PDA

View Full Version : [4e "Rant"] Was It Too Much Trouble...



Shatteredtower
2011-01-23, 02:59 PM
...to require at least one free hand for a climb check? The rules avoid mentioning it as a requirement.

...to have drowning or starvation ever pose a risk? Okay, so you might be able to drown if you're bloodied, out of healing surges, and attacked when you're unable to stay afloat, but even that unlikely scenario might not do you in. Even after you go unconscious, you've got two rounds to be saved, and that's not counting healing surges.

...to let monsters that work best in darkness have access to it? One dirt cheap sunrod lights a 20 square radius for 4 hours. If players want shadow they just stow the thing.

More later. Oh, yes...

tbarrie
2011-01-23, 03:14 PM
...to require at least one free hand for a climb check? The rules avoid mentioning it as a requirement.

And clearly, that needs to be explicitly spelled out. It's not like you can expect a DM to come to the table with prior knowledge about whether people use their hands to climb.

Redshirt Army
2011-01-23, 03:20 PM
Saying "The DM can fix it!" has always been a poor argument, but in this case, tbarrie has a point - some stuff's just obvious. (The rules don't say that a flaming sword can be used to light something on fire, but it's just silly to assume it can't, for example).

Mando Knight
2011-01-23, 04:30 PM
...to let monsters that work best in darkness have access to it? One dirt cheap sunrod lights a 20 square radius for 4 hours. If players want shadow they just stow the thing.
Black Dragon (the MM ones, not the Vault ones). Suddenly, the whole situation is FUBAR.

MeeposFire
2011-01-23, 04:37 PM
Yea and it was not like any item of continual light was not dirt cheap in 3.5 either.

AshDesert
2011-01-23, 04:42 PM
...to require at least one free hand for a climb check? The rules avoid mentioning it as a requirement.

Ambiguous rules promote creativity in players when they realize something like this. Like that time my Barbarian climbed a cliff with his teeth while fighting off Fiendish Dire Mountain Goats (albeit both at significant penalty, and losing most of my teeth).

Vknight
2011-01-23, 04:49 PM
Yeah there is nothing to complain about.
4e is more about great heros so they should be better then average. Also drowning rules should not be cheap to the player so do you want 1failed check & you drop like a rock.
You can get sunrods for 6gp both in 3e & 4e.

That said I don't think its that bad.

Telasi
2011-01-23, 04:59 PM
Yeah there is nothing to complain about.
4e is more about great heros so they should be better then average. Also drowning rules should not be cheap to the player so do you want 1failed check & you drop like a rock.
You can get sunrods for 6gp both in 3e & 4e.

That said I don't think its that bad.

Speaking as a DM, the drowning rules are pretty ridiculous. It very well could take 5+ minutes to drown, even if all the checks were failed. That's a bit much.

Vknight
2011-01-23, 05:01 PM
Well true.

So I agree they could use modifications but not something that is to drastic.
I was just pointing out the player should not have this complete fear of water & swimming.

Lateral
2011-01-23, 05:02 PM
...to require at least one free hand for a climb check? The rules avoid mentioning it as a requirement.
Avoid mentioning it? Much more likely that they didn't bother to put it in, seeing how OBVIOUS IT SHOULD BE that you can't climb a wall with no hands.


...to have drowning or starvation ever pose a risk? Okay, so you might be able to drown if you're bloodied, out of healing surges, and attacked when you're unable to stay afloat, but even that unlikely scenario might not do you in. Even after you go unconscious, you've got two rounds to be saved, and that's not counting healing surges.
They know how to swim, and frankly, staying afloat's not really that hard for normal people, much less trained adventurers.


...to let monsters that work best in darkness have access to it? One dirt cheap sunrod lights a 20 square radius for 4 hours. If players want shadow they just stow the thing.
Light sources have always been dirt-cheap in pretty much every edition of D&D. The monsters who need darkness to function tend to have powers that create magical darkness.

Telasi
2011-01-23, 05:03 PM
Well true.

So I agree they could use modifications but not something that is to drastic.
I was just pointing out the player should not have this complete fear of water & swimming.

Not saying they should. Well, they should fear deep water in full plate, but that's just common sense.


They know how to swim, and frankly, staying afloat's not really that hard for normal people, much less trained adventurers.


The rules for drowning only kick in if you can't, for some reason, get to air. This mostly comes up with plate-wearing Cha characters like paladins, who don't have the strength to swim in their armor. See my above 5+ minute potential time.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-23, 05:04 PM
Fun fact: in the previews, the 4E designers promised us that lava would be a really lethal hazard, and that falling into it would kill you, no save, regardless of level.

In printed adventure, stepping into lava deals 3d6 fire damage plus ongoing 10.

Vknight
2011-01-23, 05:15 PM
Oh yeah Telasi hi good to see you again. Also yeah deep water, scale and plate armor should be especially afraid but not the others.

Well don't forget all the endurance check you must make to get near it DC:26 I believe failure means lose 1healing surge & -1 or 2 on furthere endurance checks. If you got no more surges left at any point your character starts to lose hp for any actions. So you should be bloodied or low on surges by the time you make it there.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-23, 05:18 PM
Well don't forget all the endurance check you must make to get near it DC:26

Also don't forget that you can hold your breath for three minutes before requiring any checks, and that scale armor has zero check penalties.

nightwyrm
2011-01-23, 05:19 PM
...to require at least one free hand for a climb check? The rules avoid mentioning it as a requirement.


What, and prevent tentacled horrors or murderous blobs from climbing up cliffs after your tasty PCs because they got no "free hands"?

Lateral
2011-01-23, 05:19 PM
The rules for drowning only kick in if you can't, for some reason, get to air.

Really? *checks*

Oh, duh, of course it does. Boy, is my face red. :smallredface:

Telasi
2011-01-23, 05:41 PM
Oh yeah Telasi hi good to see you again. Also yeah deep water, scale and plate armor should be especially afraid but not the others.

Well don't forget all the endurance check you must make to get near it DC:26 I believe failure means lose 1healing surge & -1 or 2 on furthere endurance checks. If you got no more surges left at any point your character starts to lose hp for any actions. So you should be bloodied or low on surges by the time you make it there.

The thing there is that you have generally at least 5 surges, and that on squishy characters. I routinely see paladins with 12-14 surges, and those are the characters most likely to be unable to swim due to armor check penalties. So, yes, you do have to make checks (my estimate above assumed total failure), but it still takes time to drown even if you fail.

Basically, drowning is a credible threat to Chaladins and not much else in most cases. Even then, it's usually not hard for a party to help them.

sonofzeal
2011-01-23, 05:42 PM
Saying "The DM can fix it!" has always been a poor argument, but in this case, tbarrie has a point - some stuff's just obvious. (The rules don't say that a flaming sword can be used to light something on fire, but it's just silly to assume it can't, for example).
Eh, I've seen games where that is explicitly not the case. "Magic Fire" and "Elemental Fire" are treated as different; a flaming sword deals Magic Fire, and a torch deals Elemental Fire. Magic Fire will hurt you, but if you want start a campfire then all the Fireballs and Flaming Swords in the world won't help you. Only the most powerful mages can create Elemental Fire; it basically involves ripping off pieces of the Plane of Fire and hucking them at people, not a task to be taken lightly.

Katana_Geldar
2011-01-23, 06:20 PM
Why not? My interpretation of a natural 1 with a fire spell is "burn something you didn't intend to".

Vknight
2011-01-23, 06:37 PM
Also don't forget that you can hold your breath for three minutes before requiring any checks, and that scale armor has zero check penalties.

Correct but any DM can impliment these simple rules

Cloth, Leather, Hide; No negatives
Chain; The extra weight & hot metal -1, but in more dangerous conditions it increases by 2 to a -3penalty
Scale; Similar but the end result is -3as well
Plate; Starts at -2 then we take the -4 from the continued ecertions for a total -6
Light Sheild; -1 in the continued conditions
Heavy Sheild; -2 in the conditions

These don't have to be used you can just as easily give boosts to the endurance checks because of armor & don't froget time 1hour per save.
These extra penalties represent the armors heating which makes the character slowly roast.

