistent results. I mean, you might as well be asking why we have rules in the first place. Because they add depth and complexity, and to serve as a guideline for play.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-15, 05:19 AM
It doesn't need to be written in 'THE BOOK' because roleplaying is 'system-independent', as I like to call it.
...but it's not.

Of course you don't need rules telling you how to roleplay. But the rules do encourage people to play in a certain way, by making certain approaches work and other approaches fail.

A simple example is combat: in games like D&D, or Werewolf the Apocalpyse, a fight is something your characters can frequently win, and if they get wounded this is easy to recover from. On the other hand, in games like Cyberpunk or Call of Chtulhu (especially Chtulhu) combat is likely to make your character die, quickly and messily.

So D&D and Werewolf encourage players to solve their problems through combat, whereas Cyberpunk or Chtulhu encourage players to avoid combat. It is very obvious that the ruleset influences the way people roleplay. Of course, the word "influence" does not mean that everybody always does it that way.

Other examples are also very simple: a system that gives bonus XP for roleplaying encourages roleplaying (example: Whitewolf, or 2E D&D). A system that gives combat bonuses for cool descriptions encourages such descriptions (example: Exalted, Over The Edge). A system that gives powerful limited-usage abilities that recharge when you sleep encourages using them as soon as possible then going to sleep again (example: both 3E and 4E).

Galdor Miriel
2010-09-15, 07:29 AM
I prefer a different analogy.

The rules of dungeons and dragons are all tools, tools that we use to try and recreate the adventures we like to read about. The success of an edition depends upon how good it as a tool to help us create heros, who save the world and kick ass.

We switched from 3.5 to 4 when it came out, we write up our adventures, different writers different styles, and there has been no loss of the heroicability (nice word eh!) in our stories. BY that measure 4 is just fine.

Like all other versions of the rules there are some good things and some bad. I think that 4e and 3.5 go together, 1 and 2 go together. With 3.5 and 4 e, there are rules and often rule debates as the players are not in the dark. Back when I was a kid in the 80s playing the dm was god and that was it.

4 is just as good for roleplaying, if not in fact superior. A case in point...We have a guy who loved to play, but found the rules in 3.5 top heavy, he struggled a bit with the game (the rest of us were rule gods surfing the wave of optimization and effectiveness). Come 4 and he does not need to worry about it, sure he is not optimized, but he is still totally playable. He has unleashed a stream of roleplay on us with a minotaur character and has become the most interesting presence at the table most nights, all because of the rule change.

So trying to say that you cannot roleplay in 4e is frankly ridiculous, trying to say that is a videogame because it has simple and rational rules for combat is also ridiculous. A videogame is a videogame because of the limitiations placed upon you, D&D is a game where you say to the dm, "Can I pick up the horse and throw it at the giant, try and confuse him so we can get away...."

Janus
2010-09-15, 07:32 AM
I've heard a lot of complaints about apparently not being allowed to think outside the box in 4e. Now, I'm still new to D&D (only played 4e a handful of times, and DM'd only one real session), but so far I've seen it be quite the opposite.
When I DM'd, the party managed to discover that there was a giant spider waiting to pounce them in the room they were about to enter. My two players discussed it, and the (level 1) wizard suggested using his Light spell to blind it. Does the power description say anything about blinding creatures? No, but why shouldn't it? So I gave it to him.
In another session (my friend DMing), we were in a room filled with water. We needed to get a key from the bottom, but there was a huge fish swimming around that had us worried. The same wizard from earlier used Magic Hand, which the DM told us the fish followed like it was a laser pointer. I worked with the wizard to strategically use the Magic Hand to keep the thing the heck away from us while we inched our way across the room. Once we were safely away from the water, we pulled the hand back and got the key. XP without killing anything, not bad.


"It's just like Everquest".
Heh, that's what my group's world is based on, actually.


I *hate* pregen characters, especially when they're as poorly built and terribly edited as the ones provided in Encounters so far. :smallmad:
The first time I played 4e was at a comic/game shop, and I was given a pregen. Some human barbarian with vampiric heritage. Friggin' hated him. But I had to leave early, so I just figured his heritage caught up with him and he spontaneously burst into flame under the sun.

Esser-Z
2010-09-15, 08:44 AM
[obligatory reference to trapping Vecna in a bag of holding with no chance of failure, possibly then using his aura as a death ray]

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 09:48 AM
I just wanted to share this little story about 4E and how sick I am of hearing the "Blargh, it's just like WoW!" boo-hooing.

I was at a game store with some friends of mine and I had actual 4E products in my hand to buy. One of the clerks comes up to us to invite us to Friday Night Magic or something and my buddy brings up D&D. The clerk immediately starts bad-mouthing 4E with all the normal static, rote things to complain about and my buddy just walks away from the guy mid-sentence. It was lovely. Then I just quietly made my purchse and haven't been back since.

It's one thing to hate on a system, that's fine. But dude, come on, it's the current thing being SOLD in your store and I have some 4E IN MY HAND! Gotta love his salesmanship, right?

Look, I hate 4e as much as anyone, but I'll admit that that's some terrible salesmanship. We all have our preferences, and it's ok to mention that, but don't insult the customer's preferences.

Some game stores are terrible with customer service though. Coincidentally enough, the local game shop that really shows off 4e stuff(which I forgive, because they still carry a wide selection of stuff back to 2e) has a bunch of workers that can never be bothered because they're always talking about wow.

valadil
2010-09-15, 10:07 AM
Game Stores employ gamers rather than sales people. This should come as a surprise to nobody.

I can honestly say that with one exception, everyone I've talked to in real life that didn't like 4e either had never played or had only tried a couple demo sessions and never really gave the game a chance.

I have encountered the limited roleplay and video game inspired gameplay critics talk about. Usually it takes place in RPGA games. Comparing a 3.5 home game to a 4e RPGA game is not fair at all and going to result in a bias. Either both should be home games or both should be RPGA. In the 4e game I run, we have pretty much the same level of roleplay that we did back in 3.5. I haven't run into any situations where 4e was inadequate and left me longing for an older edition. Nor have I run into any situations that couldn't have been run in 3.5 (although skills challenges have saved my ass a few times. I could have run them in 3.5, but I wouldn't have thought to without having played 4e).

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-09-15, 10:15 AM
Bad timing. Tomorrow is supposed to be the last encounter for the Dark Sun series. Next week should start the Keep on the Borderlands series, which uses the Essentials line characters.

From what I've heard, though, a lot of gaming stores aren't continuing Encounters after Dark Sun ends because it's just not fiscally effective (they're not selling enough product to keep it running). That might be a local issue, though. My group is, apparently, still going to run them, but they're only shop nearby that will be. I'm a bit surprised they're even going to continue with them, considering how little cash the Encounters players are kicking their way, all while demanding characters sheets and the like be printed there. :smallsigh:

I mean, shops can charge entry fees for M:tG tournaments, but not D&D Encounters (not really anyone would pay to play D&D, even if it is convenient to run games in the shop).

Anyway, there's two things that irk me about Encounters:
1) it's little more than a string of once-per-week combats
2) lately, at least, there's been an insistence upon playing pregen characters. I *hate* pregen characters, especially when they're as poorly built and terribly edited as the ones provided in Encounters so far. :smallmad:

So skip it then? I really would like to find a 4e game to join in the Twin Cities area, but I don't really know anyone outside my hometown. :smallfrown:

Grogmir
2010-09-15, 10:29 AM
I love 4e and its kept bringing my back to the table and even writing up my own adventures after I was slipping away from the game.

As I've said before 4E is a game, 3.5 is mental 'Selfpleasuring' character generation.

4E rules are combat heavy as thats the only part that needs rules - otherwise, crack open page 42 and role with it!

Happy Rollin'

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 11:19 AM
Game Stores employ gamers rather than sales people. This should come as a surprise to nobody.

I can honestly say that with one exception, everyone I've talked to in real life that didn't like 4e either had never played or had only tried a couple demo sessions and never really gave the game a chance.

Everyone I know played at least one campaign before giving up. Plenty bought books. One of them offered to sell his 4e books to anyone in the group for $5 each. There were no takers.

I have no doubt that some bash it just because, but the same is true of any system. No doubt some 4e fans bash 3.5 just because, without playing it.

There's a fairly substantial backlash to 4e, and it's not entirely due to not trying it.

valadil
2010-09-15, 11:38 AM
There's a fairly substantial backlash to 4e, and it's not entirely due to not trying it.

I don't disagree and I can understand some of the points against it. It's just that the haters I've had conversations with were hating for the fun of it rather than due to any legitimate problems with the game. Now whenever anyone starts bashing 4e I have to ask how much they've played before I'll even think about listening to their opinion.

The Glyphstone
2010-09-15, 11:44 AM
You know, I was kind of kidding in the other thread when I said it was Edition Wars Wednesday.

(sigh)

I guess it's inevitable, so please remember to remain civil and refrain from criticizing other people's playstyles or game preferences.

Great Modthulhu:{Returns to his eternal slumber}

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 12:09 PM
Hey, it could be worse. It could be monks. One day, someone will start a thread titled "4E monks, more morally justified than 3.5 wizards!", and the world will end.

Gametime
2010-09-15, 12:10 PM
Hey, it could be worse. It could be monks. One day, someone will start a thread titled "4E monks, more morally justified than 3.5 wizards!", and the world will end.

...Can I sig this?

The Glyphstone
2010-09-15, 12:14 PM
That's because it's not Monk Monday, Alignment Thursday, or Fighter vs. Wizard Friday. ToB Tuesday appears to have skipped us by this week.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 12:16 PM
...Can I sig this?

Absolutely.

Oddly enough, I had a hankering to make a ToB thread yesterday(crusader), but got distracted with creating a campaign. Tragic...

Psyx
2010-09-15, 12:21 PM
It's one thing to hate on a system, that's fine. But dude, come on, it's the current thing being SOLD in your store and I have some 4E IN MY HAND! Gotta love his salesmanship, right?

You need to watch 'Spaced'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUkCJDkG3fg


I'm just bugged by the fact that I had a massive list of things that I hated about 3.5 that got partially addressed at the cost of adding 200 things that I despise.

Still: At least you don't have to roll to hit with magic missiles again, now.

Psyx
2010-09-15, 12:26 PM
I can honestly say that with one exception, everyone I've talked to in real life that didn't like 4e either had never played or had only tried a couple demo sessions and never really gave the game a chance.


Two demo games is quite enough, thanks. That's plenty of chance. That's more time that I'd give to test driving a new car, and that's a rather larger more important investment!

If I don't like a game in two sessions, then I don't like a game.

Ormagoden
2010-09-15, 12:36 PM
Is it worth noting that I actually LOL'ed when I read the title of this thread?

valadil
2010-09-15, 12:44 PM
If I don't like a game in two sessions, then I don't like a game.

Two sessions to decide you don't like it is one thing. Two sessions to decide it's a pox on the gaming world and all source books and GMs should be cast into bonfires is another matter.

The Glyphstone
2010-09-15, 12:45 PM
Is it worth noting that I actually LOL'ed when I read the title of this thread?

I cringed, myself.:smallyuk:

Zaydos
2010-09-15, 12:50 PM
Every game but Insert chosen game here is a pox on the gaming world and should have its books burnt.

Seriously I can't think of any game that is a pox on the gaming world and should have its books burnt. I can think of many I don't want to play (d20 modern for example) but not wanting to play a game does not equal it is a pox on the gaming world.

Part of the problem with 4e was that 3.5 still had, and has, a very loyal fan-base that was willing to buy more books for it. This fan base was upset that the line they loved was being discontinued for a game that feels so very different (different does not equal bad). Personally I'd like 4e more if there wasn't always the nagging feeling that they canceled 3.5 for it. It's a good game, but I'd rather invest more money in my favorite game than invest money into a new one.

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 01:00 PM
Why are you mystified? 95% of the books are about how to deal with combat; character paths, weapons, and feats. Gone are pretty much every non-combat option, skills, feats, and spells found in previous editions. Even rituals are ridiculously rare with maybe 3 pages at the most found in the average book.


It's combat focused, that's for sure. But the mechanics seem to crib more from M:tG than anything else. M:tG doesn't have non-combat rules, either.


I'll just lob a guess out there-
for the same reasons you need combat mechanics. When the rules of a game emphasize certain activities, those rules give players latitude to commit those activities, and they can have predictable and somewhat consistent results. I mean, you might as well be asking why we have rules in the first place. Because they add depth and complexity, and to serve as a guideline for play.

I can somewhat see this point, but if there's rules, you're not really roleplaying, are you? I mean, my character doing his best to persuade an informant to help us is one thing - rolling a dice to see if I roll higher than a given number is another.

Guidelines for bonus exp for roleplaying would help, I'd admit.



There's a fairly substantial backlash to 4e, and it's not entirely due to not trying it.

Investment. People are invested in 3.x - not just in terms of money, but in terms of mental effort. You're a pretty heavy optimizer - a switch to 4e means that all of the effort you've spent learning how to optimize 3.x is now wasted. That's a pretty big disincentive to picking up the new system.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate reasons to dislike 4e, but I think the investment part is significant. It'd be interesting to do a survey on opinions of 4e, compared to other factors (how many other systems people have played, how heavily they optimize, etc.)


Two sessions to decide you don't like it is one thing. Two sessions to decide it's a pox on the gaming world and all source books and GMs should be cast into bonfires is another matter.

I'm not even sure two sessions is really enough if you've been playing the other system a ton. With two sessions, you're still trying to make the new system play like the old one in your head.

It's like expecting to take a drink of soda and getting a mouthful of iced tea instead. Your first response is "ewwww, what's wrong with this?" It's not that iced tea is bad, necessarily (you may like iced tea), it's the fact that you were expecting cola.


I cringed, myself.:smallyuk:

Hence my first response.

RebelRogue
2010-09-15, 01:31 PM
I personally like 4e for a number of reasons, with highlights being:

Iconic classes work the way they should without having to jump through hoops.

There is more focus on teamwork between players and not just because the classes are now equally useful; it's a deliberate design strategy.

No long-term buffs/debuffs: when the controller/leader grants you this advantage, you had better be sure to use it now! This makes action scenes much more intense and cinematic. No more "you suck for 27 minutes" effects - how boring is that?

As a DM: The lack of simulationism means you're free to focus on story. No more are you 'required' to justify what a NPC can or does. No more having to waste time on builds for them either: now you just make them do whatever you feel appropriate.


Hey, it could be worse. It could be monks. One day, someone will start a thread titled "4E monks, more morally justified than 3.5 wizards!", and the world will end.
Needs moar paladin, but then we're set! :smallwink:

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-09-15, 01:34 PM
Seriously I can't think of any game that is a pox on the gaming world and should have its books burnt.
I hate book burning on principle, whether it's a game book, a popular novel or something else. No book deserves to be destroyed in such a callous manner.

I love 4e, but I can never find anyone who wants to play with me. :smallfrown:

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 01:45 PM
Every game but Insert chosen game here is a pox on the gaming world and should have its books burnt.

Seriously I can't think of any game that is a pox on the gaming world and should have its books burnt. I can think of many I don't want to play (d20 modern for example) but not wanting to play a game does not equal it is a pox on the gaming world.

FATAL springs to mind. That is actually a bad game.

I agree though, there is a huge gap between a truly bad game, and preferences. I play one game of paranoia, and Im happy not seeing it again for a coupla years. However, I recognize that it's a good game.


Part of the problem with 4e was that 3.5 still had, and has, a very loyal fan-base that was willing to buy more books for it. This fan base was upset that the line they loved was being discontinued for a game that feels so very different (different does not equal bad). Personally I'd like 4e more if there wasn't always the nagging feeling that they canceled 3.5 for it. It's a good game, but I'd rather invest more money in my favorite game than invest money into a new one.

It's not actually a bad game for the type of game it is. I can't think of anything else that is "just like 4e but better". It just happens that that type of game is different from 3.5 by a significant amount. So yeah, I agree with you a lot on here.

I don't think investment is enough to explain the 3.5/4e divide. Sure, every edition swap has a little of this, but not usually so much as to make something like Pathfinder profitable. Plus, there's a substantial contingent of gamers that enjoy playing multiple systems. D10 7th Sea is actually my favorite system, and I still keep D&D 3.0 and 2 materials around, plus a random assortment of other things that struck my interest, including games Ive never played(exalted is one). I believe this is fairly common among long-time gamers.

And oddly enough, there was even a first timer in my main group who kept having trouble learning 4e, but after we went back to 3.5, announced that he liked it much better that 4th. Granted, this might be because the rest of the group knew 3.5 better, so there was less confusion, but they'd played 4e for several months, at least weekly. Someone being exposed to 4e first, then 3.5 is probably a less common case, but some of those also prefer 3.5, so we have a pretty good case for preferences being a factor.

A survey would be a good idea. I hesitate to do so online, as biases in any given population might be an issue due to self-selection, but if anyone is interesting in researching such topics, perhaps for a college class, I'd definitely be interested in looking over the results.

Trundlebug
2010-09-15, 01:46 PM
Don't dislike it. Just not excited. It's still growing. It's a board game not a hobby. As for the implied question in the thread title...

"Invention shared between groups sparked discussion and threads."

"Not much to make, to share or reinvent."

Context in spoiler.
Playing since 2nd. I think it was when I was trying to explain THAC0 to a new player after I'd been playing for years that I realized 2nd needed a number overhaul.

Then 3rd came out. The numbers made sense(sorta). Sure it was completely different and some fluff was changed a bit and a few of us were apprehensive.

Could we still roleplay?
A sorceror?!
They fixed psionics! Comparatively anyways(if anyone remembers a 5th lvl psi could rip out a 10th lvl fighters heart with TK)

But we loved it. Felt great. Could still roleplay and the system was obviously still flawed so you felt comfortable changing things. Invention shared between groups sparked discussion and threads.

2nd was abandoned.

Then 4th came out. We got the books, we read, we played.
Melees are more fun outta the box!

It's ok. It's fun. It's a board game. The numbers are more sane. Can still roleplay but it's more effort and beyond combat the game isn't there. As for this 4th team play that ppl throw around. That's a group thing and not a game thing. If you need mechanics to force your group to play together and not be a collection of solos, the problem is the players.

We play the Ravenloft 4th board game now when we feel like 4th. That's a blast. The 4th books are dust collectors, already. That's partly WoTC fault though. From a DM's perspective 4th isn't worth making a campaign for. I'll run a module if asked but you'll only get the same effort from me as the players put into their characters.

Why is there not a lot of 4th threads? Not much to talk about. Not much to make, to share or reinvent. It feels shallow, static and sterile due to scope. Very fitting for nowadys.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-09-15, 01:49 PM
I'd just like to say: thank gods 4e did away with alignment restrictions! Everyone seems to have ideas about how certain classes should be played. Even my friend and fellow 4e player insists that all paladins should be lawful. Why? I dunno, I never understood why anyone should be required to rp in any particular way based solely on their class title. I'm so glad that 4e doesn't force any of that cr@p down my throat.

@Zousha: It's weird, my group primarily plays 4e, but everyone I meet outside of it seems to hate 4e. My one cousin who plays D&D? "4e is dumbed down." My cousin's new convention boyfriend? "4e is WoW." My fellow college student? "I can't play a socialite samurai in 4e!" It's sad, because these are people I otherwise respect.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 01:56 PM
@Zousha: It's weird, my group primarily plays 4e, but everyone I meet outside of it seems to hate 4e. My one cousin who plays D&D? "4e is dumbed down." My cousin's new convention boyfriend? "4e is WoW." My fellow college student? "I can't play a socialite samurai in 4e!" It's sad, because these are people I otherwise respect.

I wouldn't disrespect them based solely on that. 4e IS simpler in many respects than 3.5. Some people will describe that as "dumbed down". Consider say, a level 20 build in 3.5 and 4. Which one is going to be more complex?

I believe the explicit archtypes is part of what draws the MMO comparisons, especially because they match so carefully. Like any one sentance comparison, it's hardly complete, but it is built on a substantial similarity. WoW is the obvious MMO to compare to, because it's popular. No doubt in a different age, it would have been compared to something else.

huttj509
2010-09-15, 01:56 PM
I don't really know much about Essentials. What IS it? It looked like basically a means to introduce a younger audience to D&D, but judging by these "4.5" rumors floating around there's more to it than that.

According to what it says on the tin, Essentials is:

A product like that provides class options that are less "complicated," for players who prefer that style, or are intimidated by the whole powers thing (for example, many classes have abilities that provide a buff to their standard attack, rather than at-will powers). These class options are supposedly able to intigrate into a party with other 4E non-essentiuals characters (they are not useless in comparison, you may not be able to mix the mechanics well within a character tho, unsure).

A resource for folks who are new to DnD, or even RPGs in general, containing an intro adventure that even helps you generate your first character (along the lines of a choose your own adventure, "do you pick up a sword, or blast them with magic").

A boxed set which stores can stock and know that they are carrying a "starter pack" for DnD (related to the above), as opposed to confronting prospective new buyers with a flurry of PHB, DMG, MM I II III, which can be a bit overwhelming to someone who's considering buying it, but is not already familiar with the system.

A compilation of the rules updated with the various errata that have been implemented so far, as well as a few other changes (though nothing I've seen really signals a change like to 3.5)



Now if it succeeds in the above stated goals is up for discussion, but probably not in this thread. :-)


Great Modthulhu:{Returns to his eternal slumber}
Ia Ia Gatekeeper Fhtagn!

Greenish
2010-09-15, 02:02 PM
It's a board game not a hobby.Hey! :smallmad: Nothing wrong with having a board game as a hobby!


As for 4e threads, well, this specific forum is more 3.5 focused (what with having spawned around a webcomic about 3.5). There are other forums with livelier discussion about 4e, I should think.

Trundlebug
2010-09-15, 02:24 PM
Hey! :smallmad: Nothing wrong with having a board game as a hobby!

Woops! Very true nothing wrong with that at all. That was a flawed statement on my part. I'll fix it when I'm positive of what I'm saying.

For some reason 4th makes my group remember terrain better. I like that. It's kind of weird when you think about it, but when we play Star Wars or Rogue Trader or whatever often terrain goes out of their heads beyond cover.

It's weird because you'd think a group of people familiar and comfortable with playing games requiring differing but similar rules would apply them consistently. But they don't in my case.

RebelRogue
2010-09-15, 02:28 PM
I wouldn't disrespect them based solely on that. 4e IS simpler in many respects than 3.5. Some people will describe that as "dumbed down". Consider say, a level 20 build in 3.5 and 4. Which one is going to be more complex?
Less complex does not necessarily mean dumbed down.

Tetrasodium
2010-09-15, 03:12 PM
Ya know. It's odd. I've been gaming long enough to know that when people say, "It is just like Warcraft" or "It's just like Everquest". Well it's just odd to think that both games were adapted from D&D in the first place. So ah, naturally 4th edition will follow that theme as well.