I will not deny that high healing surge characters have better chances but we forget one thing. 'Encounters'
These simple beasts will force the party to spend more well the creatures force them deeper into there territory.

These are some suggestions but it is every individuals choice how to go about these things. I think the extreme conditions show have additional penalties.

gourdcaptain
2011-01-23, 06:37 PM
Basically, drowning is a credible threat to Chaladins and not much else in most cases. Even then, it's usually not hard for a party to help them.

As the Chaladin player being mentioned, OUCH. -4 armor check and a 10 Strength do NOT go well together. It (almost, thankfully the rest of the party helped) ended in my death. As in, I fall in deep water, there was no way I could get out without rolling a LOT of natural 20's in a row at lower levels. Charisma Paladins: You shrug off enemies like they were made of paper, but fear only two things - water and ladders.

Katana_Geldar
2011-01-23, 06:39 PM
I know a dungeon that a Chaladin would hate....

The Glyphstone
2011-01-23, 06:40 PM
Great Modthulhu: This thread appears to have no purpose beyond expressing frustration regarding 4E rules. That is fine, but it will be locked should the direction of the conversation turn towards any sort of edition war or similar topic. Please keep this in mind.

Vknight
2011-01-23, 06:45 PM
I know a dungeon that a Chaladin would hate....

A dungeon full of greased ladders with 5ft-25ft deep pools of water at the bottom.


Great Modthulhu: This thread appears to have no purpose beyond expressing frustration regarding 4E rules. That is fine, but it will be locked should the direction of the conversation turn towards any sort of edition war or similar topic. Please keep this in mind.

Understood we are discussing problems & hopefully others will post there homebrew solutions.

Katana_Geldar
2011-01-23, 06:49 PM
A dungeon full of greased ladders with 5ft-25ft deep pools of water at the bottom.

I am more thinking of a more specific dungeon, which teleports you to the middle of a river four squares from a waterfall. The unlucky person who happened to go in there was the dragonborn pally, fortunately she was Str rather than Cha.

Vknight
2011-01-23, 06:59 PM
Oh well I was thinking the party enters the dungeon.

Only way down is a latter that is greased half way down. Paladin falls 20-40feet takes damage then notices the ladder is 10 feet up & so is the ledge. To hear him call out the rest of the party have to make DC;20perception checks even before he goes underwater, DC;20+2for every 5ft of water.
This repeats twice.
Also the water each time is 80ft deep so when he hits he goes about 30-50ft down.

You can also switch water for acid or magma if you want to kill them.
3d6+10dmage per turn for 4-6turns. Thats 52-168 damage.

You can also try greased stairs that the Paladin falls down into a Pit Trap that has a slope grease leading to a pool 30ft deep with an Otyugh in it.

Mando Knight
2011-01-23, 07:03 PM
As the Chaladin player being mentioned, OUCH. -4 armor check and a 10 Strength do NOT go well together.

There is an action to unbuckle your shield, you know.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-23, 07:04 PM
Correct but any DM can impliment these simple rules

First, I call Oberoni on this one.

Second, I don't think your penalties are nearly big enough. Have you ever tried swimming in plate armor? Well, okay, I haven't either. But I've tried running in chainmail, and that's quite a bit more fatiguing than it sounds. I would suggest that a character needs olympic-level strength to even try swimming in plate, anything less and it's sink, no save.

I don't think it's unfair to make swimming in plate highly lethal considering how easy it is to avoid. Either don't wear heavy armor on a boat, or have some magical means of floating or water breathing.

Katana_Geldar
2011-01-23, 07:06 PM
Or, be prepared to rescue the paladin. This is what saved the paladin in my game, the wizard got teleported, teleported himself back to the bank and threw a rope to the paladin to get her out.

Vknight
2011-01-23, 07:10 PM
Ok you could have increased difficulty to saves & what not. Endurance checks when moving long distance in armor. Then you add the penalty they would get +3 to for Chain its -4 for endurance long distances with an additional +1 for swimming so -5.

I still think it should not be instantly fatal. Swimming with lead weights is difficult but not impossible. Also these guys are highly skilled & trained proffesional so they probably have the skill to do most of this.

But your choice how & what penalties to impliment in whatever the circumstances may be.

Also be prepared but if they are not then you can mess with them after all what reason do they have to go down the ladder?

tcrudisi
2011-01-23, 07:13 PM
Second, I don't think your penalties are nearly big enough. Have you ever tried swimming in plate armor? Well, okay, I haven't either. But I've tried running in chainmail, and that's quite a bit more fatiguing than it sounds. I would suggest that a character needs olympic-level strength to even try swimming in plate, anything less and it's sink, no save.

I don't think it's unfair to make swimming in plate highly lethal considering how easy it is to avoid. Either don't wear heavy armor on a boat, or have some magical means of floating or water breathing.

I don't think hit points are nearly small enough. Have you ever tried getting stabbed with a sword? Well, okay, I haven't either. But I've gotten cut while cutting potatoes for 1 point of damage, and that friggin' hurt. I would suggest that any cut with a sword automatically cripples or kills a character.

Yeah, I was a bit snarky, and for that I apologize. I'm just bringing up a point that the entire game is unrealistic. It's about heroic characters. Swimming in plate armor is the least of D&D's problems (and I mean all editions).

Vknight
2011-01-23, 07:33 PM
Exactly which is why my penalties are not to extreme it all depends if the DM wants more realism its every indivduals choice.

Also I almost cut my thumb off how much damage would that be?

Callista
2011-01-23, 07:37 PM
Combat's just not very dangerous in 4th edition... when I first took a proper look at the books, I ran some mock fights to figure out how combat worked; when I looked at the odds, it seemed more like the dice determined only how fast you won; there really wasn't much element of danger. For a "level appropriate" fight, at least within the first ten levels, the odds of losing were pretty close to zero--you had to be downright stupid and the dice had to be practically sentient and malevolent for anybody to get killed (not that they aren't sometimes, of course).

Maybe it's a matter of taste (I've always preferred low-level to high-level combat); but I much prefer there to be some significant chance that you will have to grab your unconscious buddies and get the heck out of there.

And yeah, the DM can solve that. The DM can solve lots of stuff. But past a certain point, you might as well be making your own homebrew system...

I guess maybe the combat system is nicer for players who don't like risky situations...

MeeposFire
2011-01-23, 07:42 PM
I can vouch that low level combats can be very deadly. For instance the first battle in a darksun game was absolutely vicious. They had encounter powers that dealt 4d6+mods damage and then a bloodied power that recharges an attack that deals 3d6+mods. That hurts at 1st level. Knocking unconscious is not hard though I admit there are lots of ways of getting back in the fight (which is a good thing as sitting around waiting for the fight to end is a boring process).

Arbitrarity
2011-01-23, 07:44 PM
This is why, as a DM, I started running "killer" fights. Magical darkness, snipers with cover, constant dazing, mind control by level 9, abusing the fact that monster Sneak Attack doesn't specify 1/round like player sneak attack does (Dagger Dance: 4d4+8d6+12)

My party shrugged it off. It was rather alarming.

After that, Healic errata come through, and suddenly the Pacifist Cleric become much less absurd.

Callista
2011-01-23, 07:46 PM
Knocking a PC unconscious is pretty easy at low levels with a lucky roll on a once-per-encounter power. But actually killing them or defeating the party is extremely difficult. There will almost always be somebody with an encounter or daily power that can solve the problem without much fuss. And of course with the HP inflation, first level PCs in 4th are much more powerful; so 4d6 isn't actually that much damage anymore.

I'm not a killer DM; in fact, this is from my perspective as a player--I want to be in fights that are actually dangerous.

Katana_Geldar
2011-01-23, 08:03 PM
I've had some very near to the wire fights in 4E, but when players play right and well they pull through mostly because of two reasons:

1) I rolled badly, this was one player's saving grace

2) When I start doing lots of damage, the players go "*#@$! This is real!" and turn into Sun Tzu. And I have to play hard to keep up with them.

Vknight
2011-01-23, 08:06 PM
I agree but it all comes down to how the encounter is handeled by the DM.

I have a vicious one with 16minions for a level 1party.
Half are on one side of the portcullis well they try & get to the others which are being attacked by the minions which have Sneak Attack (Additional 3damage)

Also an encounter with pit traps grease difficult terrain & enemies that slide the party around.

Level appropriate & excedignly dangerous.

I have a pyramid style dungeon that mixs the two themes.

Mando Knight
2011-01-23, 08:43 PM
For a "level appropriate" fight, at least within the first ten levels, the odds of losing were pretty close to zero--you had to be downright stupid and the dice had to be practically sentient and malevolent for anybody to get killed (not that they aren't sometimes, of course).

The term "Level appropriate" means, in 4e, that the PCs should be able to fairly consistently beat through 3, possibly even 4 or 5 of these encounters without an extended rest. If you want to threaten the PCs, use a Hard fight. If you want a Boss-level encounter, use a Hard fight of the next level or so higher, with a Soldier, Elite, or not-solo Solo for the boss.

Vknight
2011-01-23, 09:07 PM
As Mando Knight said. If it must be level appropriate then you can use terrain to tear the enemy apart.

dariathalon
2011-01-23, 09:40 PM
...to require at least one free hand for a climb check? The rules avoid mentioning it as a requirement.

The 4e rules do intentionally leave a lot more to the DM's whim, it had very little to do with being "too much trouble." I suspect this is partly to cater to the early edition revivalists who prefer this sort of game play. Honestly, in some ways doing this makes a lot of sense.

Imagine if they had put in the requirement that in order to climb you must have at least one hand free. If that's the case, you'll just as quickly get some bozo out there claiming that therefore in D&D squirrels can't climb since they have no hands. The DM would then have to either agree with the ridiculous assertion or houserule it anyway.

Then in the next errata WotC puts out they change the wording from arm to limb. Bozo players out there come back to say that it doesn't say arm anymore, so climbing with just a leg is pefectly reasonable. DM again has to fiat the situation.

It really comes down to a question of, do you want the rules to try to close every little loophole possible or not?

If you say yes, you must accept a few things. First, the rules will be insanely long and complicated. Second, there will still be loopholes. Reality is much too complicated for any rulebook to possibly simulate.

If you say no, you must then accept that a lot will come down to "common" sense and failing that DM rulings. This is not a perfect situation either, really.

Every system has to strike a balance between these two. Both 3.5 and 4e have actually taken a rather middle ground in their approach.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-23, 09:53 PM
dariathalon hits the nail on the head.

Let Gm's use their common sense instead of having to rely on a piece of paper telling them something that should be common sense.

More important than not having common sense things mentioned are things that are written wrong or a mistake in the book.

Callista
2011-01-23, 09:54 PM
Haven't they done that, though? The "trying to close every loophole" thing? Just about everything you can do in combat amounts to changing your to-hit, your damage, or maybe applying one of a standard set of conditions to you or your enemy... it's very, very homogeneous. They've tried to increase balance by basically removing everything that could possibly be unbalanced--at the cost of making your options very standardized and very similar.

It's kind of like checkers versus chess. In checkers, every checker moves with exactly the same rules and does pretty much the exact same things. In chess, every piece has different options, and there are even odd and unique rules like castling, trading in pawns, or moving out two spaces with a pawn on its first move. That makes chess a much more complex game with a lot more options, a lot more complicated strategy.

nightwyrm
2011-01-23, 10:04 PM
It's kind of like checkers versus chess. In checkers, every checker moves with exactly the same rules and does pretty much the exact same things. In chess, every piece has different options, and there are even odd and unique rules like castling, trading in pawns, or moving out two spaces with a pawn on its first move. That makes chess a much more complex game with a lot more options, a lot more complicated strategy.

Less rules doesn't necessarily make a simpler game. Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28game%29) has very simple rules. The pieces can't even move. But it's more complex than chess.

Callista
2011-01-23, 10:07 PM
Yeah, but how many games with simple rules are like Go, and how many are like Tic-Tac-Toe or Candy Land instead?

RebelRogue
2011-01-23, 10:09 PM
Callista: Level appropriate is supposed to be easy. Compare to pitting a 3.5 party against a CR equal to their level. Usually, that's going to be easy too (usually, 'cause we all know a few examples of borked CRs, but you get the picture). It's more about sapping the party of resources than putting them in actual danger (applies for both editions too).

Also, just because powers are standardized doesn't mean there's no variety in what they actually do. To use your analogy checkers is a game where everyone plays the same class, while chess is a well-balanced party (actually, that applies to any edition).

Katana_Geldar
2011-01-23, 10:11 PM
It really comes down to a question of, do you want the rules to try to close every little loophole possible or not?


This reminds me of something that Gary said in an interview...


To cut to the chase here, for I haven't the time to spare for more point-by-point reply to so long a missive, in my considered opinion detailed "realistic" combat rules are a detriment to the RPG, not a benefit. There is already undue stress placed upon combat as the central theme of the game form, while it is in fact only one of several key elements. The designer would better serve the audience by stressing the other elements than would be [f]ine by spending yet more content space on detailing fighting.
...
When a search for realistic combat mechanics begins, the challenge of devising a system that meets the "realism" required (that measure being totally subjective) that does not extend the time and effort necessary to resolve the matter becomes highly problematic.

Having rules that require players' characters to do something that the player does not wish seems to me to be the antithesis of role-playing--aside from the compulsions of the occasional casting of magic spells that force such compliance and where saving throws are allowed.

None the less, individual taste can not be disputed. Good luck in your quest for the perfect combat resolution system. If you devise something that meets that measure broadly, it will likely revolutionize the whole of the approach to RPGs. However, any rules governing how a character must specifically act in key situations move the game system away from role-playing.

I like to call this "Gary's rule", simplicity trumps realism when realism is in doubt.

Callista
2011-01-23, 10:15 PM
In 4th edition the classes are so similar they might as well be the same--I really don't like the lack of variety.

If it makes any difference, the "solo" monster the DM threw against our party was easily defeated too with no risks on our part... the only difference seemed to be that he had more HP and higher defenses, which meant combat was simply longer, not any more challenging or dangerous.

Katana_Geldar
2011-01-23, 10:21 PM
I disagree, and honestly wonder what sort of group you play with if you say the classes are all the same. A good controlling wizard makes a DMs life HELL when they pin down the minions.

But how did he play the monster? I've found that I have the most fun as a DM if I play the monsters as if they were my characters and I was doing my best. Actually try to beat them, seize advantages and take advantage of mistakes. And in the back of my mind, there's my backup plan if it goes too well and I need to give the PCs a fighting chance.

Callista
2011-01-23, 10:22 PM
Didn't really matter how he played the monster... three of us were marking it constantly, so it was either weakened or pinballing around the room trying to kill whoever last insulted its mother.

Katana_Geldar
2011-01-23, 10:24 PM
Okay, particulars. What was it, what level was it and what level are you?

nightwyrm
2011-01-23, 10:28 PM
Didn't really matter how he played the monster... three of us were marking it constantly, so it was either weakened or pinballing around the room trying to kill whoever last insulted its mother.

It sounds like your party had at least three guys who had the same job so that might have been the problem.

MeeposFire
2011-01-23, 10:29 PM
I disagree, and honestly wonder what sort of group you play with if you say the classes are all the same. A good controlling wizard makes a DMs life HELL when they pin down the minions.

But how did he play the monster? I've found that I have the most fun as a DM if I play the monsters as if they were my characters and I was doing my best. Actually try to beat them, seize advantages and take advantage of mistakes. And in the back of my mind, there's my backup plan if it goes too well and I need to give the PCs a fighting chance.