Everquest was based more on MUD's than D&D, MUD's were typically based around D&D & fantasy type stuff. WoW took the good bits of all the MMO's before it.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-15, 03:12 PM
No, it's not just the investment. Rather, the following tropes seem relevant,


They changed it so it sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks)
It's easy so it sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsEasySoItSucks)
Broken Base (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenBase)


Especially the latter.

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 03:17 PM
Less complex does not necessarily mean dumbed down.

The "dumbed down" argument is always fun.

Okay, here's an example. Rock, Paper, Scissors. Mathematically, the optimal strategy (technically not optimal, it's the Nash Equilibrium for the game) is to play each possibility randomly with a 33% chance.

Now let's add the Bomb. The Bomb has its fuse cut by scissors, blows up Paper and Rock, and ties the Bomb. What's the new strategy?

Well, in all cases, the Bomb performs as well or better than Paper, so we can just forget about ever playing Paper. This means that Paper is a "dominated strategy."

That leaves us with Bomb beating Rock, tying Bomb, and losing to Scissors... which is the same thing that Paper did.

So it turns out that the optimal (again, not really) way to play is exactly the same as it was before, except you substitute Bomb for Paper.

Ultimately, the game isn't any deeper - experienced players will know to never, ever play Paper, and they're basically playing the same game as they were before. What we've added is complexity, additional choices that players must learn are simply bad choices.

90% of the time, "dumbed down" translates directly into either "dominated strategies were removed" or "strategies that dominated all others were removed." Experts in games with a lot of complexity (extra, dominated choices) have their 'expert' status in part because they know which choices to never make. Removing these choices in the first place makes the game more approachable, but makes the 'expert' knowledge less valuable.

RebelRogue
2010-09-15, 03:34 PM
Interesting way of looking at it. Who could have guessed, that you could actually use game theory for gaming? :smallwink:

Ormagoden
2010-09-15, 03:38 PM
I cringed, myself.:smallyuk:

I guess that comes with actually having to read these things. My heart goes out to you!

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 03:43 PM
Interesting way of looking at it. Who could have guessed, that you could actually use game theory for gaming? :smallwink:

Yeah, well... :smalltongue:

Unfortunately many people look at the systems involved, rather than looking at the choices that players make, which is the more entertaining part.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 03:45 PM
The "dumbed down" argument is always fun.

Okay, here's an example. Rock, Paper, Scissors. Mathematically, the optimal strategy (technically not optimal, it's the Nash Equilibrium for the game) is to play each possibility randomly with a 33% chance.

Now let's add the Bomb. The Bomb has its fuse cut by scissors, blows up Paper and Rock, and ties the Bomb. What's the new strategy?

Well, in all cases, the Bomb performs as well or better than Paper, so we can just forget about ever playing Paper. This means that Paper is a "dominated strategy."

That leaves us with Bomb beating Rock, tying Bomb, and losing to Scissors... which is the same thing that Paper did.

So it turns out that the optimal (again, not really) way to play is exactly the same as it was before, except you substitute Bomb for Paper.

Ultimately, the game isn't any deeper - experienced players will know to never, ever play Paper, and they're basically playing the same game as they were before. What we've added is complexity, additional choices that players must learn are simply bad choices.

90% of the time, "dumbed down" translates directly into either "dominated strategies were removed" or "strategies that dominated all others were removed." Experts in games with a lot of complexity (extra, dominated choices) have their 'expert' status in part because they know which choices to never make. Removing these choices in the first place makes the game more approachable, but makes the 'expert' knowledge less valuable.

I'm guessing you're not a fan of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock, then.

"Dumbed down" is a very broad statement, and it's a wee bit subjective. However, I think you can objectively state that 4e is a system with less of a power spread, as well as less options overall(though this may change at the rate they publish new books). Therefore, building a character is easier.

If this is a good or a bad thing depends on what you want out of the game. Certainly there are systems more complex than 3.5, and systems simpler than 4e. Complexity is an inherent side effect of offering a great deal of choice(though there are other ways to get it as well), but it can be problematic for some who would prefer to just dive in.

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 03:51 PM
I'm guessing you're not a fan of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock, then.

"Dumbed down" is a very broad statement, and it's a wee bit subjective. However, I think you can objectively state that 4e is a system with less of a power spread, as well as less options overall(though this may change at the rate they publish new books). Therefore, building a character is easier.

If this is a good or a bad thing depends on what you want out of the game. Certainly there are systems more complex than 3.5, and systems simpler than 4e. Complexity is an inherent side effect of offering a great deal of choice(though there are other ways to get it as well), but it can be problematic for some who would prefer to just dive in.

In RPSLS, there are no dominated strategies. :smallbiggrin:

You've touched on the core of the complexity vs. depth argument. Is it better to offer more choices, when some of them are inferior to others, or to offer fewer choices, but have more of them viable?

Is it better to offer 20 things, of which 4 are clearly better than the rest, or 8 things, all of which are viable choices?

(BTW, for the record, I don't have anything against 3.x. I've played both, and like both.)

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 03:54 PM
It depends on what you mean by better. In 3.5, you have a ludicrous number of options. Some are objectively bad, sure...but a great many are merely situational. If you include "depending on what books we're playing with", as many games don't have access to every single source, there are quite a lot of viable choices, in the right situations.

And, to a certain degree, adding ENOUGH choices will always result in a greater power spread, due to the possibility of more specialization, and/or greater synergy.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-15, 03:56 PM
I'm guessing you're not a fan of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock, then.
You missed the point.

Here it is :smalltongue:

Ultimately, the game isn't any deeper - experienced players will know to never, ever play Paper, and they're basically playing the same game as they were before. What we've added is complexity, additional choices that players must learn are simply bad choices.
"Bomb" is an example of a dominant strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_dominance); higher-order RPS games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#Additional_weapons) do not have dominant strategies for a reason. The tier system in D&D3.5 is built upon the assumption that certain classes represent dominant strategies in the game; D&D4 lacks a comparative tier system because it is very hard to define what a "dominant strategy class" would be. IMHO, a lack of dominant strategies is a hallmark of good game design.

Also: +1 to Kurald :smallbiggrin:

HenryHankovitch
2010-09-15, 04:14 PM
In RPSLS, there are no dominated strategies. :smallbiggrin:

You've touched on the core of the complexity vs. depth argument. Is it better to offer more choices, when some of them are inferior to others, or to offer fewer choices, but have more of them viable?

Is it better to offer 20 things, of which 4 are clearly better than the rest, or 8 things, all of which are viable choices?

(BTW, for the record, I don't have anything against 3.x. I've played both, and like both.)

It's not quite so simple as that, because in D&D, making one choice (character class) will affect the number of choices one can subsequently make.

So, for instance, to compare the 4E PHB1 to the 3.5E PHB:

In the 3.5E book, you have an initial set of options. Choosing one of the "right" options (wizard, cleric, druid) gives you a staggering range of viable future options. Choosing the "wrong" options (fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, barbarian) gives you vastly fewer future options, most/all of which are bad. It's like playing Monopoly, only if you use the shoe, you get $5000 and five properties at the start, whereas the dog gets $2 and a Get Out of Jail Free card.

In the 4E book, you have roughly the same set of initial options, but each one has a generally equal set of consequent options. This means that, yes, the wizard/cleric suddenly has a less-than-infinite set of power-builds. But more classes have more viable options than in 3.5.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-09-15, 04:15 PM
According to what it says on the tin, Essentials is:

A product like that provides class options that are less "complicated," for players who prefer that style, or are intimidated by the whole powers thing (for example, many classes have abilities that provide a buff to their standard attack, rather than at-will powers). These class options are supposedly able to intigrate into a party with other 4E non-essentiuals characters (they are not useless in comparison, you may not be able to mix the mechanics well within a character tho, unsure).

A resource for folks who are new to DnD, or even RPGs in general, containing an intro adventure that even helps you generate your first character (along the lines of a choose your own adventure, "do you pick up a sword, or blast them with magic").

A boxed set which stores can stock and know that they are carrying a "starter pack" for DnD (related to the above), as opposed to confronting prospective new buyers with a flurry of PHB, DMG, MM I II III, which can be a bit overwhelming to someone who's considering buying it, but is not already familiar with the system.

A compilation of the rules updated with the various errata that have been implemented so far, as well as a few other changes (though nothing I've seen really signals a change like to 3.5)
So it's sort of like a supplement for 4e that introduces different kinds of rules that can work alongside the main ones, similar to 3.5's Tome of Magic and the infamous Tome of Battle?

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-09-15, 04:17 PM
@Zousha: It's weird, my group primarily plays 4e, but everyone I meet outside of it seems to hate 4e. My one cousin who plays D&D? "4e is dumbed down." My cousin's new convention boyfriend? "4e is WoW." My fellow college student? "I can't play a socialite samurai in 4e!" It's sad, because these are people I otherwise respect.
If you wanted to play a socialite samurai, shouldn't you be playing Legend of the Five Rings and not D&D at all? :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2010-09-15, 04:19 PM
D&D4 lacks a comparative tier system because it is very hard to define what a "dominant strategy class" would be.

Well, there's classes, and then there's the Seeker... :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 04:22 PM
It's not quite so simple as that, because in D&D, making one choice (character class) will affect the number of choices one can subsequently make.

So, for instance, to compare the 4E PHB1 to the 3.5E PHB:

In the 3.5E book, you have an initial set of options. Choosing one of the "right" options (wizard, cleric, druid) gives you a staggering range of viable future options. Choosing the "wrong" options (fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, barbarian) gives you vastly fewer future options, most/all of which are bad. It's like playing Monopoly, only if you use the shoe, you get $5000 and five properties at the start, whereas the dog gets $2 and a Get Out of Jail Free card.

In the 4E book, you have roughly the same set of initial options, but each one has a generally equal set of consequent options. This means that, yes, the wizard/cleric suddenly has a less-than-infinite set of power-builds. But more classes have more viable options than in 3.5.

Let's also consider that while there may be less options in lower tier classes, they may still have powerful options. For instance, uberchargers are often discussed.

Likewise, a believe a hulking hurler holds the non-infinite damage record for 3.5. Focusing on the tiers as describing relative power isn't completely accurate. There are all sorts of specialized builds that make use of low tier classes....for that particular build, that class isn't necessarily sub-optimal. It all depends what you're trying to do.

Chrono22
2010-09-15, 04:28 PM
I can somewhat see this point, but if there's rules, you're not really roleplaying, are you? I mean, my character doing his best to persuade an informant to help us is one thing - rolling a dice to see if I roll higher than a given number is another.

Guidelines for bonus exp for roleplaying would help, I'd admit.

Actually I find that well written rules can enhance my roleplaying experience. Most people aren't good at roleplaying off the fly (I am, but I don't mind the extra help either). I've actually made a pretty nifty system for social interaction that I hitch to D&D. It adds alot of depth to what would otherwise be short, to-the-point dialogues or monologues with a skill check. The rules I made up make interaction more intuitive, and make alot more sense than the standard rules for either 3.5 or 4e. They kind of encourage the players to be aware of the game and their PC on a personal level, for the in-game advantages that provides.
Saying it's not real roleplaying because there are rules is kind of silly- I mean, how can it be real roleplaying if we aren't acting out the attacks of our characters and speaking in elven? The rules can serve as a layer of abstraction, but they also serve to support players' choices so that their actions have meaning and consequence within the framework of the game (aside from DM fiat).

Reis Tahlen
2010-09-15, 04:28 PM
I think 3.5 introduced a whole new idea in the roleplaying world: being "punished" because you choosed one class instead of another.

Chrono22
2010-09-15, 04:29 PM
^Nah, that was the 1e rogue.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 04:31 PM
I think 3.5 introduced a whole new idea in the roleplaying world: being "punished" because you choosed one class instead of another.

I don't think that's unique to 3.5...and I think that's less of designers intent than the sheer complexity involved.

Look at earlier D&D, the classes were hardly balanced well...in fact, you got punished with less capable classes for rolling poorly on stats. Fairness and balance was not valued highly.

We can agree that they are desirable attributes, yes...but they are obviously not the only valued attributes in an RPG.

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 04:34 PM
^Nah, that was the 1e rogue.

The 1e rogue existed because of the common game styles at the time - 3d6 for stats in order, high expected mortality. With that generation style, you had to have a choice that was available to someone that bottomed out on stats. It didn't matter so much, either, since mortality, all-around, was so high that there was a good chance you'd be rolling a new character shortly anyway. That's why you had wacky reincarnation rules and random effects on stuff - going along with whatever hijinks happened was part of the game. Since it was just one character and you probably had a half-dozen or more, you were a little more willing to let go and let whatever happened happen.

For modern games (assumption of heroes living (or at least coming back) and doing a full campaign), point buy makes a lot more sense, as well as more balanced classes.

It's basically the difference between Nethack and Dragon Age.

RebelRogue
2010-09-15, 04:36 PM
Well, there's classes, and then there's the Seeker... :smalltongue:
I keep hearing this. Are Seekers really that bad? I kind of like them :smallfrown:

Chrono22
2010-09-15, 04:39 PM
No, I'd say with the same set of scores, playing a thief was just a worse choice in general. No matter how skilled or talented you were at hiding, your chance of successfully hiding couldn't get that high. In general, you just couldn't be very good at what you're supposed to do, and nothing else either. In 3.5, this would be the definition of a tier 5 or 6 class.
So, no, I don't think 3.5 was the first game to punish suboptimal choices, or to create them. It was a concept that was inherent to the game since 1e and onwards, and 4e was the first one to buck the trend.

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 04:53 PM
No, I'd say with the same set of scores, playing a thief was just a worse choice in general. No matter how skilled or talented you were at hiding, your chance of successfully hiding couldn't get that high. In general, you just couldn't be very good at what you're supposed to do, and nothing else either. In 3.5, this would be the definition of a tier 5 or 6 class.
So, no, I don't think 3.5 was the first game to punish suboptimal choices, or to create them. It was a concept that was inherent to the game since 1e and onwards, and 4e was the first one to buck the trend.

Balance was not a concern in 1e, at all. Any class imbalance was probably minor compared to the difference between someone that rolled phenomenal scores (everything over, say, 13 or so), and someone that rolled horrible scores (everything below 8).

As I pointed out, this was typicaly countered by ridiculously high mortality rates.

As the typical play style moved more towards being narrative-based, we saw this lighten up - 4d6, keep highest 3 became pretty standard in 2e, and 3e saw point buy become pretty dominant. You can see a clear movement in direction from less to more balanced over time, that corresponded with lower degrees of assumed mortality.

In 1e, you didn't care if the wizard was overpowered - if he helped keep your sorry butt alive, all was good. And in a strange way, killer games like that actually could cause less risk-averse behavior, as people got used to dying.

Zaydos
2010-09-15, 05:00 PM
Tier 1 characters are not the only viable characters.

Rant spoilered for convenience

Yes if you want to optimize so that you can handle 4 EL +3 encounters a day alone you are going to use a Tier 1 or 2 character but that doesn't mean that the other classes are not viable. Half the people I've gamed with haven't ever bothered to read the Spells chapter in the PHB and make wizards and sorcerers no stronger than their fighters (I'm the only one in my group that ever made a monk and I did so when in a very fluff heavy mood so I ended up with higher Wis than Dex and Profession (Acupressure)). These classes are still viable; even after helping optimize a party containing 2 tier 3s, a tier 2, and a tier 1 I made a fighter that could out do all of them but the druid (did use either a custom belt of expansion or half-minotaur for it) just in case my current character proved too strong (he could take out 2 EL +3 encounters per day, more if they were closely spaced, and possibly even more). So no even a fighter can be viable in 3.5 (it's the only tier 5 class I have experience with).

Most 3.5 games I've played in are much lower optimization than that and every class remains viable, because the iconic party roles (minus rogue) remain intact (blaster mage, healbot, fighter, second mage)... that or everybody plays a blaster mage and they have trouble with creatures whose CR equals their level (did I mention my friends optimize badly?).

The real thing about Tiers though is options not just power; and you don't get Tiers in 4e because you don't have enough non-combat options to have them. A well built fighter can deal damage, and barbarians too, they get some of the best damage per round of any character in the game, but they don't have options and are one-trick ponies. Tier 3+ characters have several options as to what they can do every round; 4e characters do as well and that is what I like about 4e. The whole idea of a dominating strategy isn't part of my groups' gaming mind set except sometimes mine :smallredface: because it's not a competitive game.

Also you get things in 4e like: rangers are the best strikers, or seekers aren't worth playing. It is less common but it does happen. And having been in a game with 4 strikers I will say the (pre-errata I think) sorcerer was the best in most combats, the monk was good in most boss fights but that was because of 1 daily and without it he was still the 2nd best striker (and most optimized), the assassin... just wasn't very good, the ranger was keeping up with the monk most battles when played by a player who didn't know what they were doing and when in the final battle they asked for advice they dealt more damage in one round than the entire party had in 4. Personally I dealt the 2nd least damage (normally, sometimes I outstripped the assassin) but I was a defender focused on mobility and defending and a specifically low damage build. The bard... never wants to play a leader again.

Yes if someone says they're going to play a monk I might very well suggest unarmed swordsage instead, because in my experience unarmed swordsages pull off the same fluff but with more character options. It's not monks are weak; it's monks are limited in their options during play.

Also as a final note: Wouldn't it be just as easy to make a socialite samurai in 4e as 3.5? Two-Weapon Fighter with a katana and Skill Training (Diplomacy). 3.5 I guess you could go OA samurai with two-weapon fighting feats, or two-hand your katana (but the Niten Ryuu school of swordsmanship is the awesomest).

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 05:09 PM
Tier 1 characters are not the only viable characters.

Rant spoilered for convenience

Optimization is a multiplier effect on effectiveness. At lower levels of optimization, differences between the power levels of classes are less important.


Yes if someone says they're going to play a monk I might very well suggest unarmed swordsage instead, because in my experience unarmed swordsages pull off the same fluff but with more character options. It's not monks are weak; it's monks are limited in their options during play.

Is there ever a situation in which a monk is preferable to an unarmed swordsage? If not, then swordsage is a dominant strategy over monk. That's the definition of the term.


Also as a final note: Wouldn't it be just as easy to make a socialite samurai in 4e as 3.5? Two-Weapon Fighter with a katana and Skill Training (Diplomacy). 3.5 I guess you could go OA samurai with two-weapon fighting feats, or two-hand your katana (but the Niten Ryuu school of swordsmanship is the awesomest).

I don't see why not.

Surrealistik
2010-09-15, 05:09 PM
"Bomb" is an example of a dominant strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_dominance); higher-order RPS games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#Additional_weapons) do not have dominant strategies for a reason. The tier system in D&D3.5 is built upon the assumption that certain classes represent dominant strategies in the game; D&D4 lacks a comparative tier system because it is very hard to define what a "dominant strategy class" would be. IMHO, a lack of dominant strategies is a hallmark of good game design.


Well, there is a fairly well established T1 and T5 at least for each class role as per the WotC Char Op subforums consensus (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/25809773/Best_Class_for_Each_Role?pg=1):


Top Striker: Ranger (unanimous)
Top Controller: Wizard (particularly Illusionist Wizard; somewhat disputed, with the Invoker being the exclusive secondary choice).
Top Leader: Warlord (unanimous with honourable mention going to the healbot cleric)
Top Defender: Fighter (unanimous)




Worst Defender: Swordsage (almost unanimous, with the caveat that the Shielding Swordsage is good, the others are terrible)
Worst Striker: Assassin (unanimous)
Worst Leader: Ardent (Runepriest is very close and stiff competition for this title, but many believe that this role features no truly weak options)
Worst Controller: Seeker (almost unanimous)

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 05:16 PM
Well, there is a fairly well established T1 and T5 at least for each class role as per the WotC Char Op subforums consensus (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/25809773/Best_Class_for_Each_Role?pg=1):


Top Striker: Ranger (unanimous)
Top Controller: Wizard (particularly Illusionist Wizard; somewhat disputed, with the Invoker being the exclusive secondary choice).
Top Leader: Warlord (unanimous with honourable mention going to the healbot cleric)
Top Defender: Fighter (unanimous)




Worst Defender: Swordsage (almost unanimous, with the caveat that the Shielding Swordsage is good, the others are terrible)
Worst Striker: Assassin (unanimous)
Worst Leader: Runepriest (almost unanimous, but most believe that this role features no truly weak options)
Worst Controller: Seeker (almost unanimous)


Dominant strategy does not mean "better overall." It means "as good, or better, in every possible situation."

As an example, imagine RPS played for points. Each victory gets a point. This is still basically RPS, and is balanced exactly the same way.

Now say that playing Rock gets you two points, but the rest of the game is the same. Rock is not a dominant strategy, because it still loses to Paper.

In the Bomb example, the Bomb was dominant over Paper because in all cases, you would be as well off, or better, playing the Bomb. If a Paper victory was worth two points, then it would no longer be dominated by Bomb, as Paper vs. Rock would be better than Bomb vs. Rock.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 05:17 PM
But, a sorcerer will not be better than a warlock in every possible situation. There are even situations for which a commoner has advantages.

Therefore, your dominant strategy theory doesn't really apply to the tiers in 3rd ed.

Surrealistik
2010-09-15, 05:19 PM
Dominant strategy does not mean "better overall." It means "as good, or better, in every possible situation."

As an example, imagine RPS played for points. Each victory gets a point. This is still basically RPS, and is balanced exactly the same way.

Now say that playing Rock gets you two points, but the rest of the game is the same. Rock is not a dominant strategy, because it still loses to Paper.

In the Bomb example, the Bomb was dominant over Paper because in all cases, you would be as well off, or better, playing the Bomb. If a Paper victory was worth two points, then it would no longer be dominated by Bomb, as Paper vs. Rock would be better than Bomb vs. Rock.

Keep in mind that I am not disputing anything but the non-existence of a comparative tier system; it's there, albeit rudimentary thus far.

Also a recount shows that the Ardent is the worst leader (with Runepriest a very close runner up).

Chrono22
2010-09-15, 05:20 PM
^Um, I'd go with the other definition. Using yours, a wizard is not a bomb to a fighter because he can run out of spells. It just seems like an absurd position, to claim that wizards aren't superior to fighters on the basis that there are a few corner cases where being a fighter could be better temporarily.

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 05:24 PM
^Um, I'd go with the other definition. Using yours, a wizard is not a bomb to a fighter because he can run out of spells. It just seems like an absurd position, to claim that wizards aren't superior to fighters on the basis that there are a few corner cases where being a fighter could be better temporarily.

Honestly this is where we run into grey areas. Is the case where the wizard is inferior to the fighter likely to ever happen? Does the wizard have ways around that (item creation)? How micro are you detailing the comparisons (over the course of an adventure, an encounter, a round, a specific scenario, etc.)?

Comparison of a wizard vs. fighter may favor the fighter on an individual round basis, but when we look at the overall result of the encounter, we might find that the wizard is still the victor. So then it becomes a matter of where we take the measurement, and what we consider the sub-game to be.

And again, there's a difference between "better overall choice" and "dominant strategy." Just because something's not a dominant strategy does not mean that it's not a better overall choice!