It was probably a MM1 solo monster. There have been lots of changes to monsters since then especially solos.

1) They deal more damage so they are more damage

2) Have ways to prevent or ignore status effects making them harder to shut down

3) Less hit points to avoid making the fights too long

4) Advocate more strongly that even solos, despite the name, should not be alone in general. Even solos should have some help.

All of these make solo monsters better in MM3 and the Dark Sun monsters like the Dark Sun dragon that thing is a terror so I heard.

Mando Knight
2011-01-23, 10:32 PM
In 4th edition the classes are so similar they might as well be the same--I really don't like the lack of variety.
Play a Paladin. Then play a Swordmage. Then try to claim they could be the same. If you can, then I can probably show you how you're not playing one or the other to its fullest ability.

Are there similarities in each class? Yes, even beyond the structure. However, a Psion is completely different from a Wizard, and a good Paladin won't play exactly like a good Fighter, even though they have the same combat role.

Katana_Geldar
2011-01-23, 10:34 PM
Has anyone seen the Moilian zombie? I can't wait to run that monster as it's just so good...

Vknight
2011-01-23, 10:45 PM
Well it depends on the Solo but that shouldn't have been happening.
Solos have save bonuses extra actions. But should have more freedom of movement.

There have been several suggestion I've read to improve them so here are some your DM can implement.
-Split the boss into 3stages, each one with 1/3 the original creatures health, or put a skill challenge in the fight between the first & second half of the battle or even during the actual battle.
-Next let the boss save for conditions at the begining of its turn.
-When the boss is bloodied give it a +1 to 2defenses or increase to damage.
-With the split into 3stages you could actually make 3different creatures.
Example: The party has gotten an Ogre Mercenary angry he comes after them. In the begining he moves around the battlefield beating them up but staying mobile combing ranged & melle. Stage2 he's more concerend so starts pulling out all the stops slaming on the party knocking members prone & really throwing his weight around. Stage3 he is worried so he has started to run Skill Challenge to keep up with him well at the same time fightning this form it ends when he runs out of Hp or the skill challenge ends.

MeeposFire
2011-01-23, 10:45 PM
Play a Paladin. Then play a Swordmage. Then try to claim they could be the same. If you can, then I can probably show you how you're not playing one or the other to its fullest ability.

Are there similarities in each class? Yes, even beyond the structure. However, a Psion is completely different from a Wizard, and a good Paladin won't play exactly like a good Fighter, even though they have the same combat role.

Even better play a 3.5 fighter and a barbarian. Using various feats you can copy the barbarian for the most part except at will pounce. So are they the same?

Unlike 3e 4e classes look the same on paper but are very different in practice. A fighter and a paladin are both 4e defenders but they play completely differently in practice.

randomhero00
2011-01-23, 10:51 PM
Speaking as a DM, the drowning rules are pretty ridiculous. It very well could take 5+ minutes to drown, even if all the checks were failed. That's a bit much.

Not really. That's actually realistic. It takes 5+ minutes for brain death without oxygen. And we're talking about heroes here.

sonofzeal
2011-01-23, 10:54 PM
Not really. That's actually realistic. It takes 5+ minutes for brain death without oxygen. And we're talking about heroes here.
Latest research shows that brain death may not occur for hours. It's just that after 5 minutes or so, any serious attempt to revive the person also happens to cause serious brain damage and possibly death. The problem lies in our revival methods, and that's theoretically manageable.

Callista
2011-01-23, 10:55 PM
Okay, particulars. What was it, what level was it and what level are you?Probably a standard stone golem from the monster manual; I'm not too sure--it's not like I was hacking into the DM's notes or anything. We're level 4, but there are seven of us in the group.

MeeposFire
2011-01-23, 11:02 PM
Probably a standard stone golem from the monster manual; I'm not too sure--it's not like I was hacking into the DM's notes or anything. We're level 4, but there are seven of us in the group.

Ouch seven player characters. That is slow going. Sounds like a monster manual one creature which has all the listed problems and fixes above.

I do not blame you for your reaction as seven players and just one solo MM1 monster can make for a boring encounter.

rayne_dragon
2011-01-23, 11:04 PM
Even better play a 3.5 fighter and a barbarian. Using various feats you can copy the barbarian for the most part except at will pounce. So are they the same?

Unlike 3e 4e classes look the same on paper but are very different in practice. A fighter and a paladin are both 4e defenders but they play completely differently in practice.

I think 4e classes are kind of interesting in that sometimes you can get similar, or even very different classes, to perform the same function. I feel reasonably confident I could manage to make a wizard that can function as a defender. On the other hand, regardless of how much I try, the classes are all slightly different and have things that make them distinct from each other. No matter what the wizard has the spellbook feature that sets them apart from every other class.

Personally I find that a lot of the variation in 4e is contained within the class (thus certain classes may feel the same to someone because of that individual's play style), while 3.x characters gain their variety from multiclassing and PrCs. They're really just different ways of doing things.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-23, 11:11 PM
Wow. Busy day.

First, climbing. It was as simple as saying, "Creatures normally need all limbs free to climb and some ability to establish a grip." If you want climbing horses in your game, cool. If conditions would let you scale a pair of walls by hopping back and forth, using just feet, that's fine too. If you want to let people climb with a heavy shield on each arm and a greataxe wielded by teeth, have fun, but it still would be nice to see acknowledgement for that not being the norm. I don't even mind the limitless nature and speed of a climbing kit.

Drowning rules are pretty well pointless when you're never going to spend three minutes underwater. I don't mind how easy it is to swim in plate, but a wizard with 8 Con and no Endurance training has no business impersonating Beowulf!

4th has damped down on darkness making creatures. That's fine, but the sunrod was a bad idea in 3rd and 4th. Why let 2 gp trivialize the light spell?

New one. Was it too hard to keep a penalty on blind fired area attacks?

Vknight
2011-01-23, 11:28 PM
Yeah that Stone Golem was not ment for your party.

I think though I may have something your DM would enjoy.
Grab a standerd monster the party fights with some allies after some time he runs off comes back as an Elite during the same day with 2other elites, after this they will be tired which is when he finally comes back once more as a Solo 1level lower.

So a Halfling Prowler comes in as a Level6 Lurker that leads group of other assorted badies. He retrears DM doubles his Hp increase 2defenses by 1 all the other bonuses. This can be done over 1day as some bandits regrouping & trying again. The leader each time is coming back patching up & grabbing better gear because as a Bandit you don't want to be really noticable such as carrying around a glowing lance.

MeeposFire
2011-01-23, 11:34 PM
Wow. Busy day.

First, climbing. It was as simple as saying, "Creatures normally need all limbs free to climb and some ability to establish a grip." If you want climbing horses in your game, cool. If conditions would let you scale a pair of walls by hopping back and forth, using just feet, that's fine too. If you want to let people climb with a heavy shield on each arm and a greataxe wielded by teeth, have fun, but it still would be nice to see acknowledgement for that not being the norm. I don't even mind the limitless nature and speed of a climbing kit.

Drowning rules are pretty well pointless when you're never going to spend three minutes underwater. I don't mind how easy it is to swim in plate, but a wizard with 8 Con and no Endurance training has no business impersonating Beowulf!

4th has damped down on darkness making creatures. That's fine, but the sunrod was a bad idea in 3rd and 4th. Why let 2 gp trivialize the light spell?

New one. Was it too hard to keep a penalty on blind fired area attacks?

I do not know what you are talking about. A blind wizard casting fireball in 4e still has to pick a square and if the target is not in the area effect you miss. This is the same as all previous versions of D&D where you could cast fireball blind and if the target was in the blast area they got hurt just as bad. Really you are sounding uninformed.

Katana_Geldar
2011-01-23, 11:36 PM
*ding ding ding ding*

Hear that alarm? That means the DM has to do more than the rules require as you are a larger than average group. It's not really the monster, but the DM's fault. I run a large group, can run up to about 10 characters and you really ened to up the monsters or it turns into a milk run, like you saw.