Kurald Galain
2010-09-15, 05:27 PM
I keep hearing this. Are Seekers really that bad? I kind of like them :smallfrown:
The issue with seekers is identical to the issue with 3E fighters or with 1E rogues, in that it's outclassed in terms of "theoretical optimization", but at the game table is just as much fun to play as anything else.


Dominant strategy does not mean "better overall." It means "as good, or better, in every possible situation."
"In every possible situation" rapidly becomes meaningless as the game becomes more complex. For instance, a truism in Magic: the Gathering is that "paper only beats rock 70% of the time".

Reluctance
2010-09-15, 05:27 PM
Keep in mind that I am not disputing anything but the non-existence of a comparative tier system; it's there, albeit rudimentary thus far.

Also a recount shows that the Ardent is stiff competition for the worst leader.

And people can argue which T1s are stronger or weaker than the others. That's not the point. The point is that the guy who can call upon his god to solve his problems is playing a qualitatively different game from the exceptionally skilled yet mundane heroic mortal, who in turn is playing a qualitatively different game from the guy whose only real class feature is a weapon. In 4e, having a fighter in the party does not mean the seeker or assault swordmage might as well go home.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 05:30 PM
It's a qualitatively different game, yes, however, not every party involving a wizard and a fighter results in a situation where the fighter may as well just give up and go home. I think you're putting a little too much weight in the tier system. It's not supposed to mean that everything below tier 1 is worthless.

RebelRogue
2010-09-15, 05:39 PM
Ok, so maybe game theory wasn't the best way to express this after all. I think everybody agrees, that 4e is better balanced than 3e, but that 3e has more options including a larger percentage of sub-optimal options.

ghost_warlock
2010-09-15, 05:45 PM
One: The Pregen stuff that was used for Dark Sun was so they wouldn't spoil the Dark Sun books.

Sure, using pregens made sense before the books came out, but afterwards there was every reason to make up our own characters. Well, failing that none of it's in the character builder yet and the modules are all 'you should use our incredibly awful pregens cuz that's awesome!'

And, again, the books not being available to the players yet is no excuse for bad editing on the pregens. But maybe editing isn't such a concern when the recent design philosophy is just 'eh, we'll fix it in the builder update.' :smallsigh:


The first time I played 4e was at a comic/game shop, and I was given a pregen. Some human barbarian with vampiric heritage. Friggin' hated him. But I had to leave early, so I just figured his heritage caught up with him and he spontaneously burst into flame under the sun.

*snicker* I had a guy in my group intentionally make just such a character. I think he was a minotaur-vampire-barbarian, actually. :smalltongue:


So skip it then? I really would like to find a 4e game to join in the Twin Cities area, but I don't really know anyone outside my hometown. :smallfrown:

I'd show up, myself, if for no other reason than to ask "so, anyone running a real campaign regularly?"

Encounters can be fun, but I see it mostly as a bridge to finding people to play with for a more substantial campaign. One guy from our group runs a semi-regular RPGA game and I've played a few other games with people I met at Encounters (first part of the DM Rewards Tomb of Horrors, a couple GUPRS one-shots, and the last two Game Day adventures).

Zaydos
2010-09-15, 05:46 PM
I've never been in a game where having a wizard in the party meant the fighter might as well go home.

I've been in a game where due to the wizard's player's rules ignorance (and it was rules ignorance) and DM incompetence the wizard was effectively a full list caster and was still out classed by a fighter/barbarian with weapon focus. This was an extreme case of a badly played wizard (he generally attacked things with a bow) but I've seen it happen. In TO a wizard is an unassailable god, but in actual game play? Besides the gentleman's agreement, there's a whole level of I don't want to play a game where I can destroy everything without trying. My most powerful character I made could do that... 2/day. I could have made him where he could 8 times a day, and the DM had told me to make him as powerful as possible, but I didn't want that level of power. And yes of the characters in the party the only one of roughly equal power was the druid. The only one with roughly equal optimization? The druid, who'd have had more except... there's just not much optimization to do for a druid. The others were sub-optimal to begin with, although 2 of them (shadow sun ninja and dread necromancer) were only going to gain in relative power (the blaster sorceress... was close in power but only going to get further behind). The best thing was that he didn't outclass anyone at what they did.

Also there are things monk can do better than swordsage. Low levels they get more attacks per round, they can consistently get more at high levels (although the swordsage can get more total if they want to... although note 2 at full, 2 at -5, and 2 at -10 is actually worse than a monk's Lv 20 flurry of 3 at full, 1 at -5, and 1 at -10). Monk actually can get the numbers up (especially if enlarged with Greater Enlarge Person and enhanced with Greater Mighty Wallop), but swordsage has more options which makes it usually more enjoyable in my opinion.

Esser-Z
2010-09-15, 05:52 PM
although note 2 at full, 2 at -5, and 2 at -10 is actually worse than a monk's Lv 20 flurry of 3 at full, 1 at -5, and 1 at -10).
How about 6 at full, 2 at -5, and 2 at -10? :smallwink:

Zaydos
2010-09-15, 05:56 PM
How about 6 at full, 2 at -5, and 2 at -10? :smallwink:

How do they get the extra 4 at full? I know the Diamond Mind 9th level one to double your full attack, and I know there's a boost for +2 with each weapon, but then it's not at full it's 6 at -2, 2 at -7, and 2 at -12 (which will still generally be better, but is not something you can do every round while the monk can do his every round... as boring as that is).

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-15, 06:09 PM
There are even situations for which a commoner has advantages.
This, I have to hear :smallbiggrin:

Please, explain.

* * * *

Anyhoo, I'm not about to argue edge cases when we're talking about Dominant Strategies. Hell, look at the ideas that underlie the D&D3.5 Tier System and you'll see they mirror a discussion of Dominant Strategy exactly.

I think kyoryu's analogy was spot-on in terms of distinguishing complexity and depth in regards to game design. +1, my good man :smallcool:

Kylarra
2010-09-15, 06:11 PM
This, I have to hear :smallbiggrin:

Please, explain.

Chicken-infested shenanigans probably.


Or early entry into survivor. :smallamused:

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 06:12 PM
Chicken-infested shenanigans probably.


Or early entry into survivor. :smallamused:

Those are the two where survivor is clearly superior...but there's also the fact that they have handle animal as a class skill, which can be quite advantageous at low levels.

High tier? Certainly not. But situationally useful.

Esser-Z
2010-09-15, 06:19 PM
How do they get the extra 4 at full? I know the Diamond Mind 9th level one to double your full attack, and I know there's a boost for +2 with each weapon, but then it's not at full it's 6 at -2, 2 at -7, and 2 at -12 (which will still generally be better, but is not something you can do every round while the monk can do his every round... as boring as that is).

The second mongoose, exact name escapes me at the moment, gives me two additional attacks (with each weapon) during my full attack. I then use time stands still to take two full attacks. Three at full, one at -5, one at -10, twice.

And if I'm TWF, that becomes 12 at -2, two at -7, and two at -12...

If I don't have a discipline weapon enhancement. Or two. Three of that enchantment could easily get me, say, +10 to all those rolls (+3 from Tiger Claw, Diamond Mind, and a third one I'm using a stance from, and then +1 regular enhancement). And then I also get my wis mod to the damage and probably my dex mod to. I'm pretty sure even just two full attacks with that beats out monk's flurry.

I could also set my fists on fire for bonus damage per hit instead of getting the additional attacks with each weapon. Or at 20, do both.

Alternatively, at this level, I could do a shoryuken with a chance to instant kill (nice big bonus damage if they save), do a fair amount of bonus damage with variable ability damage with it, run around and damage and throw a ton of enemies, do 2d6 con damage in addition to my regular damage, or do pretty big damage in a 60ft radius. And that's only looking at the level 9s available as a pure swordsage. Can a monk do that?


EDIT: Okay, to be fair, a Monk can spend three feats to get dex to damage, too.

Kylarra
2010-09-15, 06:21 PM
Those are the two where survivor is clearly superior...but there's also the fact that they have handle animal as a class skill, which can be quite advantageous at low levels.

High tier? Certainly not. But situationally useful.You mean commoner. :smallamused:

Handle Animal is admittedly a case I didn't think of, but if the sorc has a single rank it is comparable in terms of mods, since the sorcerer will already have a high cha.

Knaight
2010-09-15, 06:28 PM
Essentials is stealth version 4.4 and 4E is dumb because it's turned into WoW and I don't like 4E because all the classes are the same and it doesn't encourage roleplaying and you don't have any freedom and the rules sacrifice all fun in the name of balance and WotC are a bunch of poopyheads!

(just wanted to get that out of the way - did I miss anything?)

Disclaimer: I like 4E :D

I seriously need to take more classes that aren't chemistry. I read the last part of the sentence as "and WotC are a bunch of polymers!", read the one after that, then realized that I probably misread.

Concerning 4e, I don't particularly like it, largely because it is way too gamist for me. I prefer 3.5, and prefer any number of less known games to both, if I really feel the need for something crunch heavy, I break out Burning Wheel.

TheEmerged
2010-09-15, 06:30 PM
We're set for the 3rd session at paragon levels in our campaign. The party is in the Underdark, using some of the setting info from that book. Party is a little on the stereotypical side. Party is currently following the trail of a necromancer they believe to be responsible for a crop blight. They've met several of the intended movers/shakers and heard of most of the others.


Toxic, a dragonborn argent paladin with a fullblade and the breath weapon from heck (he's spent 4 feats on it already). He actually has a paragon path intended for rogues (Silvertongued Scoundrel I believe is the name for it), he's actually the party mouthpiece.
Cerena the human cleric\holy emissary with a mix of non-damaging powers and "laser cleric" powers. She was originally a Pacifist Healer but has retrained out of it. She took Healer's Mercy instead of Turn Undead, and then burned a feat to get the Invoker equivalent.
Raegan the eladrin wizard\arcane wayfayer. Player is 9 years old, she's starting to get into the roleplaying aspects of it (amusingly to the rest of us, she plays the character as a G-Rated Samuel Jackson). She's also getting better at combat aspects. Favorite power is Hammerfall Step.
Jaxson the halfling brutal scroundrel rogue\daggermaster. Yes, he went brutal despite being a halfling. Can do absolutely *frightening* damage at times. Character could also be called the King Of Thieves (racial bonus, background bonus, and skill focus on top of that). Player is 7 years old; he's getting better at combat but doesn't grasp the roleplay yet.
Nurock the shifter monk. We're probably going to be changing some of his feats, powers, and possibly his paragon path around to reflect some of the new options in Psionic Power. This player was originally the party defender (swordmage) but wanted to switch to a striker. The most experienced player by far, he finds the class a challenge he enjoys.


During the heroic tier, the party had two leaders (Cerena as a Pacifist Healer cleric and a bard), and we found that the rogue was doing the vastest majority of the damage. Too many battles amounted to setting up the rogue to get the kill. The party has adjusted somewhat, and the last few fights have gone *far* quicker (one I'd expected to go 7-8 rounds went 3).

One of the fights I've got planned for this next session includes a mass of melee minions -- I'm talking more than 40 or 50 -- primarily as an experiment. Also on the agenda is a rematch with that necromancer (party is level 11, he's level 14 and based on the lich) -- and possibly our second dragon fight (we did the scenario out of the DMG that ends with a level 3 white dragon).

RE: Edition Wars. I don't do these. I can roleplay when playing Monopoly if I want to :smallbiggrin: I've played every edition since they've been sold in boxes, I'm sure I'll play a few more before I'm playing one in a retirement community some decades in the future.

HenryHankovitch
2010-09-15, 06:33 PM
Let's also consider that while there may be less options in lower tier classes, they may still have powerful options. For instance, uberchargers are often discussed.

Likewise, a believe a hulking hurler holds the non-infinite damage record for 3.5. Focusing on the tiers as describing relative power isn't completely accurate. There are all sorts of specialized builds that make use of low tier classes....for that particular build, that class isn't necessarily sub-optimal. It all depends what you're trying to do.

And the ubercharger requires feats from at least two additional splatbooks besides the PHB. So you're using three different books just to get one good Fighter build, which also happens to be a one-trick pony anyway. Compared--as I already alluded to--to the vast array of effective capabilities that the full-casters get in the 3.5 PHB alone.

Three books for one viable build doesn't speak well for the supposed multitude of options available in 3.5E.

HenryHankovitch
2010-09-15, 06:44 PM
It's a qualitatively different game, yes, however, not every party involving a wizard and a fighter results in a situation where the fighter may as well just give up and go home. I think you're putting a little too much weight in the tier system. It's not supposed to mean that everything below tier 1 is worthless.



And yeah, you can make a workable SoD build. Just like you can make a workable fighter 20. That doesn't make fighter good, and your character would have been better if you'd replaced levels of fighter with something else.

:smalltongue:

Tequila Sunrise
2010-09-15, 08:29 PM
If you wanted to play a socialite samurai, shouldn't you be playing Legend of the Five Rings and not D&D at all? :smalltongue:
I've never played L5R, so I wouldn't know. I'll suggest it the next time I see him though. :smallsmile:

If you ever find yourself in upstate NY, you're welcome at my table.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 08:35 PM
:smalltongue:

No conflict there, mate.

Just because your character COULD be optimized further and isn't doesn't mean you have to quit playing and go home.

The Glyphstone
2010-09-15, 08:38 PM
We're set for the 3rd session at paragon levels in our campaign. The party is in the Underdark, using some of the setting info from that book. Party is a little on the stereotypical side. Party is currently following the trail of a necromancer they believe to be responsible for a crop blight. They've met several of the intended movers/shakers and heard of most of the others.


Toxic, a dragonborn argent paladin with a fullblade and the breath weapon from heck (he's spent 4 feats on it already). He actually has a paragon path intended for rogues (Silvertongued Scoundrel I believe is the name for it), he's actually the party mouthpiece.
Cerena the human cleric\holy emissary with a mix of non-damaging powers and "laser cleric" powers. She was originally a Pacifist Healer but has retrained out of it. She took Healer's Mercy instead of Turn Undead, and then burned a feat to get the Invoker equivalent.
Raegan the eladrin wizard\arcane wayfayer. Player is 9 years old, she's starting to get into the roleplaying aspects of it (amusingly to the rest of us, she plays the character as a G-Rated Samuel Jackson). She's also getting better at combat aspects. Favorite power is Hammerfall Step.
Jaxson the halfling brutal scroundrel rogue\daggermaster. Yes, he went brutal despite being a halfling. Can do absolutely *frightening* damage at times. Character could also be called the King Of Thieves (racial bonus, background bonus, and skill focus on top of that). Player is 7 years old; he's getting better at combat but doesn't grasp the roleplay yet.
Nurock the shifter monk. We're probably going to be changing some of his feats, powers, and possibly his paragon path around to reflect some of the new options in Psionic Power. This player was originally the party defender (swordmage) but wanted to switch to a striker. The most experienced player by far, he finds the class a challenge he enjoys.


During the heroic tier, the party had two leaders (Cerena as a Pacifist Healer cleric and a bard), and we found that the rogue was doing the vastest majority of the damage. Too many battles amounted to setting up the rogue to get the kill. The party has adjusted somewhat, and the last few fights have gone *far* quicker (one I'd expected to go 7-8 rounds went 3).

One of the fights I've got planned for this next session includes a mass of melee minions -- I'm talking more than 40 or 50 -- primarily as an experiment. Also on the agenda is a rematch with that necromancer (party is level 11, he's level 14 and based on the lich) -- and possibly our second dragon fight (we did the scenario out of the DMG that ends with a level 3 white dragon).

RE: Edition Wars. I don't do these. I can roleplay when playing Monopoly if I want to :smallbiggrin: I've played every edition since they've been sold in boxes, I'm sure I'll play a few more before I'm playing one in a retirement community some decades in the future.

Good to see you doing your part in spreading our kind into the next generation...

WitchSlayer
2010-09-15, 09:11 PM
4e makes DMing a much, much easier AND more fun job. I can literally make encounters on the fly for my party at any point in time while the game is going on. Also, since I have a random item parcel generator, it makes it even better.

Esser-Z
2010-09-15, 09:19 PM
4e makes DMing a much, much easier AND more fun job. I can literally make encounters on the fly for my party at any point in time while the game is going on.

I though this at first, but I've found it's not really any easier than 3.5 DMing. Encounters are pretty easy to do on the fly in both systems and stuff.

Zaydos
2010-09-15, 09:22 PM
4e makes DMing a much, much easier AND more fun job. I can literally make encounters on the fly for my party at any point in time while the game is going on. Also, since I have a random item parcel generator, it makes it even better.

My only experience DMing 4e has been on the fly, without really using the Monster Manual... not sure how good the combat encounters are, both times it became a rather light-hearted and whimsical game with perverted jokes (and cursed gold in one instance).

Silly Wizard
2010-09-15, 09:27 PM
I think 4th edition is awesome. I've been playing it since it came out and I've even began to (successfully) DM a few campaigns myself. I love how making encounters is ridiculously easy; that was my biggest complaint of 3.5, which was pretty much the only thing stopping me from being a decent DM.

I'm not an edition fanboy, by any means. I've played quite a few 3.5 games since 4e came out- as well as a Pathfinder game I'm in now. I've also been meaning to get into a 2nd edition AD&D game, but all the AD&D players I know are currently playing in 4th edition games.

Esser-Z
2010-09-15, 09:30 PM
I have a very easy time picking apart 4e in system discussions. But when it gets down to playing, I enjoy it a lot.

Kylarra
2010-09-15, 09:30 PM
I though this at first, but I've found it's not really any easier than 3.5 DMing. Encounters are pretty easy to do on the fly in both systems and stuff.It definitely takes a much lower level of system mastery to craft 4e encounters on the fly than 3.X.

RebelRogue
2010-09-15, 09:31 PM
I have a very easy time picking apart 4e in system discussions.
What does that even mean? :smallconfused:

Esser-Z
2010-09-15, 09:32 PM
What does that even mean? :smallconfused:

Criticism comes readily. Firecube! Storm Pillar! Grease! Lack of utility! And so on.

Noircat
2010-09-15, 09:33 PM
4E was okay at first. I now really regret spending so much money on books with the sheer mass of errata that is out there.

Zaydos
2010-09-15, 09:33 PM
It definitely takes a much lower level of system mastery to craft 4e encounters on the fly than 3.X.

Definitely. I also feel less constrained by the rules when making them because monsters and PCs work on (almost) completely different rule sets (which is true of earlier editions than 3.X too).

Esser-Z
2010-09-15, 09:35 PM
I actually find myself feeling more constrained with the monster/PC ruleset difference. Can't stick class levels onto a thing, or satisfy my urge to build a PC as a DM.

I note that 3.5 DMs can just slap stats on, too, without worrying about exactly following the PC rules. :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 09:38 PM
Criticism comes readily. Firecube! Storm Pillar! Grease! Lack of utility! And so on.

It is a DC35 knowledge check to know that "Orcus wields an artifact called the Wand of Orcus."

Er...who else would be wielding it?

Zaydos
2010-09-15, 09:38 PM
I actually find myself feeling more constrained with the monster/PC ruleset difference. Can't stick class levels onto a thing, or satisfy my urge to build a PC as a DM.

I note that 3.5 DMs can just slap stats on, too, without worrying about exactly following the PC rules. :smalltongue:

Well like I've said I've only DM'd 4e on the fly so that cuts the urge to build a villainous character by PC rules (which I would miss and was actually possible in 2e).

I also realize you can in 3.5, I've done it often enough, but I usually feel guilty about it. I'm becoming more and more willing to just say Rule of Cool and leave it, though.

RebelRogue
2010-09-15, 09:38 PM
I actually find myself feeling more constrained with the monster/PC ruleset difference. Can't stick class levels onto a thing, or satisfy my urge to build a PC as a DM.
There's class templates for that. Or if you really want to go through with creating a NPC following PC rules, they're equivalent to elite monsters.

Esser-Z
2010-09-15, 09:39 PM
There's class templates for that. Or if you really want to go through with creating a NPC following PC rules, they're equivalent to elite monsters.

Yeah, I know. I'm also just not fond of the rulesplit in general. I like everyone working the same way.


Tyndmyr: Don't forget BEARS!

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 09:40 PM
Yeah, I know. I'm also just not fond of the rulesplit in general. I like everyone working the same way.


Tyndmyr: Don't forget BEARS!

Oh no, not the bears again. With the claws. That never ends well.

Zaydos
2010-09-15, 09:41 PM
Yeah, I know. I'm also just not fond of the rulesplit in general. I like everyone working the same way.


Tyndmyr: Don't forget BEARS!

As a player I agree with you; I like being able to play monsters.

As a DM I like splitting player and monster rules.

Yes I am capable of hypocritical double standards.

Reverent-One
2010-09-15, 09:54 PM
4E was okay at first. I now really regret spending so much money on books with the sheer mass of errata that is out there. I don't do online banking or anything and don't want to so unless WOtC comes out with D&D Insider Subscription "cards" available at bookstores or something I don't ever see myself ever getting back into dnd anytime soon.

You know the errata is free so there's no online banking required, right?

jmbrown
2010-09-15, 11:21 PM
Since we have a topic to discuss such, is there a 4E adventure that's not absolutely terrible? I read Orcs of Stonefang Pass, played in Trollhaunt whatever, Keep on the Shadowlands, the mini-adventures in the DMG/Forgotten Realms/Eberron, Marauders of the Dune Sea, and skimmed through Tomb of Horrors. All of them are really bad, linear adventures with rooms that are entirely made up of monsters simply waiting for the party to arrive. There's no sandbox-ey style of exploration, wilderness adventures are basically "you arrive at the site safely," there are no puzzles that don't involve traps or monsters, and no interesting hooks or plots. I know it's the DMs job to fill these things in but there's only so much he can work with.

The published adventures I've read are basically someone using the random dungeon creator rules and tacking on a story. I don't want to sound like a pretentious jerk by saying "Remember them good old days!" but seriously are there any adventures even remotely interesting like those published in 3E's heyday like Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury?

There was a neat adventure in Dungeon magazine where the PCs are invited to a costumed ball but the masks are cursed and cause everyone to behave like their mask. You travel through the desert tracking down a cursed noble and have to stop a ritual sacrifice. Decent dungeon crawling, great roleplaying opportunities, humorous setup for level 1 characters, and great writing and design. Is there something like that for 4E or is it seriously all dungeon crawl?

MrSinister
2010-09-15, 11:21 PM
I have been running D&D games since 2nd Ed Ravenloft in, what, 94? We played 3.X since its inception and to tell the truth, I still "think" in 3rd ed. You know, the whole geeky stat out guys from books and movies thing we all probably do... I do that in 3rd edition.

But I do have much love for 4th edition and I have another little story about it...

My wife and I packed up and moved the kid to Florida right before 4th edition came out, so we left behind our old 3rd ed group and decided to start "fresh" here. The only people we had to play was my brother-in-law and one of his friends. These dudes are total board game guys. In fact, my brother-in-law, when guilted into playing by my wife, said something like this:

"I'm not dressing up and I need a board."

Well, this is actually where 4th edition helped us out! The whole tactical aspect of combat is much more board game like and my brother-in-law really dug it. We drug in a few more people and now I have to tell people no when they want ask if they can join. I guarantee if we had tried to make these people join a 3.X game with its plethora of options, it would have never happened.

And as far as the whole "roleplaying is out the window" I won't actually disagree, but I will say that varies on who you are playing with... Those first 4th edition games had ZERO roleplaying at all, but once the newness of combat wore off, the role playing flip side took off. Now my brother-in-law, who my wife had to pull the family card on to get him to play is one of the best guys at the table in ALL situations.

And get this... our newest member, who he is trying to date, wore elf ears to her first session, and he didn't grumble at all. :smallwink:

kyoryu
2010-09-16, 12:24 AM
This, I have to hear :smallbiggrin:

Please, explain.

* * * *

Anyhoo, I'm not about to argue edge cases when we're talking about Dominant Strategies. Hell, look at the ideas that underlie the D&D3.5 Tier System and you'll see they mirror a discussion of Dominant Strategy exactly.

I think kyoryu's analogy was spot-on in terms of distinguishing complexity and depth in regards to game design. +1, my good man :smallcool:

http://www.design.wrong.net/?p=11

http://www.design.wrong.net/?p=13

BTW, my previous disclaimer was incorrect - I meant to say that I like 3.x as well as 4.x.

cdrcjsn
2010-09-16, 12:26 AM
Since we have a topic to discuss such, is there a 4E adventure that's not absolutely terrible?

I've heard some good things about a few of the dungeon adventures.

There's almost two years worth of stuff on DDI now. I think you can just pay for a month's subscription and download all the Dragon and Dungeon PDFs available.

WitchSlayer
2010-09-16, 01:44 AM
Since we have a topic to discuss such, is there a 4E adventure that's not absolutely terrible? I read Orcs of Stonefang Pass, played in Trollhaunt whatever, Keep on the Shadowlands, the mini-adventures in the DMG/Forgotten Realms/Eberron, Marauders of the Dune Sea, and skimmed through Tomb of Horrors. All of them are really bad, linear adventures with rooms that are entirely made up of monsters simply waiting for the party to arrive. There's no sandbox-ey style of exploration, wilderness adventures are basically "you arrive at the site safely," there are no puzzles that don't involve traps or monsters, and no interesting hooks or plots. I know it's the DMs job to fill these things in but there's only so much he can work with.

The published adventures I've read are basically someone using the random dungeon creator rules and tacking on a story. I don't want to sound like a pretentious jerk by saying "Remember them good old days!" but seriously are there any adventures even remotely interesting like those published in 3E's heyday like Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury?

There was a neat adventure in Dungeon magazine where the PCs are invited to a costumed ball but the masks are cursed and cause everyone to behave like their mask. You travel through the desert tracking down a cursed noble and have to stop a ritual sacrifice. Decent dungeon crawling, great roleplaying opportunities, humorous setup for level 1 characters, and great writing and design. Is there something like that for 4E or is it seriously all dungeon crawl?

I thought Tomb of Horrors was pretty good.

MrSinister
2010-09-16, 02:41 AM
The published adventures, especially Keep on the Shadowfell, are totally dependant on the experience of your playing group. I ran Keep for a group of total D&D newcomers except for one player and they had a blast. But I can see definitely where D&D vets would just tear through the adventure and also be very bored with it due to its "been there, done that" plotline. But as a level one adventure for newcomers who are learning the system from the ground up, it's perfect.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-09-16, 05:36 AM
Criticism comes readily. Firecube! Storm Pillar! Grease! Lack of utility! And so on.
Don't you know that square grid is an abstraction? Just think of it as flame-abstraction, and the logic is clear. I call it flab for short. :smallbiggrin:

Katana_Geldar
2010-09-16, 05:52 AM
I thought Tomb of Horrors was pretty good.

It is, I'm DMing it for two groups and it's AWESOME. So popular that I have a part of 8 players in real life so I have to up the XP budget with more monsters.

Psyx
2010-09-16, 06:07 AM
Two sessions to decide you don't like it is one thing. Two sessions to decide it's a pox on the gaming world and all source books and GMs should be cast into bonfires is another matter.

I doubt that many people attend two meetings/conventions of a rival political party before deciding that it's a pox on humanity and doesn't deserve a shred of power, so I guess we're at least more liberal and accepting of other games than other politics than our own!

People defend what they like, and tend to automatically assume everything else isn't just ok, but is downright awful. It's human nature.


Investment. People are invested in 3.x - not just in terms of money, but in terms of mental effort. You're a pretty heavy optimizer - a switch to 4e means that all of the effort you've spent learning how to optimize 3.x is now wasted. That's a pretty big disincentive to picking up the new system.

Nope: That's not it. I didn't buy all the books for 3.5, either. I'm not worried about the money. Although if I was buying everything, then I would baulk at the unending line of products being rolled out for everything WOTC does. That would apply equally to 3.5.
As for the optimising: No, that's not it either. I'm a problem solver, so I should be hoovering up information and rising to the new challenge. Instead, I just think it's a terrible, terrible system. Don't get me wrong: 3.5 is a BAD system, but 4e takes everything I like about gaming and seems to wipe its backside on it all.



I'm not even sure two sessions is really enough if you've been playing the other system a ton. With two sessions, you're still trying to make the new system play like the old one in your head.

I'm not playing through a campaign to decide I don't like something when I can see that I don't like it. I already know what elements I like in games (no levels, free-form development, elegant yet crunchy combat system) and what I hate and despise (battle maps, unlimited spells per day). More expose to these elements is not going to suddenly change my tastes.

It's not like I only play 3.5, and 4e was unacceptably alien. I play an awful lot of different game systems, and I can very quickly tell if they are acceptable to my tastes or not. I was very disappointed with 4e. I didn't want to be, but I was.



Who could have guessed, that you could actually use game theory for gaming?

Certainly most game designers didn't. I'm pretty sure the guys over at WW might not even have heard of 'mathematics'...

Kiero
2010-09-16, 06:10 AM
When I first heard about 4e, it didn't do anything for me. I read the PHB, and thought it was boring. Bear in mind I won't touch 3.x with a barge pole, and don't think much of any of the earlier editions.

Then I played it, and discovered it really does play better than it reads. First time around I played a melee Ranger, and that was awesome. Currently playing a Tempest Fighter, mostly as a durable Striker who pins the enemy down, and that's loads of fun too.

Psyx
2010-09-16, 06:11 AM
And get this... our newest member, who he is trying to date, wore elf ears to her first session, and he didn't grumble at all. :smallwink:


Stop press: Male throws his ethics and tastes out of window to the point of hypocrisy because failing to do so would result in a conflict of interests with the woman he's trying to sleep with.

I've never come across that situation before... :smallwink:

Psyx
2010-09-16, 06:13 AM
Currently playing a Tempest Fighter, mostly as a durable Striker who pins the enemy down, and that's loads of fun too.

This is precisely the kind of thing that makes me never want to go near 4e ever again... I've yet to hear someone describe a character for it in anything other than MMORPG-like terms, rather than as a person.

Esser-Z
2010-09-16, 06:38 AM
This is precisely the kind of thing that makes me never want to go near 4e ever again... I've yet to hear someone describe a character for it in anything other than MMORPG-like terms, rather than as a person.

You've never seen me mention my tactical warlord I keep ending up using, then. I usually talk about her ex-military backstory and drinking and stuff, rather than the mechanics.

dsmiles
2010-09-16, 06:59 AM
This is precisely the kind of thing that makes me never want to go near 4e ever again... I've yet to hear someone describe a character for it in anything other than MMORPG-like terms, rather than as a person.

Wait, what? We're supposed to talk about mechanics in a roleplaying game?
:smallconfused:
Why am I always the last to find out????:smallfurious:

:smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2010-09-16, 07:04 AM
Stop press: Male throws his ethics and tastes out of window to the point of hypocrisy because failing to do so would result in a conflict of interests with the woman he's trying to sleep with.

I've never come across that situation before... :smallwink:

Heh. Elf ears are acceptable on women. Especially attractive women. Just like the occasional fox tail, animal ears, etc.

But I certainly don't blame him for not wanting to dress up to play D&D. Hell, I larp, but I'd still feel awkward getting in garb to DM.

dsmiles
2010-09-16, 07:24 AM
Heh. Elf ears are acceptable on women. Especially attractive women. Just like the occasional fox tail, animal ears, etc.

But I certainly don't blame him for not wanting to dress up to play D&D. Hell, I larp, but I'd still feel awkward getting in garb to DM.

Sorry, Tyndmyr, I get the skeevies just thinking about dressing up to game. Sure, I'll go to a Ren Fair every now and again, but mostly just for the ginormous turkey legs and the opportunity to expand my sword collection. I just can't see myself LARPing.

But, yeah, elf ears on women are completely acceptable. :smallwink:

Grogmir
2010-09-16, 07:36 AM
This is precisely the kind of thing that makes me never want to go near 4e ever again... I've yet to hear someone describe a character for it in anything other than MMORPG-like terms, rather than as a person.

Have you seen the 3.5 threads on here? Noone talks about it in terms of their backstory/character. You're just blinkered against 4E imo.

Kiero
2010-09-16, 08:00 AM
This is precisely the kind of thing that makes me never want to go near 4e ever again... I've yet to hear someone describe a character for it in anything other than MMORPG-like terms, rather than as a person.

I tend to avoid "tell me about your character" because all the background-related stuff is so context-specific and unlikely to be of interest to anyone else.

I could tell you that he's a former/retired mercenary who's family was killed by minions of the Big Bad. Killed in passing really, his village happened to have some artifacts important to the villain buried under it, so everyone was killed and he was left for dead in the wreckage of his burned home. He joined four other wronged souls in a quest for vengeance, which led them to Sigil, the City of Doors. Since then he's become a fanatic of Justice and a Mercykiller, hunting down wrong-doers and bringing Judgement.

Yora
2010-09-16, 08:08 AM
There's less rules that define 'out of combat experiences' because you don't need rules to cover that. I'm not saying that people who complain about the lack of roleplaying in 4e can't roleplay, I'm saying 'Why do you need explicit rules to tell you how to roleplay?'
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Though you could roleplay with a pure cambat system, in Reality this rarely happens. When the books define your character as a bunch of combat abilities, you're extremely tempted to see him as just that.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-16, 08:18 AM
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Though you could roleplay with a pure cambat system, in Reality this rarely happens. When the books define your character as a bunch of combat abilities, you're extremely tempted to see him as just that.
That's a good point. While it is technically true that you could roleplay a game of Monopoly, the reality of the situation is that most people simply don't do that.

The rules for Monopoly don't encourage using your imagination, and the rules for e.g. Once Upon A Time do. As a result, even though it is theoretically possible to do the exact opposite, the vast majority of people who play those games focus on using their imagination in OUAT, and focus on other things in Monopoly. Practice trumps theory.

Yora
2010-09-16, 08:47 AM
After about 10 years of D&D and having taken some looks into DSA, it never occurted to me that other RPGs could be any different. But now that I started searching for more simple systems that don't put such a strong emphasis on having rules for all the small details, I first noticed how much the system affects what things you even consider as options both as a player and a gm.

When you create your character by assigning ability scores, chosing a class, feats, and spells from a list, you really approach the game with these stats in mind and not so much based on your characters backstory. When you encounter a band of goblins, you don't really think "how can I get out of here without gettig seriously hurt?", but start looking at your character sheet to see if theres an ability or spell to neutralizes the threat. And you know your hit points can be healed after the fight anyway, so as long as you don't die, you're fine.
And as a gm, you really don't consider having a main villain who isn't by far the strongest combatant of his organization. Or even allow the players to face him before you killed every single guard in his entire castle. And he has to die, of course. Everything depends completely on the villain dying, nothing else will stop his evil plan.

But when you look at fantasy fiction (that is not set in a D&D setting), that is rarely the way things happen. Not to say there's anything wrong with tactical tabletop games. When you want to defeat creatures by smart use of your characters abilities, do just that, and games like D&D are an excelent choice for that.
But if you are looking for a game in which non-lethal solutions are preferable, it's really a lot easier to use a different system.

DeltaEmil
2010-09-16, 08:48 AM
It is a DC35 knowledge check to know that "Orcus wields an artifact called the Wand of Orcus."

Er...who else would be wielding it?The adventurers who killed Orcus and took his stuff.

Yeah, I know. I'm also just not fond of the rulesplit in general. I like everyone working the same way.


Tyndmyr: Don't forget BEARS!What is a bear? I have no skill ranks in any kind of knowledge-skill, so I automatically fail every check on it. I only got two skill-points, which I invested into ride and swim. Also, I don't even know my own race. In fact, what the heck are those strange shapes that are not me? Can they breath fire?
What about you? Can you breath radioactive fire? Are you perhaps a cat? Cats drink nectar, breath radioactive fire, and attack with their spiked tails, I believe...

Woe is me, for knowledge (something) is trained only...

Esser-Z
2010-09-16, 08:51 AM
It does have to be noted that the knowledge issue is not, IIRC, unique to 4e. But it's especially egregious with the high DCs to know that cave bears (after knowing that the creature is a cave bear) live in caves. And to figure out that BEARS ATTACK WITH THEIR CLAWS.

DeltaEmil
2010-09-16, 08:52 AM
It does have to be noted that the knowledge issue is not, IIRC, unique to 4e. But it's especially egregious with the high DCs to know that cave bears (after knowing that the creature is a cave bear) live in caves. And to figure out that BEARS ATTACK WITH THEIR CLAWS.With what do bears attack in 3.x? I have no clues at all.

ghost_warlock
2010-09-16, 08:53 AM
What about you? Can you breath radioactive fire? Are you perhaps a cat? Cats drink nectar, breath radioactive fire, and attack with their spiked tails, I believe...

This is truth. I have a picture to prove it:

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/ghost_warlock/dragonbreathe.jpg

(Spiked tail not shown - this cat is just a yearling and has not yet sprouted its tail.)

Esser-Z
2010-09-16, 08:54 AM
With what do bears attack in 3.x? I have no clues at all.

I'd imagine that anyone with an intelligence score high enough to be sapient can figure that out without a skill check, or even knowing that the creature is a bear. :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-16, 08:58 AM
After about 10 years of D&D and having taken some looks into DSA, it never occurted to me that other RPGs could be any different. But now that I started searching for more simple systems that don't put such a strong emphasis on having rules for all the small details, I first noticed how much the system affects what things you even consider as options both as a player and a gm.
An excellent observation.

Also, consider how little effort was put into creating a typical TSR D&D character - 4d6 (drop lowest) for stats, pick a race & class you can qualify for, roll starting gold and buy what you can. Leveling was a simple matter of adjusting a few numbers, with a few special powers available for elite classes. Consequently, trying to define a TSR D&D character by mechanics would be futile - the mechanics of your 5th level Fighter aren't terribly different from everyone else's 5th Level Fighter. As a result, people talking about TSR D&D characters would usually focus on character traits or backstory - with "cool magic items" thrown in for the mix.

EDIT: Knowledge Skill checks are always a problem, but the way 3.x used them was deeply problematic

Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
One could argue that various bits of monster information (e.g. bears live in caves and attack with claws) should be covered by the more general easy/basic/tough DCs. However, the existence of the special monster clause and "bit of useful information" phrase makes it equally plausible to make those sort of details to fall under the DC 10+HD rule. This meant that even seasoned commoners would be unable to tell you more about bears than that they live in caves and attack with claws.

Of course, since the check is governed by HD, this also means that low-HD but ostensibly mysterious creatures (like pixies) are actually far easier to learn about than common-but-bulky ones.

Confounding this is the "untrained knowledge rule"

Generally, if your character attempts to use a skill he or she does not possess, you make a skill check as normal. The skill modifier doesn’t have a skill rank added in because the character has no ranks in the skill. Any other applicable modifiers, such as the modifier for the skill’s key ability, are applied to the check.

Many skills can be used only by someone who is trained in them.
This means that if you don't even have 1 rank in a Knowledge Skill, you can't even answer "really easy questions" about the subject matter. Since Commoners don't even get Knowledge (Local) as a Class Skill, this means that they probably can't say anything about "legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids" - such as the customs of their own community :smallyuk:
It's hard to argue that, like Diplomacy, 3.x Knowledge Skills aren't borked as a matter of RAW. D&D4 addresses many of these same issues as part of their overall fix for the Skill system (+1/2 LV, mainly) and the rest in a specific retooling of the system.

EDIT 2: Ah, thought I missed something

An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).
While slightly better than being completely ignorant, it still means that any given peasant can only answer extremely easy questions about his traditions 50% of the time. Merely "basic" questions remain outside of his sphere of knowledge even if he were a super-genius.

DeltaEmil
2010-09-16, 09:01 AM
I'd imagine that anyone with an intelligence score high enough to be sapient can figure that out without a skill check, or even knowing that the creature is a bear. :smalltongue:Now that's just a house-rule, you cat.
And now that ghost_warlock has shown me what you look like, I know that you're dangerous and that you can fly through walls like a bear.

Esser-Z
2010-09-16, 09:03 AM
Yes, it is indeed a houserule. Thus why I phrased it "I'd X".

The Knowledge rules only talk about learning about special powers and vulnerabilities, so I don't 'see a RAW rule to determine basic attacks--or whether you just know them.

DeltaEmil
2010-09-16, 09:12 AM
Bears don't attack with claws, they shoot electrical spikes from their mouth as a basic attack. Which is good, because their claws are made of pure light and negative energy, and would have been more deadly.

That is useful information about bears in 3.x, I believe.

Unless I'm mistaking that beast with something else...

Psyx
2010-09-16, 09:27 AM
Have you seen the 3.5 threads on here? Noone talks about it in terms of their backstory/character. You're just blinkered against 4E imo.

I was talking about real life.

You really can't say that about me with anything like a realistic justification, and it's certainly not true. I do NOT like 3.5 as a system - it's awful. I wanted 4e to be good. I was disappointed. I am generally a bit down that there is currently no high fantasy system on the market that's well supported and appeals to me. I wanted 4e to fill that roll. It's dreadful, I'll stick with 3.5 out of desperation.



Though you could roleplay with a pure cambat system, in Reality this rarely happens. When the books define your character as a bunch of combat abilities, you're extremely tempted to see him as just that.

Game mechanics tend to define how a game is played, and they encourage a certain play style. Write a system where combat is a coin-flick or die, and people avoid combat. Write one that gives +3 if you describe your funky attack and people describe funky attacks. Write a tactical skirmish wargame and people play a tactical skirmish wargame.
To me, this is a massive failing of 4e: A huge over-emphasis on combat (worse than just combat though... a darned battlemat!) and a skill system that's not actually taken anything on board from the last 15 years of progress in the industry.



When you create your character by assigning ability scores, chosing a class, feats, and spells from a list, you really approach the game with these stats in mind and not so much based on your characters backstory.

I'm going to count the posts before someone defensively starts screaming 'stormwind fallacy'. But you're absolutely correct.



Also, consider how little effort was put into creating a typical TSR D&D character - 4d6 (drop lowest) for stats

Wow: 4d6... you were spoiled :smallwink:
Don't forget that there were non-weapon proficiencies, too! But before then, anything that your character could do outside combat was defined by roleplay and background.... which encouraged roleplay and a decent background.
Want to get past a guard: Try interacting with it. No dice required.
1e might have been primative, but that factor made it a better system for roleplay than 4e seems to be.

dsmiles
2010-09-16, 09:53 AM
I'm going to count the posts before someone defensively starts screaming 'stormwind fallacy'. But you're absolutely correct.


STORMWIND FALLACY!!!!!! :smallfurious:

Whew, glad that's over. :smallwink:

Seriously, even all the way back to 1e where movement was described in inches, and areas of effect were also described in inches, like a certain tactical wargame we all know (I'm looking at you 40K), I approached everything from the character's story. It's never been about the mechanics for me, so, yeah, maybe I'd be more comfortable playing in a FFRPG, but DnD is what I have, and the mechanics are there to support the story, IMO, not the other way around. Simplified mechanics make for a better story-telling system, IMO, and 4e is getting closer than 3.x ever could in terms of simplification.
Yeah, I got a beef with these so-called 'skill challenges,' but then again, I run skill checks (for social skills) the same way I always have. We roleplay the situation, and if you're a horrible roleplayer you can use the dice if you want. If you're a good roleplayer, you don't have to use the dice, you can rely on your acting skills to bluff/diplomacy/whatever the heck out of me. Either way, you've got a fair shot at it. I don't penalize the poor roleplayer, but I give bonuses for good roleplaying, since my campaigns are primarily roleplay-focused.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-16, 09:54 AM
Want to get past a guard: Try interacting with it. No dice required.

1e might have been primative, but that factor made it a better system for roleplay than 4e seems to be.
Eh, it's a different sort of roleplay, not a better one.

Remember here that "getting past the guard" isn't just roleplaying like talking about your backstory - it's a challenge within a game. Even in 1E (IIRC) the DM would have been justified in calling for a CHA check to see if you successfully bluffed the guard. However, many DMs eschewed die rolling for these kinds of challenges and turned them into a "Player vs. DM" check.
In essence, the Player would only successfully bluff the guard if he could convince the DM that the guard would be bluffed. Here, it doesn't particularly matter what the Player's character sheet says - he can only do as well as he could do IRL in winning an argument with the DM.

As anyone who has wheedled a DM into accepting a particular course of action can tell you, this sort of challenge requires you to play upon the DM's peculiar preferences and cognative biases. Does he consider CHA to be a measure of comeliness and that men are easily seduced? Then play an attractive female character and breeze on by. Is your DM suceptible to formal logic? Then use it to convince the DM that the guard wouldn't be suspicious.

Yes, DMs pride themselves in being able to distance themselves from their NPCs but they are only human; by removing the dice as the mediator of success, you are only as powerful as your ability to convince the DM of your power.
IMHO, there is a lot to be said for the "PC v. NPC" school of challenge resolution and I'm glad to see D&D4 has decent mechanics for all situations. The Skill Challenge system might be awkward at times, but I've found it works great for extended social challenges that would have formally been resolved by DM fiat.

That other kind of roleplaying - backstory and non-challenge dialogue - is unaffected by the rules generally speaking.

Psyx
2010-09-16, 10:11 AM
Eh, it's a different sort of roleplay, not a better one.

I think roleplaying a situation *is* better than just going straight to a skill challenge and rolling dice, though.

Reverent-One
2010-09-16, 10:14 AM
I'm going to count the posts before someone defensively starts screaming 'stormwind fallacy'. But you're absolutely correct.

No, he's not. While someone can approach the game solely thinking about the stats rather than the backstory, someone can also think about what those stats represent and what that means for the character's backstory. Classes, feats, powers, spells all represent something IC, whether training or natural tendencies or reesults from events in your character's past. So from these stats and OOC mechanics, your character's background and personality can emerge and take form.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-16, 10:24 AM
I think roleplaying a situation *is* better than just going straight to a skill challenge and rolling dice, though.
Right, because you prefer "Player vs. DM" challenges in some situations to "PC vs. NPC" challenges. I have different preferences; it doesn't make one intrinsically better than the other.