Vknight
2011-01-23, 11:53 PM
So for your party at your level instead of 1Solo it should have actually been2 or 1Solo & 2Elites

Ragitsu
2011-01-24, 12:09 AM
{Scrubbed}

kyoryu
2011-01-24, 12:13 AM
Personally I find that a lot of the variation in 4e is contained within the class (thus certain classes may feel the same to someone because of that individual's play style), while 3.x characters gain their variety from multiclassing and PrCs. They're really just different ways of doing things.

I completely agree. You can easily make two Fighters, or two Wizards that play totally different, with different abilities from each other.

I would like to see a Wizard that could take on a defender role - I don't know how you'd get the survivability, marking, or stickiness.


Ouch seven player characters. That is slow going. Sounds like a monster manual one creature which has all the listed problems and fixes above.

I do not blame you for your reaction as seven players and just one solo MM1 monster can make for a boring encounter.

Yeah. Running a 4e encounter with one enemy is not a good way to make the game fun, unlike 3.x, where it was much more viable.


{Scrubbed}

Yeah, clearly there is *no* way to build an un-fun encounter in 3.5/3.P.

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 12:18 AM
I completely agree. You can easily make two Fighters, or two Wizards that play totally different, with different abilities from each other.

I would like to see a Wizard that could take on a defender role - I don't know how you'd get the survivability, marking, or stickiness.



Yeah. Running a 4e encounter with one enemy is not a good way to make the game fun, unlike 3.x, where it was much more viable.

I did not find solo fights in 3.5 o be that exciting either and large groups of enemies were a pain in 3.5.

I have seen some defender like wizard builds and even more fighter paragon multiclass wizards do those count?

Vknight
2011-01-24, 12:22 AM
Not really I would think.

There is taking a Hybrid Bard/Wizard.
Wades into melee with High Charisma & Intelligence. Decent Con nothing else matters. So Gnomes & other guys like them are your best bet.
He need Bardic armor proficiency.
The Illusion spells to slow & keep guys near him. With the bard power which lets you mark them.

Someone should put that togehter to see how it would play.

Katana_Geldar
2011-01-24, 12:28 AM
Swordmage/Wizard could work too.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-24, 12:30 AM
I do not know what you are talking about. A blind wizard casting fireball in 4e still has to pick a square and if the target is not in the area effect you miss. This is the same as all previous versions of D&D where you could cast fireball blind and if the target was in the blast area they got hurt just as bad. Really you are sounding uninformed.

Missing is not so easy as you seem to think. All it takes is someone with high Perception (and sometimes not even that) and the abilty to give directions.

kyoryu
2011-01-24, 12:59 AM
Swordmage/Wizard could work too.

Well, yeah, a hybrid Defender can probably built to work as a Defender. That makes sense.


I did not find solo fights in 3.5 o be that exciting either and large groups of enemies were a pain in 3.5.

I have seen some defender like wizard builds and even more fighter paragon multiclass wizards do those count?

Solo fights are worse in 4e, and large groups are much easier (especially if some of the enemies are minions - which are designed specifically to reduce the paperwork overhead for large amounts of them).

gourdcaptain
2011-01-24, 01:27 AM
There is an action to unbuckle your shield, you know.

Yeah, and drop your magic shield to a watery grave. I know, probably a good idea, but it kinda makes me hesitate. Still not that good with just plate.

EDIT: To those of you saying 4e combat isn't deadly, two things. 1: MM3 and the Dark Sun Creature Catalog adds a LOT of evil, evil monsters. 2: My DM on fridays still manages to make every fight nigh-lethal and suck massive amounts of resources, so it can work with certain DMs.

WitchSlayer
2011-01-24, 01:46 AM
Wow. Busy day.

First, climbing. It was as simple as saying, "Creatures normally need all limbs free to climb and some ability to establish a grip." If you want climbing horses in your game, cool. If conditions would let you scale a pair of walls by hopping back and forth, using just feet, that's fine too. If you want to let people climb with a heavy shield on each arm and a greataxe wielded by teeth, have fun, but it still would be nice to see acknowledgement for that not being the norm. I don't even mind the limitless nature and speed of a climbing kit.

Drowning rules are pretty well pointless when you're never going to spend three minutes underwater. I don't mind how easy it is to swim in plate, but a wizard with 8 Con and no Endurance training has no business impersonating Beowulf!

4th has damped down on darkness making creatures. That's fine, but the sunrod was a bad idea in 3rd and 4th. Why let 2 gp trivialize the light spell?

New one. Was it too hard to keep a penalty on blind fired area attacks?

Light spell is free in 4e anyway! My party never bothered carrying sunrods because of my light spell cantrip.

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 02:57 AM
Missing is not so easy as you seem to think. All it takes is someone with high Perception (and sometimes not even that) and the abilty to give directions.

And this is different from previous editions how? If I am casting a fireball in 3.5 (or1e or 2e) and a friend tells me to cast it "over to my left" or whatever I did not get penalized. I did not deal less damage and my save DC or the targets saves were not affected. Saying that 4e is having a problem because it does things just like previous editions did is just silly, or are you saying that 3.5 did that wrong too?

Kurald Galain
2011-01-24, 03:04 AM
Yeah, I was a bit snarky, and for that I apologize. I'm just bringing up a point that the entire game is unrealistic. It's about heroic characters. Swimming in plate armor is the least of D&D's problems (and I mean all editions).
Yes. Except that I wasn't talking about realism, but about challenge.

The thing about 4E (and I'm not saying this in comparison to any other game, just 4E on its own) is that many things that you could think of to challenge the party, by the rules don't affect the party much, or not at all. The rules pretty much ensure that every character is be at peak efficiency all the time. Now this is perfectly fine for a particular style of gaming, but not for certain others.

For example, I ran a memorable campaign once where it was a harsh winter and a band of orcs had burned most of the food in store, so getting to eat was a serious concern throughout the campaign. This setting cannot work in 4E, because by RAW starvation penalties don't set in until three weeks (and are pretty minor even then), and because infinite food is a low-level item, and because a few races don't eat in the first place.

Again, I'm not saying this in comparison to any other game. I'm well aware that any game with a Create Food spell also negates this particular kind of campaign.

Other examples include that a fight underwater really doesn't play any differently than a fight on land, or that any time you describe a scene with dusk or darkness somebody will crack a sunrod immediately to negate that.



For a "level appropriate" fight, at least within the first ten levels, the odds of losing were pretty close to zero--you had to be downright stupid and the dice had to be practically sentient and malevolent for anybody to get killed


I can vouch that low level combats can be very deadly. For instance the first battle in a darksun game was absolutely vicious.

Actually you're both right. The lethality of monsters was strongly increased between the time MM1 was released, and the time Dark Sun was released.

Note also, as MK already said, that an equal-level encounter is intended to be a very easy one. To challenge PCs, use an encounter four levels higher.

Leolo
2011-01-24, 05:29 AM
@Kurald: But wouldn't it be a problem to make unrealistic challenges?

For example it would be possible to let people drown after 5 rounds. But it wouldn't be realistic and could provoke the argument: Why can't the characters / npc xyz survive this long under water?

The same is true for starvation.

If the game suggest that you die after one week without a meal than this wouldn't be very realistic.

Realism is not the most importend thing. And yes - it would be a challenge, but if the challenge is not plausible the players wouldn't accept it without complaining and discussion. And have less fun as a result.

Challenges have to be plausible.


because infinite food is a low-level item

I do not really know which item you are talking about. But for example everlasting provisions only provide enough food for up to 5 medium (or 1 large) creatures. The same is true for rituals like (for example) bloom or travelers feast. There is always a restriction how much food can be produced. That's ok if you want to find enough food for the group - but could still mean that it is not enough to feed an entire village or a group of refugees. Adventures like this are still possible. It is only unlikely that the heroes are the first persons that have to starve.