Compare to the 3.x Knowledge Skill which - by RAW - provides contradictory interpretations of how to handle monster knowledge and produces absurd results (e.g. commoners know more about pixies than bears, commoners don't know much about their own traditions). Here, the 4e Knowledge Skill is better in that it is more clearly worded and it produces fewer absurd results.

One is a play preference; the other is a comparison of game mechanics to the paradigm espoused by the game. De gustibus non disputandum est (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_gustibus_non_est_disputandum) for the former, and reasoned analysis for the latter.

HenryHankovitch
2010-09-16, 11:15 AM
No conflict there, mate.

Just because your character COULD be optimized further and isn't doesn't mean you have to quit playing and go home.

That's not the point in contention.

The first article of advice given on this board to anybody trying to build a fighter, paladin, monk, or barbarian is "take levels in XYZ instead." When people are asserting that 3.5 has some sort of advantage in terms of its hypothetical wealth of options [compared to 4E], it's entirely legitimate to point out how the vast majority of those options are doled out to a minority of the core classes; and of the few options available to the rest of the classes, most or all are considered to fall between underpowered and useless.

Any given 4E book gives the player more useful options than any given 3.5E book. Triply so for "core."


It is a DC35 knowledge check to know that "Orcus wields an artifact called the Wand of Orcus."

Er...who else would be wielding it?
See, here's the kind of lazy, trollish nitpicking that drives me nuts. It's DC35 knowledge to know that an arch-demon-prince-thing wields a particular artifact with a particular set of attributes. As opposed to "Orcus wields the Club of Skulls, a flail forged from the skulls of fallen adventurers, which shoots fire out of each skull's eyesockets."

Or "Orcus rips his enemies apart with his demonic monkey-claws, which ooze flammable acid." Or "Orcus wields the Sword of Orcus, the Whip of Orcus, the Staff of Orcus, and the Crossbow of Orcus, one in each of his four arms."

"What? Don't be stupid, Orcus has SIX arms."

"Exactly! The last two have the acid claws."

kyoryu
2010-09-16, 11:19 AM
Nope: That's not it. I didn't buy all the books for 3.5, either. I'm not worried about the money. Although if I was buying everything, then I would baulk at the unending line of products being rolled out for everything WOTC does. That would apply equally to 3.5.

Which is why I said that I felt that was a lot of the anti-3.5 sentiment, not necessarily all of it.

I mean, if you want a semi-realistic, classless system, you're going to prefer something like GURPS to any version of D&D. D&D is a specific game, with a specific flavor. If you want vanilla, you're not going to be happy with chocolate, no matter how good the chocolate is.


Certainly most game designers didn't. I'm pretty sure the guys over at WW might not even have heard of 'mathematics'...

*snicker* I suspect you're right. Most of the guys I've dealt with in the game industry (computer, not paper, though I've worked with a number of paper guys as well) think of game mechanics in terms of damage per round, not in terms of game theory or player decisions. Makes for kinda dull games in the long run, in my humble opinion.


This is precisely the kind of thing that makes me never want to go near 4e ever again... I've yet to hear someone describe a character for it in anything other than MMORPG-like terms, rather than as a
person.

I've seen this just as bad in 3.x. At least with 4e, it's something short like "tempest fighter" rather than "3wiz/4clr/5Iot7V/3pdq/4wtf/1omg".


It does have to be noted that the knowledge issue is not, IIRC, unique to 4e. But it's especially egregious with the high DCs to know that cave bears (after knowing that the creature is a cave bear) live in caves. And to figure out that BEARS ATTACK WITH THEIR CLAWS.

Do they? Or do they bite? Can you say so for certain? Apart from "using their claws," how does a bear attack? Does it sit and swipe? Does it try to pin its opponent and then bite at it?

Without a knowledge check you can say "uh, yeah, bears have claws, they probably use those." But you won't get any specific examples of how they use their claws (actual attack powers) or tactics.



Game mechanics tend to define how a game is played, and they encourage a certain play style. Write a system where combat is a coin-flick or die, and people avoid combat. Write one that gives +3 if you describe your funky attack and people describe funky attacks. Write a tactical skirmish wargame and people play a tactical skirmish wargame.

To me, this is a massive failing of 4e: A huge over-emphasis on combat (worse than just combat though... a darned battlemat!) and a skill system that's not actually taken anything on board from the last 15 years of progress in the industry.

I'm going to count the posts before someone defensively starts screaming 'stormwind fallacy'. But you're absolutely correct.

See, here I agree with you. I just don't think that 3.x was any better in this regard. And, in many ways, I think it's worse - the amount of choices available for character creation and building takes attention away from other aspects of the game.

And it's pretty common sense that any gamer has only a certain amount of time/attention that they can devote to the game. The more time is focused on one aspect, the less is available for other aspects. So while the Stormwind Fallacy (correctly) asserts that roleplaying and optimization are not inherently exclusive, at some point one begins to crowd the other out. In my experience.


I think roleplaying a situation *is* better than just going straight to a skill challenge and rolling dice, though.

I find the artificialness of the skill challenge system grating. I'm trying to find a way to successfully integrate it with typical roleplaying. You know, the typical thing that people have done for years of granting a bonus to skill based upon roleplaying ability or how feasible or cool the plan is.

dsmiles
2010-09-16, 11:20 AM
That's not the point in contention.

The first article of advice given on this board to anybody trying to build a fighter, paladin, monk, or barbarian is "take levels in XYZ instead." When people are asserting that 3.5 has some sort of advantage in terms of its hypothetical wealth of options [compared to 4E], it's entirely legitimate to point out how the vast majority of those options are doled out to a minority of the core classes; and of the few options available to the rest of the classes, most or all are considered to fall between underpowered and useless.

Any given 4E book gives the player more useful options than any given 3.5E book. Triply so for "core."

+1 cookie for you, Mr. Hankovitch.

Balancing the classes so that they have an equal number of viable options was, I believe, one of the primary goals of 4e.

The Glyphstone
2010-09-16, 11:25 AM
+1 cookie for you, Mr. Hankovitch.

Balancing the classes so that they have an equal number of viable options was, I believe, one of the primary goals of 4e.

And it worked, for the most part. The opportunity cost it paid, however, was a certain homogenization of the various classes, which some people feel went too far.

kyoryu
2010-09-16, 11:29 AM
And it worked, for the most part. The opportunity cost it paid, however, was a certain homogenization of the various classes, which some people feel went too far.

The advancement of the classes is certainly homogenized - but from what I've seen so far the playstyle isn't, really.

4e has certainly shifted attention away from the "character-building game". If people really liked that aspect of the game (vs. the "playing the game game") I can certainly see where they wouldn't like 4e.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-16, 11:31 AM
And it worked, for the most part. The opportunity cost it paid, however, was a certain homogenization of the various classes, which some people feel went too far.
I've never quite understood this contention.

As I read it, certain people gain pleasure from mastering an entirely new set of rules to play a different class. However, the amount of mastery needed to create pleasure seems to be greater than the difference between a 4E Fighter and Battlemind but no more than the difference between a 3.XE Wizard and Cleric.

Am I missing something? What general principle is being forwarded by the "homogenization" claim? :smallconfused:

EDIT:
@kyoryu - quite the opposite! The sheer number of variables that go into a 1-30 4E character may be less than the total free-for-all of homebrew 3.X (i.e. without XP penalties for multiclassing) but it is still bewilderingly large.

Even sticking to Core I, a given race/class combination has a large number of unique decisions to make at LV 1 - and new ones to make for each level thereafter. Throw in MC, Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies and the number of meaningfully, mechanically distinct builds is staggering.

In fact, I would argue that WotC is going further along the "character-building game" paradigm in 4E than it was in 3.XE - they just reduced the complexity.

The Glyphstone
2010-09-16, 11:34 AM
I've never quite understood this contention.

As I read it, certain people gain pleasure from mastering an entirely new set of rules to play a different class. However, the amount of mastery needed to create pleasure seems to be greater than the difference between a 4E Fighter and Battlemind but no more than the difference between a 3.XE Wizard and Cleric.

Am I missing something? What general principle is being forwarded by the "homogenization" claim? :smallconfused:

Eh, I never said I understood the claims either. Just that one of the most common complaints I see about 4E (minus OMG WoW Videogamey nonsense) is the contention that Fighters, Wizards, Rogues, etc. all advancing the same (class-paragon path-epic destiny) and picking "powers" at the same rate/time makes them look or feel too similar.

Zaydos
2010-09-16, 11:37 AM
I've never quite understood this contention.

As I read it, certain people gain pleasure from mastering an entirely new set of rules to play a different class. However, the amount of mastery needed to create pleasure seems to be greater than the difference between a 4E Fighter and Battlemind but no more than the difference between a 3.XE Wizard and Cleric.

Am I missing something? What general principle is being forwarded by the "homogenization" claim? :smallconfused:

Well to me Wizard and Cleric are pretty close n 3.X. What I like about them is the plethora of options they each have. Every wizard and cleric I've played has felt different from each other because I play them different (less so with cleric because they can prepare any spell from their list, where as wizards have to make semi-permanent choices).

I can't say how homogenized classes in 4e are since I've only played 4 characters, and 2 of those were with really bad DMs so I didn't really get to use my abilities.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-16, 11:40 AM
I've never quite understood this contention.
The contention is that a large amount of different causes are mapped to a small set of effects. There are, of course, exceptions, but the majority of powers work like this:


You hit somebody on your head with a club - he takes ten damage and is now dazed.
Your deity curses your enemy in his wrath - he takes ten damage and is now dazed.
You create a swirling illusion to confuse your foe - he takes ten damage and is now dazed.


It is not unreasonable for people to expect that a whack on the head, a divine curse, and a visual illusion have a different mechanical effect, without requiring different rules. For instance, personally I like the notion that dazing someone with a club doesn't work on, say, an ooze or skeleton warrior.

(edit) of course somebody is now going to claim "so refluff!" - but this option is hardly apparent from reading the PHB: the power simply spells out "hit somebody on the head". If a power entry requires a change to have it do what you want, that strikes me as a fair reason to critisize it.
Also, this suffers from the Monopoly fallacy in that most people, at least in my experience, don't play that way, and simply call the power by its name in order to speed up gameplay.

Gametime
2010-09-16, 11:46 AM
I've never quite understood this contention.

As I read it, certain people gain pleasure from mastering an entirely new set of rules to play a different class. However, the amount of mastery needed to create pleasure seems to be greater than the difference between a 4E Fighter and Battlemind but no more than the difference between a 3.XE Wizard and Cleric.

Am I missing something? What general principle is being forwarded by the "homogenization" claim? :smallconfused:



To some extent, it's a buzzword. (As someone who has played and enjoyed both, one of the amusing facets of the "4e=WoW!" argument is that it is most evidently true in the sort of language the fanbase uses to complain. "Homogenization" is a favorite in both communities, for example.)

People want classes to be special and unique. Part of this is a desire to see creativity; a lot of people assume "looks the same" equates to "designers are lazy." Part of it is the notion that more diversity in classes leads to more diverse - and therefore more fun and broadly appealing - gameplay, which has some truth to it. Very rarely do people concern themselves with what achieving diversity actually represents, or whether it is worth maintaining for its own sake even at the cost of other elements.

Likely, part of the problem is that most 4e classes are presented in exactly the same format. No more big separate chapters of the book for spells, or psionics, or what have you. I think the classes still play quite differently - at least as differently as, say, a cleric and a wizard in 3.5, though perhaps not as differently as a fighter and a wizard - but the immediate appearance is one of sameness.

That said, 4e classes are certainly less diverse than 3.5 classes. If one of your criteria for an enjoyable game is "widely divergent classes," you're more likely to enjoy 3.5.




It is not unreasonable for people to expect that a whack on the head, a divine curse, and a visual illusion have a different mechanical effect, without requiring different rules. For instance, personally I like the notion that dazing someone with a club doesn't work on, say, an ooze or skeleton warrior.



This is mildly amusing, since "daze" is one of the only conditions that 3.5 undead weren't immune to. :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-16, 11:46 AM
Eh, I never said I understood the claims either. Just that one of the most common complaints I see about 4E (minus OMG WoW Videogamey nonsense) is the contention that Fighters, Wizards, Rogues, etc. all advancing the same (class-paragon path-epic destiny) and picking "powers" at the same rate/time makes them look or feel too similar.
No, no, but I would like to know exactly what is being stated here!
Back in the early days of the Edition Warz I spent a lot of time trying to figure out the position of 3.Xers. Most of their arguments I was able to grok, but the "homogenized" one never made sense to me. Even in Core I, saying that a Wizard played just like a Fighter sounded nonsensical; even within Roles, nobody I know of who plays 4E would argue that Rogues play like Rangers.

At best, this seemed like an idiosyncratic love of using different rules within a single game. But as time has gone on, 4E has increased the number of different rules you can play under (compare Fighters vs. Wardens/Barbarians vs. Druids vs. Psions) and yet the "homogenized" argument is still used. Plus, looking at 3.X I can't honestly say that it uses all that many systems - 3.X Casters work about as differently as 4E Psionics Power-types do.
This is not a criticism of the position, mind you; I just can't grok what principle is being stated here. It's fine if it is just another "they changed it now it sucks" argument - but I'm not certain that there just isn't some sort of design principle I'm missing out on.

EDIT:
OK, some responses.

@Kurald
So the argument is that different powers need different mechanical effects? That seems at odds with the very system itself - effects can only affect game elements. 3.X powers can either reduce HP, reduce Ability Scores, impair Saving Throws, reduce AC, or inflict a listed status effect. 4E powers no longer drain Ability Scores, but everything else maps in a similar fashion. If the argument is that some 3.X powers inflicted non-standard status effects then I would point to the wide variety of 4E powers which do the same.

If, instead, the argument is that the stated fluff does not match with the expectations of the player, then the response either has to be "refluff" or de gustibus non disputandum est.

@Gametime
I still don't understand the "diversity" statement - the range between a Fighter and a Battlemind is very large; the range between a Fighter and a Psion is even larger!

The "my class is special" line of argumentation makes more sense, but falls under de gustibus non disputandum est - I feel that the 4E classes are plenty "special," but there's no way I convince someone of that fact.
But, progress! :smallsmile:

Kurald Galain
2010-09-16, 11:57 AM
Even in Core I, saying that a Wizard played just like a Fighter sounded nonsensical; even within Roles, nobody I know of who plays 4E would argue that Rogues play like Rangers.
I think it's generally true that all classes play differently*. However, the point is that this is not apparent from either reading through the PHB, nor is it necessarily apparent if you play at low levels.


*with some exceptions

cdrcjsn
2010-09-16, 11:59 AM
Well, for those complaining about the homogenized feel of character classes, WotC listened and created new builds in Essentials for fighters and rogues that have significantly different mechanics from other classes.

Fighters and Rogues mostly use basic melee attacks now, but modified by stances (for fighters) and move utility actions (for rogues).

They still fit with the basic math underlying 4e so they're balanced, but they're new ways to express that math (much like psionic power points in the PHB3 has a different play mechanic from the other core classes).

cdrcjsn
2010-09-16, 12:06 PM
Yes, it is indeed a houserule. Thus why I phrased it "I'd X".

The Knowledge rules only talk about learning about special powers and vulnerabilities, so I don't 'see a RAW rule to determine basic attacks--or whether you just know them.

The rules do state that if something is a low enough difficulty, then you don't need to roll for it.

I would assume that it would apply to knowledge checks as well. You don't need to roll to realize that the lion pouncing on you is likely to use it's claws or bite to tear you to shreds or to figure out that the cow in front of you is not a predator. You might need a check to realize that the cow has been subjected to experiments by alien creatures and might grow tentacles at any moment...

dsmiles
2010-09-16, 12:11 PM
Also, this suffers from the Monopoly fallacy in that most people, at least in my experience, don't play that way, and simply call the power by its name in order to speed up gameplay.

Unfortumately, this is true. However, I am successfully breaking my kids of this horrible habit. Speeding up gameplay is all well and good, but not at the expense of immersion in the world, IMO.

Psyx
2010-09-16, 12:14 PM
Right, because you prefer "Player vs. DM" challenges in some situations to "PC vs. NPC" challenges. I have different preferences; it doesn't make one intrinsically better than the other.


Quite right. I was just pointing out that it was something that is not my personal preference, which is reflected in my choice of games.
I really don't get on with the skill challenge system. I'd actually go as far as saying that the extended action resolution in TORG was far cooler.



I mean, if you want a semi-realistic, classless system, you're going to prefer something like GURPS to any version of D&D.

Heh. Ironically GURPS is also on my 'hate list'.



Most of the guys I've dealt with in the game industry (computer, not paper, though I've worked with a number of paper guys as well) think of game mechanics in terms of damage per round, not in terms of game theory or player decisions.

I think that 'dps' thinking is fairly new, thanks to MMORPGs. Prior to that, I'm not sure many of them thought very much about any of it at all!
Certainly, the idea that classes need to be in any way balanced has only emerged in the last 10 years or so.



I just don't think that 3.x was any better in this regard. And, in many ways, I think it's worse - the amount of choices available for character creation and building takes attention away from other aspects of the game.

3.5 was slightly better, due to less focus on the map and moving foes back a square into the waterfall, which requires a DC20 check orzzzzzzzzz.....

The player choices are worse/overly complex though, granted. Much better to have simply had a bunch of features and allow players to pick one each level or whatever, rather than requiring an encyclopaedic rules knowledge.

It bewilders me that such a complex system can at the same time be so granular and bereft of detail in many ways.



If people really liked that aspect of the game (vs. the "playing the game game") I can certainly see where they wouldn't like 4e.

The chargen rules are a toolbox to be used like a lump hammer to force an essentially inflexible level-based system into spitting out a character that fits my character idea. If they can be simpler without sacrificing depth: Great. I don't view that as part of a roleplaying game itself, though. In the same way that I don't call moving 3 squares on a map an enjoyable part of the game, either. It's just a thing you have to do. Hopefully once per campaign.



but it is still bewilderingly large.

I like character options. I don't call a dozen skills that one is either trained in or not to be a bewilderingly large choice as regards realising my character.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-16, 12:15 PM
The rules do state that if something is a low enough difficulty, then you don't need to roll for it.

I would assume that it would apply to knowledge checks as well. You don't need to roll to realize that the lion pouncing on you is likely to use it's claws or bite to tear you to shreds or to figure out that the cow in front of you is not a predator. You might need a check to realize that the cow has been subjected to experiments by alien creatures and might grow tentacles at any moment...
Not quite

Checks Without Rolls
A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions and eliminate the luck factor.

Taking 10
When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.
So, "really easy checks" are modeled as Taking 10, not by DM Fiat.

In any case, untrained Knowledge checks can only answer "very easy questions" about the area of Knowledge (as opposed to "Basic" or "Tough"). Ironically, they can also " identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities" who have less than 1 HD - which means that every Commoner can identify and tell you something useful about Kobolds, Goblins, and Pixies - but not cows or bears :smalltongue:

EDIT: Or are there no partial-HD creatures anymore? :smallconfused: I tried re-reading the SRD rules to be sure but it's not clear. Anyhoo, anyone trained in Nature will know more about Sprites (DC 11) than Mules (DC 13) or the mysterious Brown Bear (DC 16) :smalltongue:

Sipex
2010-09-16, 01:53 PM
Christ, why can't we have a general 4e thread without it turning into an edition war?

Here's some actual 4e news.

The NEW Red Box (D&D 4e Essentials) isn't the horrible horrible thing it's been made out to be. It basically brings D&D closer to 3.5 for those who complain that D&D classes are too samey.

Warriors are now basically run up and hit it guys. No more special powers but they do have stances which alter how they fight.

Rogues have also become less special power based, instead learning a few 'tricks' they can perform on an at-will basis.

Wizards are close to the 4e variant.

It's been hailed as the easy way to introduce someone to 4e. Also, experience has shown that Essentials characters are fully compatible with other 4e characters, up to the point that if your Warrior feels he wants more options, he can convert to a power-using warrior without completely changing his play style.

HenryHankovitch
2010-09-16, 01:56 PM
EDIT: Or are there no partial-HD creatures anymore? :smallconfused: I tried re-reading the SRD rules to be sure but it's not clear. Anyhoo, anyone trained in Nature will know more about Sprites (DC 11) than Mules (DC 13) or the mysterious Brown Bear (DC 16) :smalltongue:

Apparently discrepant DCs aside, it's worth noting that even in the modern-day world you can find people who will tell you that, if you come across an angry-looking bear, you should run downhill (because they will supposedly trip and tumble if they try to run after you), or climb a tree (because apparently bears can't climb--or rip your leg off before you can get 10' up).
And of course, you should always put some upright forks in your hatband, or else the drop bears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear) will get you.

It's kind of a silly-looking example, but it's not so farfetched for someone to need a minimal knowledge check to know, "okay, this bear isn't going to try to hug me to death, or bite me, he's going to literally slap my head off." Maybe the common folklore about sprites really is more accurate/widespread in D&D-land, than that about bears.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-16, 02:03 PM
Apparently discrepant DCs aside, it's worth noting that even in the modern-day world you can find people who will tell you that, if you come across an angry-looking bear, you should run downhill (because they will supposedly trip and tumble if they try to run after you), or climb a tree (because apparently bears can't climb--or rip your leg off before you can get 10' up).
And of course, you should always put some upright forks in your hatband, or else the drop bears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear) will get you.

It's kind of a silly-looking example, but it's not so farfetched for someone to need a minimal knowledge check to know, "okay, this bear isn't going to try to hug me to death, or bite me, he's going to literally slap my head off." Maybe the common folklore about sprites really is more accurate/widespread in D&D-land, than that about bears.
Oh sure, you can make inferences from the rules about how the world is structured (that is the point of making rules) but most 3.Xers would dispute that their version of 3.X is one where farmers are more likely to know about Pixies than Mules. Like I said, it's a flaw of using HD (a measure of how tough a creature is) as a metric for how easy it is to learn about them.

It was just a poorly-designed mechanic.

hamishspence
2010-09-16, 02:06 PM
It's kind of a silly-looking example, but it's not so farfetched for someone to need a minimal knowledge check to know, "okay, this bear isn't going to try to hug me to death, or bite me, he's going to literally slap my head off."

I did mention the myth that bears "hug" the last time I posted in a thread that complained about Bear Lore.

The idea that snakes have a "sting" (possibly their tongue?) is another example of inaccurate legend.

Then there's the idea that sharks have to turn on their bellies to bite.

There's lots of inaccurate folklore one could come up with for failed Knowledge checks.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-09-16, 02:43 PM
Well, I went to the Encounters session at my local game store (local being a half-hour away in the Twin Cities), and I had a great time, despite the pre-gen character and it being little more than a glorified fight. It felt to actually just play for once. I've been invited to another 4e game hosted at the store after Encounters on Wednesdays, but there's a problem.