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 06:35 AM
Correct but any DM can impliment these simple rules

My friend Oberoni would like to have a word with you... (http://bb.bbboy.net/niftymessageboard-viewthread?forum=6&thread=12)


I don't think hit points are nearly small enough. Have you ever tried getting stabbed with a sword? Well, okay, I haven't either. But I've gotten cut while cutting potatoes for 1 point of damage, and that friggin' hurt. I would suggest that any cut with a sword automatically cripples or kills a character.
You just presented another problem of 4e, actually. No 1st level character in D&D could laugh while being constantly hit for arrows before 4e game.
Earlier editions had a place where you were 'above average human' before becoming 'legendary'. 4e doesn't.
Well, that's not exactly a problem, actually. Other editions of D&D have a foot in simulationist (3.5 has both feet there). 4e doesn't, but includes environment rules for some reason... and those rules are ridiculous. It would be better if they were never ever presented and they actually admited the game cares nothing about that and the DM should make up stuff if he wanted to.


I disagree, and honestly wonder what sort of group you play with if you say the classes are all the same. A good controlling wizard makes a DMs life HELL when they pin down the minions.

This is such a common complaint that it amuses me 4e fans still negate it with all their strenghts. Is it so hard to see that to someone new to the game it all feels the same?
They don't know that a push, a slide or a pull are different things. They just see you moving stuff around. Is that a Bard or a Wizard? I dunno, they don't even have musical instruments.
They don't know that an Avenger has higher accuracy. They just see a guy with a big weapon and high mobility. Is that an Avenger or is that a Barbarian?
There are differences in 4e, sure, but they are very very very little compared to all other editions. Denying this is, well, living in denial.

Kaervaslol
2011-01-24, 06:55 AM
My friend Oberoni would like to have a word with you... (http://bb.bbboy.net/niftymessageboard-viewthread?forum=6&thread=12)

The problem with that is that rules are a mean to an end.

If your recipe for cheese pizza doest not mention cheese, but you are making cheese pizza then you know the pizza has cheese on it.

The issue becomes a non issue the moment you stop and think for 5 seconds.

This monster does not have darkness but thrives in the dark? Make him fart magical black fog.

The point is to make the game fun, not to make perfect rules. We see it all the time, some perfectly good and fun systems take the heat just because some small thing is applied in a bad and easily fixable way.

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 06:58 AM
The point is to make the game fun, not to make perfect rules. We see it all the time, some perfectly good and fun systems take the heat just because some small thing is applied in a bad and easily fixable way.
Except of course that 'making perfect rules' is the point of 4e. :smallamused:
Also, this is a rules discussion. If you don't like those, you won't enjoy this thread.

Kaervaslol
2011-01-24, 07:24 AM
Except of course that 'making perfect rules' is the point of 4e. :smallamused:
Also, this is a rules discussion. If you don't like those, you won't enjoy this thread.

I like rules discussion. I think it's an asinine complain to express disappointment to the fact that the rules don't specify that you need to use your limbs to climb.

Or that a monster that does not have a power that could be useful should not be tampered with! Does something fixable in two seconds merit a thread complaining about rules?

I can see the point with the drowning and starvation rules, which are rather weak. But then again, the theme of the game is medieval superheroes rather than ragtag group of adventurers looking for cash like previous editions.

Also I don't think the objective of 4th is to make a perfect ruleset, because that is a fool's errand.

The objetive of 4th is to make a fun game, which I think they have achieved greatly. It may have inconsistencies like most things in life, but those are so easily fixable that it seems like the op is just trying to bash the system for the sake of it.

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 07:36 AM
The objetive of 4th is to make a fun game, which I think they have achieved greatly. It may have inconsistencies like most things in life, but those are so easily fixable that it seems like the op is just trying to bash the system for the sake of it.
So you're overreacting because you thought someone was bashing a game you like. Totally acceptable and you should have just said so.
I don't think that's the point. The OP didn't even say '4e sucks' or anything like that. He just pointed out weird stuff in the rules.
We have 3.5 threads about this stuff all the time. No one jumps in to say 'you're all wrong, I can houserule it all away' because it's silly. Of course you can houserule anything away, so you simply don't have to mention it. That's the whole point of the Oberoni fallacy. If you're talking about mechanical glitch, 'I can fix it' doesn't mean it's not a glitch.
If your car's engine sometimes die when you're going up a hill, your engine has a problem. Sure, you can avoid hills or you can take it to a mechanic, but it's still a problem. It doesn't mean your care should be throwin in a kunkyard, it only means it has a problem.
I hope I made myself sufficiently clear. No one is saying '4e sucks' here. We're just saying it has problems. You are the one turning this into an edition war.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-24, 08:05 AM
If I am casting a fireball in 3.5 (or1e or 2e) and a friend tells me to cast it "over to my left" or whatever I did not get penalized. I did not deal less damage and my save DC or the targets saves were not affected. Saying that 4e is having a problem because it does things just like previous editions did is just silly, or are you saying that 3.5 did that wrong too?
This isn't about edition comparison. In 4e, lightning bolt and other ranged attacks don't work so well when you can't see the target. Area attacks like fire burst ignore that completely, though they didn't back in Keep on the Shadowfell, the 4e preview adventure. Why was that changed to favour area attacks?

Was it because your encounter powers had to hit to do damage? If so, Essentials moves away from that trend. It's still not that hard to hit a target with a -5 penalty, and certain feats will negate it entirely. Why make it too easy?

Kaervaslol
2011-01-24, 08:09 AM
So you're overreacting because you thought someone was bashing a game you like. Totally acceptable and you should have just said so.
I don't think that's the point. The OP didn't even say '4e sucks' or anything like that. He just pointed out weird stuff in the rules.
We have 3.5 threads about this stuff all the time. No one jumps in to say 'you're all wrong, I can houserule it all away' because it's silly. Of course you can houserule anything away, so you simply don't have to mention it. That's the whole point of the Oberoni fallacy. If you're talking about mechanical glitch, 'I can fix it' doesn't mean it's not a glitch.
If your car's engine sometimes die when you're going up a hill, your engine has a problem. Sure, you can avoid hills or you can take it to a mechanic, but it's still a problem. It doesn't mean your care should be throwin in a kunkyard, it only means it has a problem.
I hope I made myself sufficiently clear. No one is saying '4e sucks' here. We're just saying it has problems. You are the one turning this into an edition war.

I don't really like 4th edition. Played a couple of games and it wasn't my thing, but played enough to know it's a good system. I'm currently playing AD&D 2nd edition so yeah, you are missing my point entirely. Heck, you started with edition wars. I was talking about GAMES/SYSTEMS in general.

The point I'm trying to make is that the OP is complaining for the sake of complaining. No free hand rule? A monster lacking certain ability?

We are not talking about a broken core mechanic like combat, healing, stealth or whatever that seriously hinders or makes the game nigh unplayable.

We are talking of details that any dungeon master worth it's salt can solve in ten seconds, and something that you have to do with every game in existance: adjust to taste.

It's not a broken engine that can't go uphill, it's a deflated tire that needs some air.


Posted: 1:02 a.m. by barrybarrybarry I can't believe I spent 35 dollars on a cookbook that doesn't have a recipe for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. When I buy a cookbook, I expect it to tell me how to cook. And don't tell me to just make a PBJ myself, I'm not some sort of hippy artist pretentious "freeform cook."

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2008/06/alttext_0618

Leolo
2011-01-24, 08:09 AM
This is such a common complaint that it amuses me 4e fans still negate it with all their strenghts. Is it so hard to see that to someone new to the game it all feels the same?

Yes of course. And maybe i could explain this.

For a new player it does not really matter if fireball and twin strike both use attack roles. And both are attack powers.

The first is a fire explosion, the second is some guy who strikes another guy twice. For a new player those things will always be completely different from each other. In fact it is more likely that new players wont feel those things similar than old players.