I would need some way of getting home when the game ends around midnight. My dad can get me there because he's up in the Cities transporting my brother to his bagpipe lessons, but those are over around 9:00. There's literally no public transportation in my hometown. Buses just don't go there. So while I've solved my initial problem of not knowing anyone interested in playing, I've now run into my next problem. Transportation. :smallfrown:

kyoryu
2010-09-16, 03:01 PM
I would need some way of getting home when the game ends around midnight. My dad can get me there because he's up in the Cities transporting my brother to his bagpipe lessons, but those are over around 9:00. There's literally no public transportation in my hometown. Buses just don't go there. So while I've solved my initial problem of not knowing anyone interested in playing, I've now run into my next problem. Transportation. :smallfrown:

The solution is clear. Burn the bagpipes. Not only so that you can go to the game, but for the sanity of your household, and all those around you.

Bagpipes are responsible for more sanity checks than Cthulhu. It's a documented fact.

(My neighbor had someone over that played bagpipes a bit ago. It was a serious "HUH? Is that what I *think* it is?" moment)

hamishspence
2010-09-16, 03:03 PM
The solution is clear. Burn the bagpipes. Not only so that you can go to the game, but for the sanity of your household, and all those around you.

Bagpipes are responsible for more sanity checks than Cthulhu. It's a documented fact.

Well played bagpipes might not be so bad.

Still, I've heard the quip:
"Bagpipes- the missing link between music and noise"

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-09-16, 03:11 PM
He makes lots of money off his bagpiping though. He's good enough that he's actually played with The Chieftans (his musical idols). Besides, if I burned them, I wouldn't get to go at all because the only reason I can get up there in the first place is by tagging along with my dad when he picks my brother up. No bagpipes = no need to go up to the cities = stuck in Hastings.

TheEmerged
2010-09-16, 05:10 PM
I find the artificialness of the skill challenge system grating. I'm trying to find a way to successfully integrate it with typical roleplaying. You know, the typical thing that people have done for years of granting a bonus to skill based upon roleplaying ability or how feasible or cool the plan is.

They've been getting better at this. The ones in "Slaying Stone" (a recent module) are a massive improvement over the way the mechanic started.

I think the thing most DM's get wrong about them is using them in pass/fail scenarios. They work best in "branching" situations, where the skill challenge is going to decide which encounter / how difficult of an encounter the party is going to face.

For example, one I ran during heroic levels involved the players at a slave auction they wanted to break up but were noticeably overpowered by the enforcers. Instead of a situation where they passed/failed, every success removed an enforcer and every failure added one. The DC's of the check varied based on their relevance of the skill check to the encounter. Players could make checks to assist another check as well (for example, I let a player make an Arcana check to create a distraction to aid another's player Stealth check).

Kurald Galain
2010-09-16, 05:27 PM
I find the artificialness of the skill challenge system grating. I'm trying to find a way to successfully integrate it with typical roleplaying. You know, the typical thing that people have done for years of granting a bonus to skill based upon roleplaying ability or how feasible or cool the plan is.
I agree. I've seen too many SCs turn into a contest of "fast talking the DM into believing that your best skill applies to whatever the current situation is". It's a terrible mechanic in that it actually penalizes roleplaying, by giving you a worse chance to succeed if you do anything other than spamming your best skill over and over.

Kaun
2010-09-16, 05:28 PM
They've been getting better at this. The ones in "Slaying Stone" (a recent module) are a massive improvement over the way the mechanic started.

I think the thing most DM's get wrong about them is using them in pass/fail scenarios. They work best in "branching" situations, where the skill challenge is going to decide which encounter / how difficult of an encounter the party is going to face.

For example, one I ran during heroic levels involved the players at a slave auction they wanted to break up but were noticeably overpowered by the enforcers. Instead of a situation where they passed/failed, every success removed an enforcer and every failure added one. The DC's of the check varied based on their relevance of the skill check to the encounter. Players could make checks to assist another check as well (for example, I let a player make an Arcana check to create a distraction to aid another's player Stealth check).

Yeah i have done similar things and i find it works well, i all so like using it for disarming or avoiding larger and more complicated traps. Being able to get every one involved makes it much more interesting.

kyoryu
2010-09-16, 05:59 PM
Yeah i have done similar things and i find it works well, i all so like using it for disarming or avoiding larger and more complicated traps. Being able to get every one involved makes it much more interesting.

Pass/fail skill checks are, in general, a very bad idea. If you fail, you don't continue. Not much fun, and leads the GM to add other ways around the problem. If the players have to succeed, don't make it a skill check.

I think Slaying Stone did a good job with that. What I don't like is the artificialness of, in the middle of an RP encounter, having to ask players what skill they want to use. Just.... ugh. And while the rules don't specify that, they sure encourage it, especially with less experienced players.

I've tried to model skill challenges as discrete "challenges" the players encountered, but it felt too arbitrary. I don't mind the idea - I'm just trying to wrap my head around a presentation style that doesn't feel as gamey.

cdrcjsn
2010-09-16, 06:02 PM
Not quite

So, "really easy checks" are modeled as Taking 10, not by DM Fiat.

In any case, untrained Knowledge checks can only answer "very easy questions" about the area of Knowledge (as opposed to "Basic" or "Tough"). Ironically, they can also " identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities" who have less than 1 HD - which means that every Commoner can identify and tell you something useful about Kobolds, Goblins, and Pixies - but not cows or bears :smalltongue:


Not quite. Under the section on Difficulty Class it also states:
" The DM sets the DCs for specific situations based on level, conditions, and circumstances, as detailed in the Dungeon Master's Guide. All DCs assume acting in situations that are far from mundane; the DM should call for checks only in dramatic situations."

That last sentence essentially tells you that you don't always need to roll for skill checks, so that even taking 10 is not necessary.

If common folklore details the weaknesses of the local fairies, made famous in the tale of the village founder, then you can rule that circumstances indicate that you don't need to know that they have vulnerability to iron.

DeltaEmil
2010-09-16, 06:25 PM
You still can't use the benefits of a skill that can only be used if you've put any skill ranks in it, no matter if you don't roll, can take 10, or get a +1'000'000 bonus on it.

WitchSlayer
2010-09-16, 07:00 PM
While people could argue that in pure core the classes can feel kinda same-y, well, at least classes that have similar roles anyway, all the non-core material really breaks that apart. Playing a Warden as a defender is extremely different than playing say, a Swordmage, or even a Fighter.

The current 4e game that I've been playing the longest, I'm playing a warforged wizard. I wasn't 100% sure what to make his voice sound like so I always speak using a very robotic voice, my group loves it. He recently came to hate the leader of the Harpers because he was a total geek (Long story), so he decided to become a Lich. His alignment also changed to evil (Although I'm not going to let this effect party dynamics, even if he's evil he still considers his comrades his comrades.)

So yeah, Warforged Lich.

kyoryu
2010-09-16, 07:07 PM
While people could argue that in pure core the classes can feel kinda same-y, well, at least classes that have similar roles anyway, all the non-core material really breaks that apart. Playing a Warden as a defender is extremely different than playing say, a Swordmage, or even a Fighter.



Yeah, if you're going to look at just PHB1 classes, you should really compare that to 3.x PHB classes.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-16, 07:07 PM
While people could argue that in pure core the classes can feel kinda same-y,
Actually I don't. I think the eight PHB1 classes are all pretty different, but that some of the newer classes have not quite succeeded to create their own niche. YMMV.

ghost_warlock
2010-09-16, 07:52 PM
Christ, why can't we have a general 4e thread without it turning into an edition war?

Here's some actual 4e news.

The NEW Red Box (D&D 4e Essentials) isn't the horrible horrible thing it's been made out to be. It basically brings D&D closer to 3.5 for those who complain that D&D classes are too samey.

Warriors are now basically run up and hit it guys. No more special powers but they do have stances which alter how they fight.

Rogues have also become less special power based, instead learning a few 'tricks' they can perform on an at-will basis.

Wizards are close to the 4e variant.

It's been hailed as the easy way to introduce someone to 4e. Also, experience has shown that Essentials characters are fully compatible with other 4e characters, up to the point that if your Warrior feels he wants more options, he can convert to a power-using warrior without completely changing his play style.

After Encounters this week, our group used the Red Box to create characters for the upcoming Keep on the Borderlands series. Because I'm the only one that has ever created a character without using the character builder (:smalleek::smallannoyed:), I ran them individually through the Player Book character creation adventure. It went okay, and everyone seemed to enjoy fighting the goblins in the cave at the end (I doubled the number of goblins, initially, then had one run for back-up when the characters killed the rest so they ended up fighting about 15 goblin minions in a two-stage encounter).

I have to admit, though, that something inside me died a little bit when the guy who made a cleric looked over at the fighter player's sheet and said: "is that all you get?"
:smallfrown:

I realize that the Red Box, in interest of simplicity, excludes a number of features and powers included in the Fallen Lands book. But still... *swears* :smallmad:


Well, I went to the Encounters session at my local game store (local being a half-hour away in the Twin Cities), and I had a great time, despite the pre-gen character and it being little more than a glorified fight. It felt to actually just play for once. I've been invited to another 4e game hosted at the store after Encounters on Wednesdays, but there's a problem.

I would need some way of getting home when the game ends around midnight. My dad can get me there because he's up in the Cities transporting my brother to his bagpipe lessons, but those are over around 9:00. There's literally no public transportation in my hometown. Buses just don't go there. So while I've solved my initial problem of not knowing anyone interested in playing, I've now run into my next problem. Transportation. :smallfrown:

Congrats! I'm glad that Encounters has succeeded at its (unstated) purpose of finding you a group. Sorry about your transportation issues, though. Hopefully someone from the group will be willing to give you a ride...

Katana_Geldar
2010-09-16, 08:02 PM
I'm avoiding red box and essentials as our group has more or less grasped 4e and we're happy with what we have. That bad?

Reverent-One
2010-09-16, 08:07 PM
I'm avoiding red box and essentials as our group has more or less grasped 4e and we're happy with what we have. That bad?

I don't think so, I'm doing the same.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-09-16, 08:27 PM
I'm using the essentials errata, but no red box here either!


He makes lots of money off his bagpiping though. He's good enough that he's actually played with The Chieftans (his musical idols). Besides, if I burned them, I wouldn't get to go at all because the only reason I can get up there in the first place is by tagging along with my dad when he picks my brother up. No bagpipes = no need to go up to the cities = stuck in Hastings.
I realize I'm probably the only other poster here who knows who the Chieftains are, but that's awesome! I'm totally jealous of your brother.

Katana_Geldar
2010-09-16, 08:33 PM
The whole idea that we're getting a new system without it being a new system gets on my nerves to some extent. Wizards like to bury you in books more than a university classic department.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-16, 09:04 PM
Edited out knowledge discussion, since it's been beat to death.



That's not the point in contention.

The first article of advice given on this board to anybody trying to build a fighter, paladin, monk, or barbarian is "take levels in XYZ instead." When people are asserting that 3.5 has some sort of advantage in terms of its hypothetical wealth of options [compared to 4E], it's entirely legitimate to point out how the vast majority of those options are doled out to a minority of the core classes; and of the few options available to the rest of the classes, most or all are considered to fall between underpowered and useless.

Not so. First off, barbarian ain't bad. Second, all of those classes have useful dips. Sure, almost nobody advises taking fighter past level 6, or monk past level 2, but those are still valid options.

Multiclassing in 4e just doesn't work the same, and as such, isn't directly comparable.

And yes, some classes are vastly more complex and filled with options than others. This doesn't make the others worthless...in fact, some players LIKE relatively limited options, and would prefer to avoid heavy bookwork. Nobody sane contents that 3.5 is completely balanced, but imbalance doesn't necessarily make something bad, or unusable.


Any given 4E book gives the player more useful options than any given 3.5E book. Triply so for "core."

See, that's a bold statement. Tell you what. I'll grab the 3.5 phb, and you grab the 4e phb, and we'll tally up the available options, and discuss which of them are useful. We'll then adjust by page count to be fair.

Or, if you prefer, we could compare core options for a character in both systems between levels 1-20.

I mean, otherwise, that's just a silly unsupported statement.


See, here's the kind of lazy, trollish nitpicking that drives me nuts. It's DC35 knowledge to know that an arch-demon-prince-thing wields a particular artifact with a particular set of attributes. As opposed to "Orcus wields the Club of Skulls, a flail forged from the skulls of fallen adventurers, which shoots fire out of each skull's eyesockets."

What I said was indeed correct. The fact that you can find out additional information via knowledge isn't really surprising. That's sort of what knowledge does. The amusement comes in from the apparent difficulty of the adventurers in putting two obviously related pieces of information together.

WitchSlayer
2010-09-16, 09:04 PM
Yeah, no reason to get Red Box if you already have a grasp of it. Any powers will be included in the character builder anyway.

Nu
2010-09-16, 09:38 PM
I'm avoiding red box and essentials as our group has more or less grasped 4e and we're happy with what we have. That bad?

No, not necessarily. However, some of the feats (and racial bonuses) from Heroes of the Fallen Lands look fun to me so I'd be wanting to fish those out, but I can't imagine myself wanting to play a Slayer or Knight over a Battlerager, Brawler, or PHB Fighter.

So while I'm not completely ignoring Essentials, I'm just fishing what I want out of it.

ghost_warlock
2010-09-16, 10:29 PM
Mostly, I just want the leader druid build and the hexblade from Essentials.

However, as I said, the other people in the group have apparently never created a character without WotC's character builder and that suffers my soul; the Red Box Player book, with its take on character creation, came in handy.

Also, I'm a sucker for poster-sized battle maps, so I harvest and re-purpose them where I can. Just happens to be one in the Red Box. My upcoming Dark Sun game is going to use the one for Zanzer's Dungeon. Seems perfect for the gladiator slave pits where the characters begin. :smallwink:

Katana_Geldar
2010-09-16, 11:07 PM
You know what system I would use to directly multi-class for 4E? Star Wars Saga and it would go more or less flawlessly.

And large maps can be too specfic, give me my tiles even if they do move about.

ghost_warlock
2010-09-16, 11:54 PM
Tiles are good, too, but some of the maps I own have rather odd features I can't replicate with tiles. For instance: conveyors, a modest-sized salt mine, and individual 5'x5' jail cells in the Zanzer's Dungeon map.

Also, the number of sets of tiles I'd need to construct, say, the Tomb of Horrors boggles. Obviously, they can be shifted around, but some of the hallways and rooms in there are rather large. Fortunately, I have a work-around for that... :smallwink:

Katana_Geldar
2010-09-17, 12:33 AM
You do, what? Tell me!!!!

Leolo
2010-09-17, 01:09 AM
The contention is that a large amount of different causes are mapped to a small set of effects. There are, of course, exceptions, but the majority of powers work like this:


You hit somebody on your head with a club - he takes ten damage and is now dazed.
Your deity curses your enemy in his wrath - he takes ten damage and is now dazed.
You create a swirling illusion to confuse your foe - he takes ten damage and is now dazed.


I think the problem is detail information.


You hit somebody on his head with a club - he takes ten damage from your weapon and is now dazed.
Your deity curses your enemy in his wrath - he takes ten radiant damage and is now dazed.
You create a swirling illusion to confuse your foe - he takes ten damage from an illusion and is now dazed.


The point is that this powers actually does work different against different foes because of its keywords and the foes immunities.

The club would not provoke opportunity attacks while the illusion might do it. The curse might block the foes regeneration. The club might attack a different defense, as does the curse compared with the illusion. All three can have a different attack modifier.

And more than this: If my wizard lvl 8 casts a fireball it would make different damage and have a different effect than if another wizard lvl 8 casts this fireball. Items, feats and powers can influence those spells.

Yes - the power structure is streamlined. But you have also more options to make your character more individual.

cdrcjsn
2010-09-17, 01:59 AM
You still can't use the benefits of a skill that can only be used if you've put any skill ranks in it, no matter if you don't roll, can take 10, or get a +1'000'000 bonus on it.

In 4e, that only applies to using the Detect Magic function of the Arcana skill and avoiding falling damage under Acrobatics.

Is there anything else that need skill ranks for a specific task? As far as I'm aware, all other functions of skills can be used even without proficiency in 4e.

RebelRogue
2010-09-17, 02:33 AM
Not so. First off, barbarian ain't bad. Second, all of those classes have useful dips. Sure, almost nobody advises taking fighter past level 6, or monk past level 2, but those are still valid options.

Multiclassing in 4e just doesn't work the same, and as such, isn't directly comparable.
I think most of us know that these dips can be useful, but to claim that makes them "useful classes" seems completely backwards to me! As I said way back in the thread, that's one thing I really like about the new edition: classic classes that work like they should wihtout jumping through hoops.


And yes, some classes are vastly more complex and filled with options than others. This doesn't make the others worthless...in fact, some players LIKE relatively limited options, and would prefer to avoid heavy bookwork. Nobody sane contents that 3.5 is completely balanced, but imbalance doesn't necessarily make something bad, or unusable.
The new Essentials rules seems to be there just for these kinds of players. But IMO, those are not the typically the ones that are "4e complainers", so I'm not sure how much that fixes in practice.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-17, 03:31 AM
I'm avoiding red box and essentials as our group has more or less grasped 4e and we're happy with what we have. That bad?
No. I would certainly not recommend the Red Box to anyone who's played D&D before.



The point is that this powers actually does work different against different foes because of its keywords and the foes immunities.
The point is that while it can, theoretically, make a difference, in practice it very rarely does. With the exception of (most) undead's radiant vuln and poison immunity, it is very rare to encounter a creature that requires a different approach than simply using the powers you always use.

Leolo
2010-09-17, 04:21 AM
The point is that while it can, theoretically, make a difference, in practice it very rarely does. With the exception of (most) undead's radiant vuln and poison immunity, it is very rare to encounter a creature that requires a different approach than simply using the powers you always use.

It depends. The powers that you use may have different effects.

4E is very tactical - and i believe it does make a difference if i immobilize a foe or if i let him suffer ongoing damage or if i let him make opportunity attacks against his allies even if all can be summarized as "effects that grant some benefit to the players".

Also there are much monsters that have resistances, immunities - and more than this powers that grant advantage against some of the players powers.

A hobgoblin will make a save immediatly instead of at the end of his turn, a flying opponent will ignore difficult terrain that you have created, a opponent with the ability to shift his speed will ignore your summons opportunity attacks.

And so on. Different situations call for different solutions. Of course you will use at least some of your powers every encounter, but not neccessary all of them. (In fact i know players that do not use more than one daily per encounter as part of their ressource management). And the powers of different classes are different even if fluff is ignored. For example take a ranger and a rogue. Both do "much damage" as an main effect. But mechanically their powers have huge differences. The rogue is restricted in his weapon choice, the ranger is restricted in his target choice, the rogue does add his charisma modifier to damage, the ranger attacks twice. The rogue does bonus damage against opponents that grant combat advantage, the ranger to the nearest foe.

In fact this mechanical difference is higher as in 3.5 - where my ranger and my rogue does both attack with a weapon and both do the same effect (a certain amount of damage).

And of course this ignores that my 4E rogue could blind some guys and my ranger could attack as a maneuver together with with his animal compagnion and that such powers share nothing mechanical.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-17, 05:10 AM
A hobgoblin will make a save immediatly instead of at the end of his turn, a flying opponent will ignore difficult terrain that you have created, a opponent with the ability to shift his speed will ignore your summons opportunity attacks.
Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that if your L3 encounter power is e.g. Rain of Blows, then you will use that against the hobgoblin, and also against the flying opponent, and also against the shift-his-speed guy, and also against anything else you will be facing, ever. The same applies to Color Spray, or Disruptive Strike, or Topple Over, just to name a few common PHB encounter powers.

It's a classic hammer problem. Are you facing undead? Disruptive strike. Battling dire wolves? Disruptive strike. Trying to kill an evil wizard? Disruptive strike.

Leolo
2010-09-17, 05:43 AM
Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that if your L3 encounter power is e.g. Rain of Blows, then you will use that against the hobgoblin, and also against the flying opponent, and also against the shift-his-speed guy, and also against anything else you will be facing, ever. The same applies to Color Spray, or Disruptive Strike, or Topple Over, just to name a few common PHB encounter powers.

It's a classic hammer problem. Are you facing undead? Disruptive strike. Battling dire wolves? Disruptive strike. Trying to kill an evil wizard? Disruptive strike.

It depends on the other powers that i have. Rain of Blows is a melee attack. Do i have better attacks? Maybe ranged attacks? Well - it would be a good idea to use them against flying foes.

Do i have close blast attacks? Well, it would be great against a swarm of creatures. Or multiple foes in general. Do i have something to attack another defense instead? Well...if there are enemies that have low stats on this defense it would be also better.

If i do not have other options that would be better - well than yes, i would use rain of blows. But this does not prove much.

In fact rain of blows is a good example because it shows that this power is great especially for some - but not for all fighters. Because depending on my weapon choice it is more or less usefull. You have summarized the arguments about the streamlined classes as "the majority of powers work like this - they gave similar effects".

Rain of blows is in fact an example that even if i am the same class and level than a different character - and even if i use the same power than a differend character the effects of our powers might be different.

And of course you could compare rain of blows with other powers like sleep, a warlocks curse that let the warlock "disappear for the target" or a blade barrier. What does all those powers have in common? Well they are attack powers. Anything more than this? You could say the all use same action, a standard action, but even this would not be true for all attack powers. You could say they all use the same "useable once per day/encounter/at will" pattern.

But mechanical? They do effects that have nothing in common.

And of course mechanic is not really that important. A cleric or a wizard is not himself because he can do a specific prayer / spell, but because of its role playing background.

ghost_warlock
2010-09-17, 06:03 AM
It depends on the other powers that i have.

*snip*

Not entirely. If you've got a L1 Encounter, a L3 Encounter, a L1 Daily, and 2 at-wills, you're probably going to maneuver to use the L3 Encounter regardless of what you're fighting because it's your biggest hammer. (Not counting your daily, which may or may not even be available, depending on your play style - do you pop your daily often and hope for a rest soon, or do you save in "just in case"?)

Kurald Galain
2010-09-17, 06:05 AM
It depends on the other powers that i have. Rain of Blows is a melee attack. Do i have better attacks? Maybe ranged attacks? Well - it would be a good idea to use them against flying foes.

Do i have close blast attacks? Well, it would be great against a swarm of creatures. Or multiple foes in general. Do i have something to attack another defense instead? Well...if there are enemies that have low stats on this defense it would be also better.
In practice? If you have Rain of Blows and a close blast attack (say, Cloud of Steel from multiclassing), it's not a question about which you'll use in any given encounter. The answer is that you will use both in every given encounter.

If you face flying enemies, you will use your (weak) ranged attack until you can get into melee range, and then use Rain of Blows.