Because old players know old mechanics. They know "fireball once had completely different mechanics than a normal attack so they are now more similar"

How can i be sure my arguments are correct? Well - i can't. I just know new players and old players. And while i never found an new player who has said "invisibility and shooting an arrow are completely the same" i do found old players that told me exactly this. Just because both are "powers". And everyone has roughly the same amount of them and the same types of them. (it is not really true - some classes have different types and some have more or less powers, but it is true enough)

Grogmir
2011-01-24, 08:33 AM
Gawd I hate the Oberoni fallacy - the biggest fallacy fallacy out there imhumbleo.

You cannot have a Oberone fallcy in a rules system that specifically states the DM can change things if a) you don't like it b) it wouldn't be fun in game or c) any reason you want.

4th DnD isn't about having rules for maintaining a fantasy world - Its about creating a story - together with your players.

Sunrods - have been banned in both 3.5 and 4th by my group. As you say so much light - why bother with darkness. Back to lanterns for my group!

As for starvation and Drowning. I believe they made these hard because frankly it isn't a cool way to die. Who wants to RP being starvign for three weeks. Getting weaker and weaker and then slowing drifting away? it doesn't make a good story.
neither Does drowning. Rest assured if you play in my game you aint going to drown. That sea Dragon will come up from the deep and snatch away ever before you make a Fort roll.

I don't know I just don't see these as problems.


Except of course that 'making perfect rules' is the point of 4e

It really isn't it was about making the game simple and fun.


There are differences in 4e, sure, but they are very very very little compared to all other editions. Denying this is, well, living in denial.

My characters are not defined by there character sheet or the nature of the powers the have. They are defined by their actions IN game.
but of course characters will mechanically be more similar 4th only has 1 main PC power system. Whereas 3x had at least 3 that I know of.


No 1st level character in D&D could laugh while being constantly hit for arrows before 4e game

And in 4th no house cat can kill a budding wizard - there's silly sides to both sides of the coin. As for low damage / non leathal encounters. That has been fixed in Errata, and yes can be 'tweaked' by the DM to suit the groups style.

- - -

I'm not looking to start an edition war. I've already had a big I. I just think a lot of the problems people have with it are because they are stuck in a certain way of thinking. 3.5 logic if you will. And thats fine - when looking a 3.5. A system that has many advantages, more complex strategies and many more options. But for me one that nearly kill DnD for our group under the sheer amount of systems, options and paperwork.
4th reignited us with our characters, the world and the story and stuff like "It doesn't say you climb with hands" just don't come into it.

Ulimately though its clear not everyone is looking for the same thing from their DnD. People should just play what they like and fits to their campaign and style and be happy. no system will fit all the worlds or all the stories. Let alone all the players.

Thanks for reading and Happy Rollin'.

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 08:35 AM
We are talking of details that any dungeon master worth it's salt can solve in ten seconds, and something that you have to do with every game in existance: adjust to taste.
Yes, in a combat heavy or stealth heavy game you'd be correct. Of course, not all games are like that. So it is a problem. Any system has problems, damnit. Is there a problem in discussing them? If you don't think they are problems, fine. You already said so, just don't try to change other person's opinions about it.


4th DnD isn't about having rules for maintaining a fantasy world - Its about creating a story - together with your players.
Like I said before, that's the point of this thread, I believe. 4th edition is not supposed to do this, but is says so nowhere in the books and actually swings back and forth between trying to be simulationist (and failing completely) or being a combat-only board game with RP between fights. Why environment rules, if they simply don't work? Was it too much trouble to say 'we're dealing with this stuff, houserule it'? If you actually ADD A RULE about something, people will mostly USE THAT RULE and if said rule doesn't work, someone's fun was just shot in the knee.
Yes, those are problems in my book.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-24, 08:41 AM
For a new player it does not really matter if fireball and twin strike both use attack roles. And both are attack powers.
Wizards don't play similar to rangers, I'm sure everybody is aware of that. However, the point is that e.g. sorcerers and invokers have powers that are easily mistaken for Fireball, and that e.g. fighters and avengers have powers that closely resemble Twin Strike.

The result is that from observing a few turns of gameplay, you generally cannot tell the difference between, say, a fighter and a paladin, or between a wizard and invoker, unless you happen to know the power names by heart.

That's what people mean when they say classes are too similar (and, of course, certain other games have the same issue, but this thread isn't about comparing games).

DeltaEmil
2011-01-24, 08:49 AM
I can. A paladin shoots (not that awesome) holy laserbeams from the heavens, whereas the fighter is still laying low the hurty-hurt close and personal.
An invoker shoots even more (more powerful than the paladin at least) holy laserbeams from the heavens on a bigger scale, whereas wizards rain meteors and other elementarily stuff.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-24, 08:57 AM
I can. A paladin shoots (not that awesome) holy laserbeams
Really? Because most paladins I see just use a big honkin' sword to whack people. I think the first obvious difference is that fighters can heal themselves, whereas pallies can instead heal their allies.


An invoker shoots even more (more powerful than the paladin at least) holy laserbeams from the heavens on a bigger scale, whereas wizards rain meteors and other elementarily stuff.
Point is, you can't really tell from a power whether it's supposed to be a holy laserbeam or elementarily stuff. Invokers get fire attacks, wizards get radiant attacks. I think the first obvious difference here is that invoker attacks don't hit their allies, whereas wizard attacks do (well, in most cases anyway).

Of course there's a difference - but that difference isn't obvious unless you know what it is beforehand.

Leolo
2011-01-24, 09:08 AM
Wizards don't play similar to rangers, I'm sure everybody is aware of that. However, the point is that e.g. sorcerers and invokers have powers that are easily mistaken for Fireball, and that e.g. fighters and avengers have powers that closely resemble Twin Strike.

The result is that from observing a few turns of gameplay, you generally cannot tell the difference between, say, a fighter and a paladin, or between a wizard and invoker, unless you happen to know the power names by heart.

That's what people mean when they say classes are too similar (and, of course, certain other games have the same issue, but this thread isn't about comparing games).

I think it is not that easy, because than the complaint would be "paladin and fighter are too similar" or "invoker and wizard are too similar" like those complaint was often told in 3.5 times regarding wizards and sorcerers. Also it wouldn't make sense as paladin and fighter are now more different than before, rarely using similar attacks. (In fact in former editions a paladin is effectivly a fighter with less options to specialize in and a divine and knight related theme)

But the complaint is "the classes are all the same" and i indeed have had discussions with people complaining that wizard and rangers "feel like the same class". Some of them say it is because they use a unified framework ("powers") that all classes have. And i can understand this partly. But i have never seen this complaint from new players, and i do not think that it would be logical to suspect. New players (in general) weight flair higher than mechanic.

Grogmir
2011-01-24, 09:13 AM
4th edition is not supposed to do this, but is says so nowhere in the books and actually swings back and forth between trying to be simulationist (and failing completely) or being a combat-only board game with RP between fights.

It takes as much simulationist as it needs and abstracts the rest. There does not need to be hard and fast universal approach to all areas. It fails at times. All systems do. but its not once ever been a problem in my game. And the two areas under discussion, Drowning and Sufficating work fine. Maybe not very deadly but hey - I don't drown or sufficate my players. I eat them and their children.


or being a combat-only board game with RP between fights

I see this thrown at 4th a lot. Where exact did they say you had to stop RPing during combat? What is it thats stopping you RPing during combat?
If you're not roleplaying. Thats your groups problem. not the systems.
My groups best roleplaying comes DURING the combat. Nothing gets the Gnome abusing the dwarf quite as much as him firing a fireball that took out 9 minions but also hit said dwarf.


"you generally cannot tell the difference between, say, a fighter and a paladin, or between a wizard and invoker, unless you happen to know the power names by heart.