BobVosh
2010-09-17, 06:27 AM
And of course mechanic is not really that important. A cleric or a wizard is not himself because he can do a specific prayer / spell, but because of its role playing background.

I disagree. When discussing a system mechanics is all that matters. Especially one like 4ed where all the fluff is mostly hidden away in the campaign setting books and probably expansions. I like reading Kurald's 4.4 updates since it is almost the only way I keep up with 4ed, so I rarely post in these types of threads since I don't know 4ed much. I have the basic box set thing (DMG, PHB, MM), and then my friend has the PHB2.

Anyway, back to my point. If every class is similiar to the point it is difficult to tell what belongs to what class, why even have a class? Cleric/wizard are the two main offenders of this in 3.x. Sorcerer is just different enough due to be spon. caster. The further you go the more this seems so with beguilier, duskblade, etc.

When going through (remember mainly PHB1 & 2 knowledge) the books, most of the powers read as very much the same. With the different base class abilities (forgive me, but I can't remember the name stuff like avenger's pursuit) seeming to be the main thing to differentiate the classes.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of things I really like about 4ed. Minions, magic item changes, move(or was it swiftminor?) action healing classes and the concept of skill challenges (very hard to make work though). However the basics of each classes becomes very repetitive in play from my exparience. Why does it matter if this one is done with a shield to the face, this one is sparkly bubbles from a wand, and this one is an eye ray if it is all 10 damage + *stat* vs fort for trip?

Leolo
2010-09-17, 07:18 AM
Not entirely. If you've got a L1 Encounter, a L3 Encounter, a L1 Daily, and 2 at-wills, you're probably going to maneuver to use the L3 Encounter regardless of what you're fighting because it's your biggest hammer. (Not counting your daily, which may or may not even be available, depending on your play style - do you pop your daily often and hope for a rest soon, or do you save in "just in case"?)

Well - no. Because the level of the power does not describe how usefull it is in any given situation.

My wizard has icy rays for example - and of course this is a great power if i want to immobilize 1 or 2 foes. But it is not always better than for example burning hands.

My rogue has positioning strike and tricksters blade. What is better? Well - the last does more damage and grants me a better defense, the first is better for tactical positioning.

I may use both, of course - but i think it is beside the point that different powers gave different benefits in different situations.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-17, 07:29 AM
My wizard has icy rays for example - and of course this is a great power if i want to immobilize 1 or 2 foes. But it is not always better than for example burning hands.
That, again, is not the point. Your wizard will have either Icy Rays or Burning Hands. If he has Icy Rays, he will use that in every encounter. If he has Burning Hands, then he will use that instead in every encounter. If he somehow has both (e.g. one as his level-3 spell), then he will use both in every encounter.

Likewise, your rogue should use both positioning strike and tricksters blade in (almost) every encounter. Why? Because they're better than your at-wills. If you have an encounter power that you don't use most of the time, then you should retrain it into a better power.

The question is never "which encounter power should I use this encounter", because you should plan on using all of them. Likewise, you shouldn't ask "which daily power shall I use today", because the answer again should be all of them.

Leolo
2010-09-17, 07:35 AM
I disagree. When discussing a system mechanics is all that matters. Especially one like 4ed where all the fluff is mostly hidden away in the campaign setting books and probably expansions.


I do agree to a certain point (and the sentence above was only one sentence to clearify that all those mechanical discussions should not be interpreted as "role play does not matter").

But you should think about the point that fluff and mechanics can act together to describe a character. For example if my paladin uses a power to block some monster that wants to hurt someone this is not only a nice effect. It is also something that helps me roleplaying a noble paladin who is defending the weak and innocent.



When going through (remember mainly PHB1 & 2 knowledge) the books, most of the powers read as very much the same.

I think this is the main problem. The powers does not really do the same, but they are published in a streamligned design. People see the coloured blocks of the power, look at the format and all powers look exactly the same. Even if one of them let you be invisible and another let you hit someone with your blade and the third creates a wall of ice.

No one would bring those argument after 3 characters had used those 3 powers. No one would say they are the same if they are used in practise, because it would be silly to say that the sword, the wall and the invisible character does all "look exactly the same".

But print them on power cards, make a picture of them and show it in a forum. You will not have to wait that long until the argument "all the same" arise.

Thats very different powers, of course. But even powers of members of the same power source differ. Even powers of members of the same class differ. Even powers of members of the same class and level and attributes, using the same powers might differ. Mechanically, not only fluff wise.

That is why those argument is so annoying.. We are discussing a edition where fighters use attacks that have different effects depending on the weapon that they use, and a fireball might do ongoing damage or not just because two different wizards have casted it with different reagents while a third character might have changed the effect of a power because he is using a special fighting style.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-17, 07:51 AM
I think this is the main problem. The powers does not really do the same, but they are published in a streamligned design.
But the argument wasn't that "the powers does do the same". The argument was that "a large amount of different causes are mapped to a small set of effects".

This is, quite literally, a straw man: you're arguing against a position that the people you're talking with do not actually hold.

Yora
2010-09-17, 07:53 AM
When it comes to the quality of RPGs, it's really not so much about the rules are designed, but about how people feel about them.
In a way, bad presentation is worse than bad rules.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-17, 08:05 AM
I think this is the main problem. The powers does not really do the same, but they are published in a streamligned design. People see the coloured blocks of the power, look at the format and all powers look exactly the same. Even if one of them let you be invisible and another let you hit someone with your blade and the third creates a wall of ice.

No one would bring those argument after 3 characters had used those 3 powers. No one would say they are the same if they are used in practise, because it would be silly to say that the sword, the wall and the invisible character does all "look exactly the same".

Give those of us who have played 4e and dislike it some credit. We are capable of looking past formatting similarities.

Besides, it's not a very reasonable argument. Essentially all spells in 3.5 were formatted the same, and nobody seriously argues that all spells in 3.5 work the same, or even similarly.


But print them on power cards, make a picture of them and show it in a forum. You will not have to wait that long until the argument "all the same" arise.

We didn't say "all the same". However, there is a lack of variety in effects, and when there is differences, they are comparatively minor. Yes, x damage and a blind for one round is different from x damage and a daze for one round, but not immensely so.


Thats very different powers, of course. But even powers of members of the same power source differ. Even powers of members of the same class differ. Even powers of members of the same class and level and attributes, using the same powers might differ. Mechanically, not only fluff wise.

If you have the same class, level, attributes, and powers in 4e, you will operate very, very similarly mechanically. Sure, you have things like skill points, but those are less intertwined with the system than skill points in 3.5. The discrete notion of skill challenges is an example of how they're treated differently.

Worse, every fight does tend to result in very similar power usage. This is definitely not true of many popular 3.5 builds. Prepared casters frequently attempted to get great variety and find the ideal thing for use in a given situation, while leaving things that might be useful later unused. This sort of challenge does not exist in 4e. Sure, you want to conserve healing, and use your dailys wisely, but that's pretty much it.


That is why those argument is so annoying.. We are discussing a edition where fighters use attacks that have different effects depending on the weapon that they use, and a fireball might do ongoing damage or not just because two different wizards have casted it with different reagents while a third character might have changed the effect of a power because he is using a special fighting style.

Lasting effects have mostly vanished in 4e. Sure, there are a great many short term status effects, but long duration buffs and debuffs have faded. This increases the "every fight feels the same" feeling, since by the time you get to another fight, you've generally had all the effects of the first fight fade.

Leolo
2010-09-17, 08:21 AM
But the argument wasn't that "the powers does do the same". The argument was that "a large amount of different causes are mapped to a small set of effects".

This is, quite literally, a straw man: you're arguing against a position that the people you're talking with do not actually hold.

Well, given that my post was an answer to:

"When going through (remember mainly PHB1 & 2 knowledge) the books, most of the powers read as very much the same."

i would say it is maybe just the problem that you had used the argument as an anwser to the wrong post.

But to answer your post, too: I do not really know if the set of effects is small, but small is obviously subjective. Every power in the game can have an effect that is entirely descriped only in this power. They can be very individual, therefore and many powers use this design philosophy. What is limited is the number of predefined status effects like dazed or slowed or similar effects. Are charm of misplaced wrath (a power that moves an enemy, let him hit someone and dazes him) the same as the rogues dazing strike (that also dazes an enemy)?

The first is someone casting a spell and attacking the willpower of his foe to charm him, the second is someone hitting his foe with his dagger. It has a different mechanic, it has different keywords and it has a different tactical use. But in the end both might result in a dazed and damaged enemy.

It is the question what effect means for you. Is it a keyword like daze or damage?

RebelRogue
2010-09-17, 08:27 AM
Lasting effects have mostly vanished in 4e. Sure, there are a great many short term status effects, but long duration buffs and debuffs have faded. This increases the "every fight feels the same" feeling, since by the time you get to another fight, you've generally had all the effects of the first fight fade.
Wait, what? I'm not sure what you mean :smallconfused: If anything, the fact that the buffs are gone should imply a change i.e. contribute to another fight not feeling "the same".

Be regarding short/long term buffs: I understand that some people dislike the way it works now, but to me the "use-it-or-lose-it" approach is just more exciting. I also must say I hated all the tracking of different effects, but to each their own.

Psyx
2010-09-17, 08:31 AM
I
I think this is the main problem. The powers does not really do the same, but they are published in a streamligned design. People see the coloured blocks of the power, look at the format and all powers look exactly the same.


Are you seriously telling me that because all the pretty boxes are the same shape and colour that I think they're all the same? I can get my head around M-Theory nicely, but darnit: Those little boxes with the squiggles in always throw me...




That is why those argument is so annoying..


More or less annoying than inferring to people that they only think its homogeneous because they can't read?




We are discussing a edition where fighters use attacks that have different effects depending on the weapon that they use, and a fireball might do ongoing damage or not just because two different wizards have casted it with different reagents

Yes: Welcome to the C21, WoTC. Any decade now they'll get rid of levels and write a decent skill system, like the rest of the gaming industry did 10 years ago...



In a way, bad presentation is worse than bad rules.

And 4e has great presentation. Some of the best I've seen. Even with good presentation, the system can't drag itself out of the gutter in my mind.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-17, 08:38 AM
The first is someone casting a spell and attacking the willpower of his foe to charm him, the second is someone hitting his foe with his dagger. It has a different mechanic, it has different keywords and it has a different tactical use. But in the end both might result in a dazed and damaged enemy.
No, it doesn't: it has the same mechanic, the keywords are only rarely noticeable in gameplay, and it has the exact same tactical usage.

DeltaEmil
2010-09-17, 08:44 AM
In 4e, that only applies to using the Detect Magic function of the Arcana skill and avoiding falling damage under Acrobatics.

Is there anything else that need skill ranks for a specific task? As far as I'm aware, all other functions of skills can be used even without proficiency in 4e.Skill ranks to use a trained only skill only applies to 3.x.

That's where the comparison about how 4e-characters need to roll to know that bears attack with their claws and live in caves, whereas every 3.x-characters aside from druids and perhaps rangers don't even know what a bear is, where bear live, how a bear attacks, or what claws even are has started, and to make it worse, how they don't even know their own species.

Leolo
2010-09-17, 08:53 AM
Give those of us who have played 4e and dislike it some credit. We are capable of looking past formatting similarities.

We didn't say "all the same". However, there is a lack of variety in effects, and when there is differences, they are comparatively minor.


As said above - it was an answer to a specific quote. Of course not all complaints about 4E can be answered like those above. And to clearify this: I do not think that criticsm of 4E have the prerequisite that you have never played it. ;-)



Yes, x damage and a blind for one round is different from x damage and a daze for one round, but not immensely so. If you have the same class, level, attributes, and powers in 4e, you will operate very, very similarly mechanically. Sure, you have things like skill points, but those are less intertwined with the system than skill points in 3.5. The discrete notion of skill challenges is an example of how they're treated differently.


I can gave you an example. I have two low level wizards. Both share some spells, like magic missile and scorching burst. But the magic missile of one wizard pushes the targets (and the MM of the other don't) while the scorching burst of the second wizard is centered on the origin space and the sb of the other is not. More so the scorching burst of the first wizard can inflict ongoing damage while the other does not.

Fighter (and other classes) powers can be modified by fighting styles, weapon choice and feats.

And - you have to remember what we are talking about: Two theoretical nearly identical characters. Same attributes, same class, same level and even the same powers. Still they might do different things (they might also do the same things, of course).

But it is the extreme example and still differentiability is possible. And of course there is a different problem. If effects like daze and blind are considered similar than how can anything be even different from each other?

Just because it is an effect?




Worse, every fight does tend to result in very similar power usage. This is definitely not true of many popular 3.5 builds. Prepared casters frequently attempted to get great variety and find the ideal thing for use in a given situation, while leaving things that might be useful later unused. This sort of challenge does not exist in 4e. Sure, you want to conserve healing, and use your dailys wisely, but that's pretty much it.


I would not say those challenge does not exist in 4E (because, of course you still have ressource management and still it is important if you use your spell now or later).

But this is really a streamlined point - most classes have now a similar amount of ressource management.



Lasting effects have mostly vanished in 4e. Sure, there are a great many short term status effects, but long duration buffs and debuffs have faded. This increases the "every fight feels the same" feeling, since by the time you get to another fight, you've generally had all the effects of the first fight fade.

Well there still are such effects and they can be powerful, but i think mostly vanished describes it good nevertheless.

But i do not think that i understand your argument right: How exactly is for example a long time buff like magic armor something that makes fights feel different? I would say it is something that makes fights more equal. In 4E you could say: Hey, i used my utility to prevent me from a strike and it saves me for the rest of the fight - but now it is gone. The next fight will be different, i can not use it again because it was a daily utility power.

Leolo
2010-09-17, 09:03 AM
No, it doesn't: it has the same mechanic, the keywords are only rarely noticeable in gameplay, and it has the exact same tactical usage.

Well, no it has a different mechanic. The spell targets a different defense, it can do the damage to a different target and it moves the first target and if you use it to target another foe its damage and attack bonus is depending on the targets damage and attack bonus.

How is this the same mechanic than the rogues dazing strike?

Maybe our definition of "same" is different, but when a spell is considered the same as an attack, movement is considered the same as no movement and a charm is considered the same as the strike of an dagger how can anything be different from each other?

Kurald Galain
2010-09-17, 09:16 AM
How is this the same mechanic than the rogues dazing strike?
Because the mechanic is "attribute bonus + half level + equipment bonus + feat bonus + 1d20 >= defense value + circumstance bonus".

It would be different if there were monsters that were immune to daggers, or immune to spells, but they don't exist.

I have no idea why you're claiming that movement is the same as no movement, or why you think that a spell's damage and attack bonus is depending on the targets damage and attack bonus.

Zaydos
2010-09-17, 09:24 AM
I would not say those challenge does not exist in 4E (because, of course you still have ressource management and still it is important if you use your spell now or later).

But this is really a streamlined point - most classes have now a similar amount of ressource management.



Well there still are such effects and they can be powerful, but i think mostly vanished describes it good nevertheless.

But i do not think that i understand your argument right: How exactly is for example a long time buff like magic armor something that makes fights feel different? I would say it is something that makes fights more equal. In 4E you could say: Hey, i used my utility to prevent me from a strike and it saves me for the rest of the fight - but now it is gone. The next fight will be different, i can not use it again because it was a daily utility power.

Took out the parts I can agree with for conciseness's sake.

Resource management in 4e is several magnitudes less than it was for Vancian casters in 3.5. I've played 4e, my Swordmage's only resource management was "Do I want to use my daily in this battle?" And the answer was: "Is it obviously the boss?" With two possible answers: "It's not, then it's too easy" and "Yes; then let's look epic". Honestly my resource management came down to just that... then again I was the one not getting close to dying every battle (the melee strikers that rushed into combat tended to get pummeled), or even attacked (my marked targets would attack other people instead of me... I was preventing 20+ damage per encounter from Lv 1 on).

As for the long duration buffs issue. In 3.5 there are very long duration buffs (hour/level), long duration buffs (10 minutes/level), short duration buffs (1 minute/level), and single combat buffs (1 round/level). The first can just be used before the adventure and is a null point unless dispelled at which point all battles afterward are changed. The 2nd at low levels has to be cast in combat, but the next combat or two you'll still have the buff; at high levels these become indistinguishable from long duration buffs so they're generally grouped together. The 3rd at low levels are single combat buffs because their duration just isn't long enough, but at mid to high levels they last multiple combats but will still only last 2-3 combats meaning when they wear off it changes combat. The final ones work like those in 4e. 4e has long duration buffs that last 1 encounter, and short duration buffs that last 1 round; and you end up using these same buffs every combat (ecept the full combat buffs which tend to be dailies). The lack of real long duration buffs is still something that bothers me about 4e, but it was also necessary to bring casters down to earth.

The thing is dailies are what makes most battles different from each other. A 3.5 wizard has 40 some dailies without including Int bonus or specialization at Lv 20 (so more than 80). Half of these won't be worth using, except for long duration buffs but that still leaves 40. 4e has 3 or 4 at Lv 30. That means that yes battles in 4e are going to be more similar, but whether that's good or bad is a matter of personal opinion.

Leolo
2010-09-17, 10:13 AM
Because the mechanic is "attribute bonus + half level + equipment bonus + feat bonus + 1d20 >= defense value + circumstance bonus".

It would be different if there were monsters that were immune to daggers, or immune to spells, but they don't exist.

I have no idea why you're claiming that movement is the same as no movement, or why you think that a spell's damage and attack bonus is depending on the targets damage and attack bonus.

Well - because those things were part of the question: "Are charm of misplaced wrath (a power that moves an enemy, let him hit someone and dazes him) the same as the rogues dazing strike (that also dazes an enemy)?".

Both actions result (if the attack is successfull) in a dazed enemy and damage.

But both use different mechanics to get to those result. The dazing strike only does damage and dazes the target, the spell shifts a target some squares, let him attack someone (maybe himself, maybe some other creature) with a basic attack (his basic attack) and dazes him.

And sure a target could be immune to this charm effect. Or a character could specialize on those effects.

Gametime
2010-09-17, 10:21 AM
What I said was indeed correct. The fact that you can find out additional information via knowledge isn't really surprising. That's sort of what knowledge does. The amusement comes in from the apparent difficulty of the adventurers in putting two obviously related pieces of information together.

I think you're supposed to assume that adventurers wouldn't know about the Wand of Orcus at all unless they make that knowledge check. "Orcus wields a weapon, and it is called the Wand of Orcus" makes much more sense than "The person that wields the Wand of Orcus is Orcus," even if both have roughly the same informational content, because one implies a prior knowledge that should allow one to infer the remainder of the sentence and the other doesn't.

Admittedly, I'm not sure if this interpretation is supported by the rules.


Are you seriously telling me that because all the pretty boxes are the same shape and colour that I think they're all the same? I can get my head around M-Theory nicely, but darnit: Those little boxes with the squiggles in always throw me...



Saying that the main problem is in people misinterpreting the homogeneity of the power boxes doesn't imply that everyone thinks the system is too homogeneous for purely that reason. Calling it the "main" problem is likely an exaggeration, but it's almost undeniably played a role in the way some people perceive the edition. I don't think it's intended as a personal attack on any one critic of 4e.

Leolo
2010-09-17, 10:39 AM
Took out the parts I can agree with for conciseness's sake.

Resource management in 4e is several magnitudes less than it was for Vancian casters in 3.5. I've played 4e, my Swordmage's only resource management was "Do I want to use my daily in this battle?" And the answer was: "Is it obviously the boss?" With two possible answers: "It's not, then it's too easy" and "Yes; then let's look epic". Honestly my resource management came down to just that...


For casters it is true, but of course fighters now have more resource management than before. It's a true streamlined point, nearly all classes now have some amount of it. And i think that overall it is now less than before, because nearly everyone learns some spells or equivalent things in 3.5 over his characters career.

But i think you should have tried some different aspects of resource management with your swordmage. For example reagents to make your spells stronger. Items with daily powers. Alchemistic items. Action points. Rituals and their costs.

Or simple encounters that does not allow your group to rest. Daily powers are not the only part of 4e resource management even if they are the most obvious.



4e has long duration buffs that last 1 encounter, and short duration buffs that last 1 round; and you end up using these same buffs every combat (ecept the full combat buffs which tend to be dailies). The lack of real long duration buffs is still something that bothers me about 4e, but it was also necessary to bring casters down to earth.

There are some buffs that work longer, altough they are only a few. The best guy to gave you such buffs is maybe the bard who can grant effects that last until the end or the beginning of the next encounter (whenever this is) during a rest. Also some rituals can be described as buffs and work longer than just some minutes. But nevertheless it is true...long time buffs are very rare in 4E.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-17, 10:45 AM
I can gave you an example. I have two low level wizards. Both share some spells, like magic missile and scorching burst. But the magic missile of one wizard pushes the targets (and the MM of the other don't) while the scorching burst of the second wizard is centered on the origin space and the sb of the other is not. More so the scorching burst of the first wizard can inflict ongoing damage while the other does not.

So certain wizards have minor bonuses to certain spells. This is not at all unusual. 3.5 wizards can arrange things like this as well. In addition, the spells known/prepared/schools specialized is a differentiator that doesn't translate to 4e.


Fighter (and other classes) powers can be modified by fighting styles, weapon choice and feats.

EVERYONE can be modified by feats. In 3.5 or 4e. I don't really see that as a competitive advantage at all. Both systems do suffer from the occasional feat tax for certain builds, but feats are actually one of the more similar things between editions.

4e fighter might have an advantage over core fighter. Might. Alternative Class Features throw this into doubt. It certainly doesn't over later releases, like warblade.


And - you have to remember what we are talking about: Two theoretical nearly identical characters. Same attributes, same class, same level and even the same powers. Still they might do different things (they might also do the same things, of course).

First off, attributes are not a major differentiator either. A wizard with 18 int and a wizard with 20 int still act very similarly. Due to the nature of the classes, in either edition, for any given class, certain stats are going to be focused on. So...attributes are generally limited to "oh, I made my monk int-based". Meh.

Class is very broad in 3.5. Even before PrCing, you have a number of different fighting styles. A melee guy could be ranged, could go charger, could be a tripper, could be sword and board, could be TWF. Probably can't be all, due to feat issues, but even among melee types, two builds with the same or similar class(es) could look very different in practice. This is less true with 4e, though some specialization remains.

Same powers, now...that's a big one. 3.5 has ridiculous versatility in powers, especially for casters. However, even using JUST ToB, you get more options for melee than say, core 4e.


But it is the extreme example and still differentiability is possible. And of course there is a different problem. If effects like daze and blind are considered similar than how can anything be even different from each other?

Just because it is an effect?

You're focusing on the one difference, slight though it is. The facts that both are single target, and do the same damage in addition to a debuff of the same duration are all similarities. Let us compare a wizard, since that's what you described.

4e: At level 1, you select one of 5 at-wills, one of 5 encounter, and one of 4 dailys. This is better than most classes, as 4 of each is standard.

3.5: At level 1, you know all cantrips, and select 3+int level 1 spells out of a total of 41 choices(this is core only. It expands ludicrously if non-core).

Obviously, the latter involves more options, and thus, more variety. And that's before considering that Animate Rope and Charm Person are vastly more different than anything you can select between in 4E


I would not say those challenge does not exist in 4E (because, of course you still have ressource management and still it is important if you use your spell now or later).

This is relevant ONLY for dailys. Encounter powers and at-wills do not benefit from conservation.


But this is really a streamlined point - most classes have now a similar amount of ressource management.

Not everyone wants the same amount of resource management. Simply saying "it's a streamlined point" does not make a lack of choice a virtue.


Well there still are such effects and they can be powerful, but i think mostly vanished describes it good nevertheless.

But i do not think that i understand your argument right: How exactly is for example a long time buff like magic armor something that makes fights feel different? I would say it is something that makes fights more equal. In 4E you could say: Hey, i used my utility to prevent me from a strike and it saves me for the rest of the fight - but now it is gone. The next fight will be different, i can not use it again because it was a daily utility power.

Because a well timed dispel suddenly changes the encounters for the rest of the day. Because being cursed really, really matters. What you do in one fight can very easily affect the next, while in 4e, battles are typically discrete encounters. This actually is an MMO-like point, as most MMOs build dungeons in this way.

Leolo
2010-09-17, 10:57 AM
Are you seriously telling me that because all the pretty boxes are the same shape and colour that I think they're all the same?


No i do not. Not only because i do not know you, do not know if you even think that they are all the same and because i do not know your reasons if you do.

But i do make assumptions and use experience from previous discussions regarding this topic. And yes: the point that all powers are printed in a streamlined format has some influence.

You will find many people who claim that a fireball is now pretty much the same than a fighters strike. And the reason for this is not that the fireball has now swordform or the strike of the fighter is now very hot. So what is the reason? Obviously not that someone could half the damage of the fireball with good reflexes and it does not always hit with it's full strenght, because this would be true in 3.5, too.

Maybe that both does damage? Well...no, this was also true in previous editions. You can resist the fireball? Well...also nothing new.

So it is more or less the framework. It was the difference in 3.5, Spells does have a different framework than attacks that does not involve a spell. That's the point. The characters are still doing different things - but within the same framework. No one who would see the fireball and the sword strike would say they are similar. In fact not even if he only watches the mechanics and not the fluff. But if you look on your character sheet both share a framework that tells you some general informations.

Like: How often can i use this? What defense works against this? How can i improve this kind of powers? And what are the rules for those effects?

Those is what the information on a power card do.

Psyx
2010-09-17, 10:57 AM
Saying that the main problem is in people misinterpreting the homogeneity of the power boxes doesn't imply that everyone thinks the system is too homogeneous for purely that reason. Calling it the "main" problem is likely an exaggeration, but it's almost undeniably played a role in the way some people perceive the edition. I don't think it's intended as a personal attack on any one critic of 4e.

I'm just struggling to conceive that anyone who can actually read would ever consider that putting powers in the same shape boxes makes them all the same, let alone that someone would ever try to point to this as 'the main problem'. It's akin to ...words fail me... <insert example citing ludicrously daft logic here>



but of course fighters now have more resource management than before.

Managing when to use a per-encounter or a couple of dailies isn't really much in the way of resource management. I'd place it as somewhat less taxing as keeping track of the use of adamantine and cold iron arrows for the same fighter in 3.5. And of course the Essentials line does away with most of that insanely complex (!) resource management anyway... So I don't really concede that point.


4e essentially makes too many sacrifices from a simulationalist and common-sense point of view in order to construct an encounter-based tactical skirmish game with lots of strange and whacky mechanics that are... a bit odd. I struggle to immediately think of another game that allows mages to cast 10000 fireballs/whatever a day if they cast them once per fight, yet not more than one per fight. Or another game that places any kind of premium in pushing a foe back 5' (sorry... 'a square'). The whole thing is so far devolved from... I want to say 'reality', even though this is a fantasy game... that it destroys my suspension of disbelief and essentially becomes a big puzzle board-game. The constraints, limits and use of powers are just hammered into the framework of the game in such an illogical fashion.

And I've still yet to see anything backing up the assertion that 4e gives more choice. It condenses the choices and makes them brilliantly easy to select from, but ultimately I can't create a wizard who has dabbled a bit in pottery-making because the skill system manages to drag 4e back at least 2 editions in terms of evolution.

Leolo
2010-09-17, 11:03 AM
So certain wizards have minor bonuses to certain spells. This is not at all unusual. 3.5 wizards can arrange things like this as well. In addition, the spells known/prepared/schools specialized is a differentiator that doesn't translate to 4e.

...

EVERYONE can be modified by feats. In 3.5 or 4e. I don't really see that as a competitive advantage at all. Both systems do suffer from the occasional feat tax for certain builds, but feats are actually one of the more similar things between editions.

Maybe there was a misunderstanding? I don't even want to show this as an advantage from 4E over 3.5. It was an argument to show that "all classes are the same" can not even be judged as correct if you look onto the same class with nearly the same character and and the same powers, because of the possibility to change the effect of those powers via feats, class features, weapon choice, reagents and so on.

Possible in 3.5? Well - most of it yes. (ok, i do not know how to do all those things in 3.5 but there are other things i could do to individualize your actions)

But this was no edition comparation.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-17, 11:08 AM
Maybe there was a misunderstanding? I don't even want to show this as an advantage from 4E over 3.5. It was an argument to show that "all classes are the same" can not even be judged as correct if you look onto the same class with nearly the same character and and the same powers, because of the possibility to change the effect of those powers via feats, class features, weapon choice, reagents and so on.

Oh, well, if you're arguing against "all classes are the same", then surely you wouldn't mind quoting where I said that?

Otherwise, it's clearly a strawman. And trying to judge classes while ignoring the options provided by the different numbers of powers is ludicrous.


Possible in 3.5? Well - most of it yes. (ok, i do not know how to do all those things in 3.5 but there are other things i could do to individualize your actions)

But this was no edition comparation.

It varies in all sorts of ways. If you take levels in force missile mage, your magic missiles gain stuff. Or you can take feats that affect certain spells. CL boosts. Metamagic. Interactions with other spells, like Sonorous Hum. The 3.5 magic system is a giant toolbox, and many of it's components can be used it very creative combinations or for highly unusual purposes.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-17, 11:14 AM
And I've still yet to see anything backing up the assertion that 4e gives more choice. It condenses the choices and makes them brilliantly easy to select from, but ultimately I can't create a wizard who has dabbled a bit in pottery-making because the skill system manages to drag 4e back at least 2 editions in terms of evolution.
Have you thought about just saying "my wizard dabbles in pottery making?" :smallconfused:

There is no reason for everything to have a game mechanic - particularly if you're talking about something orthogonol to playing a Fantasy Hero. In much the same way I can say my character has brown hair or a scar across his face without taking the feat "Brown Hair" or "Fetching Face Scar" I can just say that he whittles in his free time and plays a lute.

Leolo
2010-09-17, 11:22 AM
Or another game that places any kind of premium in pushing a foe back 5' (sorry... 'a square'). The whole thing is so far devolved from... I want to say 'reality', even though this is a fantasy game... that it destroys my suspension of disbelief and essentially becomes a big puzzle board-game. The constraints, limits and use of powers are just hammered into the framework of the game in such an illogical fashion.

Funny thing: In fact i like all those forced movement powers. Why? Because they make a fight more like fights that i know from fantasy novels. So exactly what destroys your suspension of disbelief does bring it back for me.

When i was reading war of a spider queen i really thought it would be great if D&D fights are like this. If someone can make a feint to let his opponent run into an empty space and a dangerous position. If a fighter could really block the strike before it reaches his allied wizard buddy. If it makes a difference if i use my strike of the crossed blades or another move. And of course if not a D&D fight would include: Rothgar makes 3 attacks. Well now the monster makes 3 attacks. Thats the time rothgar makes 3 attacks again. And now the monster...well you know it.

I simple can not describe the 3.5 fights i have been in as a novel. As a story that took me into it. What i can do is to assume that the things that are just happened are different then their rule mechanic. And then dive into the story.

It is much more easy for me to do this in 4e. My paladin does not only say that he defends his wizard friend. He actually does it, he blocks the strike that would hit him. My rogue does not only say that he makes a feint to let the opponent run down ne cliff behind him. He does it. My fighter does not only say that those attacks he and the monster have made against each other are intertwined. Because they are.

Without that i have to use splatbook X. Or have to describe that this is happened even it is not mechanical.

How can: "I push my opponent back" be something that breaks your ability to think about this as fantasy?

SmartAlec
2010-09-17, 11:30 AM
There is no reason for everything to have a game mechanic - particularly if you're talking about something orthogonol to playing a Fantasy Hero.

This too. By starting to consider things as mechanically irrelevant, the system has opened up your options by not forcing you to represent them with mechanics. A 4th Ed Darth Vader doesn't need to have things like Knowledge: Podracing; I think it's fair to say a 3rd Ed Darth Vader didn't need Knowledge: Podracing either, even though it's part of his backstory. All that does is suck up skill points, and put a player in the position of having to make mechanical sacrifices for roleplaying choices. By moving completely in the direction of one, 4th Ed has left the other up to you.

Zaydos
2010-09-17, 11:31 AM
For casters it is true, but of course fighters now have more resource management than before. It's a true streamlined point, nearly all classes now have some amount of it. And i think that overall it is now less than before, because nearly everyone learns some spells or equivalent things in 3.5 over his characters career.

But i think you should have tried some different aspects of resource management with your swordmage. For example reagents to make your spells stronger. Items with daily powers. Alchemistic items. Action points. Rituals and their costs.

Or simple encounters that does not allow your group to rest. Daily powers are not the only part of 4e resource management even if they are the most obvious.



There are some buffs that work longer, altough they are only a few. The best guy to gave you such buffs is maybe the bard who can grant effects that last until the end or the beginning of the next encounter (whenever this is) during a rest. Also some rituals can be described as buffs and work longer than just some minutes. But nevertheless it is true...long time buffs are very rare in 4E.

Action points are a per 2 encounter resource; the resource management is so simplistic it took me one session to learn it and 3 to no longer have to really think about it. You blow any/all per encounter resources. The other limited use resources tend not to be cost effective, and the best resource management is not to waste your gold. Now time management is something 4e does have, but just think of how important Action Economy is in 3.5.


No i do not. Not only because i do not know you, do not know if you even think that they are all the same and because i do not know your reasons if you do.

But i do make assumptions and use experience from previous discussions regarding this topic. And yes: the point that all powers are printed in a streamlined format has some influence.

You will find many people who claim that a fireball is now pretty much the same than a fighters strike. And the reason for this is not that the fireball has now swordform or the strike of the fighter is now very hot. So what is the reason? Obviously not that someone could half the damage of the fireball with good reflexes and it does not always hit with it's full strenght, because this would be true in 3.5, too.

Maybe that both does damage? Well...no, this was also true in previous editions. You can resist the fireball? Well...also nothing new.

So it is more or less the framework. It was the difference in 3.5, Spells does have a different framework than attacks that does not involve a spell. That's the point. The characters are still doing different things - but within the same framework. No one who would see the fireball and the sword strike would say they are similar. In fact not even if he only watches the mechanics and not the fluff. But if you look on your character sheet both share a framework that tells you some general informations.

Like: How often can i use this? What defense works against this? How can i improve this kind of powers? And what are the rules for those effects?

Those is what the information on a power card do.

Actually fireball is closer to a fighter's strike than ever before. They're both 1/day abilities that deal damage. They feel more similar because they both are "roll attack, roll damage", instead of fireball being guaranteed (relatively low in 3.5) damage, I'll give you; but the bigger thing is that Fireball has always been a limited daily resource and that change makes them feel a lot closer.

Really 4e uses a one-size fits all approach to resource management, and really people don't all want the same level of resource management and 3.5 has extremes in both direction. If you want a high level of resource management then 3.5 is good, if you want a low level of resource management you can do it in 3.5 (warblade, fighter). If you want a low level of resource management but still want options in combat I'd go ToB or 4e. 3.5 though can accommodate all the levels of resource management, 4e has 1 (maybe 2 with the essentials I don't know what is in them well).

Leolo
2010-09-17, 11:31 AM
Oh, well, if you're arguing against "all classes are the same", then surely you wouldn't mind quoting where I said that?


In the posting you have quoted i have been arguing against the: "If you have the same class, level, attributes, and powers in 4e, you will operate very, very similarly mechanically." Argument. And said that it is not really true, because of the options mentioned.

Where do you said this? Well...in the posting that i have quoted in the posting that you have quoted. Precise. ^^

Reverent-One
2010-09-17, 11:33 AM
4e essentially makes too many sacrifices from a simulationalist and common-sense point of view in order to construct an encounter-based tactical skirmish game with lots of strange and whacky mechanics that are... a bit odd. I struggle to immediately think of another game that allows mages to cast 10000 fireballs/whatever a day if they cast them once per fight, yet not more than one per fight. Or another game that places any kind of premium in pushing a foe back 5' (sorry... 'a square'). The whole thing is so far devolved from... I want to say 'reality', even though this is a fantasy game... that it destroys my suspension of disbelief and essentially becomes a big puzzle board-game. The constraints, limits and use of powers are just hammered into the framework of the game in such an illogical fashion.

Doesn't 3.5 have this with the ToB manuvers? Haven't read the book myself, but from what I gather they operate on a similar time scale.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-17, 11:34 AM
How can: "I push my opponent back" be something that breaks your ability to think about this as fantasy?
This is something that cannot be explained or reasoned with - it is a strict matter of preference.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of things I've heard people say either "breaks suspension of disbelief" or "destroys verisimilitude" in 4e:

- Healing Surges
- Encounter/Daily Powers
- Powers (generally)
- Magic-less Healing
- Magic-less Battlefield Manipulation

These sorts of things vary from person to person. Me? I am able to maintain my personal suspension of disbelief whether I'm a teenager piloting a psychic construct made of love (Bliss Stage) or a grizzled Ronin that can deflect lightning bolts with a quarterstaff (Mountain Witch). Obviously, this is not true for everyone.

EDIT: In regards to Resource Management, 4E does have at least 2 different tiers - At-Will/Encounter/Daily vs. Power Point. I would also argue that "swap classes" (like Wizard) also have to decide which powers to take on a given day in regard to Dailies and Utilities. With PHB3, you can take feats to turn any class into a Swap Class if you prefer that extra flexibility.

"Resource Management" is another odd preference. What kind of resource management are you lookng for? 4E gives everyone an easy-to-learn version of resource management, with options for more sophisiticated management (e.g. Surges, Surge-granting powers, Daily Item Uses) if you want it. In addition, you can take a class that has a fairly intensive resource management base (Psions) if you like that sort of thing.

Zaydos
2010-09-17, 11:37 AM
Doesn't 3.5 have this with the ToB manuvers? Haven't read the book myself, but from what I gather they operate on a similar time scale.

For the classes that specialize in them they can be regained in the middle of battle. Warblades can do so by making a normal attack and spending a swift action; Crusaders do it automatically; Swordsages can do so by spending a full round action. Those that just dabble do get them as simply per encounter abilities.

BlckDv
2010-09-17, 11:38 AM
4e essentially makes too many sacrifices from a simulationalist and common-sense point of view in order to construct an encounter-based tactical skirmish game with lots of strange and whacky mechanics that are... a bit odd. I struggle to immediately think of another game that allows mages to cast 10000 fireballs/whatever a day if they cast them once per fight, yet not more than one per fight. Or another game that places any kind of premium in pushing a foe back 5' (sorry... 'a square'). The whole thing is so far devolved from... I want to say 'reality', even though this is a fantasy game... that it destroys my suspension of disbelief and essentially becomes a big puzzle board-game. The constraints, limits and use of powers are just hammered into the framework of the game in such an illogical fashion.

For starters, under the ridiculous circumstances of having a fight that lasts exactly one round as soon as you recharge your Encounter Fireball, a 4e Wizard could cast 288 (actually a few less, I'm not adding up how many encounters worth of time the 1 round fights burn) a day, which is definitely a much larger number than 2 or 3, but is still orders of magnitude less than 10,000.

Secondly, he does not just get to cast one by fiat each fight, he gets to cast one if, and only if, he has taken a five minute rest to restore his energy reserves and restore his focus. This is, admittedly, quantitatively very separate from only restoring your powers after a restful night of sleep... but it is qualitatively the same idea. Some powers use up reserves that can be restored by resting.

Being able to regain some powers after a few minutes of rest, and others only after several hours does not seem any less "real" than having a wider menu of powers that all restore only after a longer rest. Different, yes, but no more "absurd" then recharging powers by fiat once a day unless you have already learned to accept that idea. Why doesn't a wizard have to go on quests to regather exotic materials, study the local power flow and attune himself with the energy after every spell cast? Just because. The writers who make the rules made a choice that creates a power recharge rate that seemed to fit the style of game they wanted.

As for pushing, ever since 1st Edition (and likely before), being able to force your foe to move 5' (sorry 1"... see how I cleverly put down 1st Edition's method of stating distance there?) D&D has had a value placed on it, requiring the use of special powers or making a special pushing attack that forgoes damage to achieve. In most games I have played, trying to separate a foe from his allies, force him into a corner, or get some foes out of melee with allies have been desirable moves well worth giving up some damage output to achieve, and many of the games have a mechanic like Bull Rush or even a bluff/feint based way to trick foes to move.

Feel free not to like 4e, I don't like GURPS and so I tend not to play GURPS, as far as I know no one is forcing you to play 4e, but at least try and get your arguments structured in a form which is more factually correct and less aggressively anti-4e when bringing them to a thread clearly started to talk positively about the new edition.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-17, 11:41 AM
In fairness, you could just say absolutely anything, but if one system supports it mechanically, and another doesn't, it's likely going to be more plausible in the system where you actually are better at it than someone who isn't.

However, in terms of skill systems, I prefer pathfinders over 3.5 or 4e. It's simpler than 3.5, and it's still quite easy to represent a dip in a skill. Especially if it's a class skill.

And using squares instead of distances is inherently a gamist move...the idea of using feet is clearly a realistic one, and while the effects may be similar, things like "you knock him back several feat" are just more immersive for roleplaying than "you push him back a square".


In the posting you have quoted i have been arguing against the: "If you have the same class, level, attributes, and powers in 4e, you will operate very, very similarly mechanically." Argument. And said that it is not really true, because of the options mentioned.

Where do you said this? Well...in the posting that i have quoted in the posting that you have quoted. Precise. ^^

And no, having a single bonus to one spell does not prevent you from being similar.

And I'm objecting to your repeated simplification of my and others arguments. Yes, it's easy to say "not all classes are the same". But nobody is actually arguing that.

Gametime
2010-09-17, 11:44 AM
I'm just struggling to conceive that anyone who can actually read would ever consider that putting powers in the same shape boxes makes them all the same, let alone that someone would ever try to point to this as 'the main problem'. It's akin to ...words fail me... <insert example citing ludicrously daft logic here>



Just because you're too smart to complain that the powers are too similar purely because of their presentation doesn't mean everyone is. There is a shocking amount of stupid on the Interblags. This forum is one of the most consistently mature and intelligent, occasional monk/fighter/wizard/morality flame war aside, but there are wretched hives elsewhere where the most preposterous ideas are treated with merit.

For proof, I direct you to Blizzard's WoW forums. Go read some of those threads for awhile, and the idea that people could honestly be put off by colored boxes will seem reasonable in comparison.

kyoryu
2010-09-17, 11:44 AM
Yes: Welcome to the C21, WoTC. Any decade now they'll get rid of levels and write a decent skill system, like the rest of the gaming industry did 10 years ago...

2 minute minor, stating personal preference as objective fact.


So certain wizards have minor bonuses to certain spells. This is not at all unusual. 3.5 wizards can arrange things like this as well. In addition, the spells known/prepared/schools specialized is a differentiator that doesn't translate to 4e.

This is what implements were supposed to do... it didn't work well. Essentials brings back specialization in schools, and it's one of the things that I hope translates over to the "regular" game.



4e: At level 1, you select one of 5 at-wills, one of 5 encounter, and one of 4 dailys. This is better than most classes, as 4 of each is standard.

3.5: At level 1, you know all cantrips, and select 3+int level 1 spells out of a total of 41 choices(this is core only. It expands ludicrously if non-core).

A 1st level, 4e wizard knows:
2+ at wills out of 5 available (human, half-elf gain an additional, though the half-elf's is in another class)
all cantrips
1 encounter out of 5 available
2 dailies out of 4 available (one of which goes in the spellbook)
1 ritual (and can buy/find more.) out of 9 available, 12 if you count PHB2 as "core" In 4e, rituals are most of the non-combat spells from previous editions (Tenser's Floating Disc, Magic Mouth, etc.)

That comes out to a total of 6 spells + cantrips out of a choice of 23 available - only counting PHB1. You can still argue that this is less choice than is offered a 3.5 wizard, but at least argue accurately.

Also, it's probably worth pointing out that while spellcasters do have fewer choices than in 3.x core, non-spellcasters get more choices. There's a little bit of tradeoff there. Again, feel free to argue whether that's good tradeoff or not, but at least acknowledge that you're picking the scenario that most benefits your argument. If we were to use a non-caster example, 4e would appear to be a much more diverse system offering more choices.

BTW, I'm not trying to convince you that 4e is good. Personal choice, and all. But 3.x being good, and you preferring 3.x, doesn't mean 4e is bad or that others are wrong for preferring it.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-17, 11:47 AM
In fairness, you could just say absolutely anything, but if one system supports it mechanically, and another doesn't, it's likely going to be more plausible in the system where you actually are better at it than someone who isn't.
Hardly.

I find the Profession system in 4e more plausible than the 3.X because the 3.X Profession system is so laughable. Yes, I'm aware that 4e doesn't have rules for how much money I make as a lawyer or a janitor - but then again, at least it isn't saying that I make an amount of money based on my skill check regardless of the actual profession it's in :smalltongue:

In fact, I would argue a system that has a mechanic for choosing hair color would be less "plausible" than one where I could just pick it. Not that I'd argue it particularly hard, mind you :smallamused:

Gametime
2010-09-17, 11:49 AM
And using squares instead of distances is inherently a gamist move...the idea of using feet is clearly a realistic one, and while the effects may be similar, things like "you knock him back several feat" are just more immersive for roleplaying than "you push him back a square".

Perhaps from the standpoint that it encourages a different sort of thinking, which is fair. Thinking in "squares" may encourage you to view the battlefield as part of a game, whereas thinking in actual units of distance may encourage you to view it as "real."

But since one square = five feet in 4e, there's no logical difference. It likely comes down to personal preference; my group often used a battle mat for battles in 3.5, too, and saying the distance in feet was (for me) basically just an extra step. I was just naturally dividing any distances by five so I could figure out the number of squares and more quickly relate the distance to the mat positioning. I was still thinking of it as a "game", even when the units were real.

Maybe the unit difference is more important for other people, but to me it seems incredibly minor.