This only happens if you announce." Twin Strike - roll attack and then damage." If the paladin shouts 'By Moradin grant me a strike and i will blast this evil minion with the light of rightesness" Then yeah - people tend to remember you more. Don't allow anyone just to say the power name and roll. Get them describing their actions. thats the way to imortallity! :smallsmile:

Knaight
2011-01-24, 09:20 AM
We have 3.5 threads about this stuff all the time. No one jumps in to say 'you're all wrong, I can houserule it all away' because it's silly. Of course you can houserule anything away, so you simply don't have to mention it. That's the whole point of the Oberoni fallacy. If you're talking about mechanical glitch, 'I can fix it' doesn't mean it's not a glitch.

No, but there is an assumption of common sense in both systems. Climb never says that you can't for instance, use the side of a tornado as a surface, because its an absurd edge case that everyone should know already. Needing limbs is the same way, it can be assumed that a human is going to need their hands, a mountain goat is just fine without a way to grip, and a snake doesn't need limbs to climb. Having this spelled out wastes space, and frankly, if I'm skimming for a rule I really don't need to see stuff like "You need a free arm to climb" or "Swimming can only be done within a liquid medium."

In short, this doesn't even become a mechanical glitch until after someone has thrown common sense out the window.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-24, 09:22 AM
Really? Because most paladins I see just use a big honkin' sword to whack people. I think the first obvious difference is that fighters can heal themselves, whereas pallies can instead heal their allies.See? You think the obvious difference is that paladins can even heal another (somewhat weakly in my opinion), whereas I for example believe that paladins have a rather weak-sauce laserbeam when doing their tankdefender-job.

Point is, you can't really tell from a power whether it's supposed to be a holy laserbeam or elementarily stuff. Invokers get fire attacks, wizards get radiant attacks. I think the first obvious difference here is that invoker attacks don't hit their allies, whereas wizard attacks do (well, in most cases anyway).That's also totally swell that you see another (more nuanced and important) difference.

Of course there's a difference - but that difference isn't obvious unless you know what it is beforehand.You just refuted your own claim that the differences aren't that obvious by pointing out what the other obvious differences are. For which I am grateful, when I'm going to explain the differences between the classes with similar battle-field role to my players.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-24, 09:36 AM
This only happens if you announce." Twin Strike - roll attack and then damage." If the paladin shouts 'By Moradin grant me a strike and i will blast this evil minion with the light of rightesness"
Why wouldn't a dwarf fighter ask for Moradin's blessing in combat?



You just refuted your own claim that the differences aren't that obvious by pointing out what the other obvious differences are.
They're obvious to me. They're not generally obvious to new players. I wasn't saying I agree with the claim that "all classes are alike", I was explaining where this claim comes from.

(also, they aren't necessarily differences: a straladin doesn't use laser beams, and there's plenty of wizard powers these days that don't hit allies, or that do use laser beams)

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 09:43 AM
I see this thrown at 4th a lot. Where exact did they say you had to stop RPing during combat? What is it thats stopping you RPing during combat?
If you're not roleplaying. Thats your groups problem. not the systems.
My groups best roleplaying comes DURING the combat. Nothing gets the Gnome abusing the dwarf quite as much as him firing a fireball that took out 9 minions but also hit said dwarf.
What? Dude, I'm not saying this is a problem. I like board games. Many people do. A board game with a bit of RP on it? Awesome. That's how D&D was born, for crying out loud. 4e is not something I'd like to DM (because the simulationist in me goes cry in a corner whenever I open the books), but I wouldn't mind playing a 4e game again (DMed by someone without delusions that it's not what it is - a board game with some RP, sure. I had a group where everyone hated each other and actively tried to kill others... when out of combat. It's like we were playing two separate games. It bothered me immensely; though this can happen in most systems).

...although, if the best RP in your group is saying 'haha, I hit a fireball and also I hit you' I'm afraid we don't share the same concepts of what RP is.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-24, 09:44 AM
You pointed out the obvious things that could also be glanced if one looks at the effects written on the powers longer than half-a-second as I normally do, and radiant-radiant-radiant-fire-radiant-laser is the first thing that comes up in my mind with Invokers, even if clerics, paladins, wizards and sorcerors have also attacks with those attributes (and possibly even more). More nuanced differences like the paladin not having to rely on charisma and shooting cute little laserbeams will also become more obvious once somebody actually reads through that stuff, just like you did.
So yeah, thanks to you, I now know more differences, and the claim that the 4th edition classes are too similar at a first glance still remains hog-wash.

RebelRogue
2011-01-24, 09:47 AM
This is such a common complaint that it amuses me 4e fans still negate it with all their strenghts. Is it so hard to see that to someone new to the game it all feels the same?
They don't know that a push, a slide or a pull are different things. They just see you moving stuff around. Is that a Bard or a Wizard? I dunno, they don't even have musical instruments.
They don't know that an Avenger has higher accuracy. They just see a guy with a big weapon and high mobility. Is that an Avenger or is that a Barbarian?
There are differences in 4e, sure, but they are very very very little compared to all other editions. Denying this is, well, living in denial.
It's not sameness of classes, it's streamlining of mechanics, something that every edition has done. It's like saying that wizards using the same Hp modifier pr. level for a given Con score as a fighter makes fighter and wizard feel all the same; 2nd ed -> 3.0 made that change as a streamlining of rules (whether it was a good idea is up for debate).

Look at the 3.5 classes. 'They're all the same: all have BAB, Saves and Class Features'. Everyone who've played the game know that's not true because of one thing: Class Features are a very diverse bunch. In 4e you have the same situation, except 'everyone has Powers - it's all the same'. But Powers are very varied, just like class features were. Maybe you'll complain that they're 'not as varied as 3.5 class features were', but that's where streamlining come in: as part of the natural evolution of the game, many effects and ideas has been condensed into stuff like shifts, slides, status effect etc. Power decriptions also tend to be shorter, due to the non-simulationist approach of 4e (whether this is good or bad is a matter of taste, of course :smallsmile:); a power does not have to account for a lot of the contingencies mentioned in 3.5 spells (in many ways those were still a holdover fra earlier editions).

Some classes do things in similar ways (most notably those of the same Role), but ultimately, they play and feel differently.

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 09:48 AM
So yeah, thanks to you, I now know more differences, and the claim that the 4th edition classes are too similar at a first glance still remains hog-wash.
That's ridiculous. The classes are very similar. They might not be 'too similar' for you, but they are very similar to lots of other people. This is a fact. The most you can say is 'I don't think it's too similar'. For many people, they are too similar. It's a matter of perception.
Heck, I've even seen 4e fans saying with pride 'the classes are more similar now'.

It's not sameness of classes, it's streamlining of mechanics, something that every edition has done.

So you find it diverse enough, fine. You call it 'streamlining of mechanics', fine. It's still that classes are more similar to each other than they ever were. Call it 'evolution' if you want, it's still a fact - classes are more similar to each other in 4e. If that's a good thing or not, it depends on who you ask. But this is a fact.

Reverent-One
2011-01-24, 09:59 AM
What? Dude, I'm not saying this is a problem. I like board games. Many people do. A board game with a bit of RP on it? Awesome. That's how D&D was born, for crying out loud. 4e is not something I'd like to DM (because the simulationist in me goes cry in a corner whenever I open the books), but I wouldn't mind playing a 4e game again (DMed by someone without delusions that it's not what it is - a board game with some RP, sure. I had a group where everyone hated each other and actively tried to kill others... when out of combat. It's like we were playing two separate games. It bothered me immensely; though this can happen in most systems).


You may not be saying it's a problem, but when you say that someone without delusions will see it as a board game with some RP, you're at the same time saying that anyone who does see it as something other than a board game with some RP is delusional. Unsurprisingly, people don't like some random dude on the internet telling them that they are delusional.

Gryndle
2011-01-24, 10:00 AM
It takes as much simulationist as it needs and abstracts the rest. There does not need to be hard and fast universal approach to all areas. It fails at times. All systems do. but its not once ever been a problem in my game. And the two areas under discussion, Drowning and Sufficating work fine. Maybe not very deadly but hey - I don't drown or sufficate my players. I eat them and their children.



I see this thrown at 4th a lot. Where exact did they say you had to stop RPing during combat? What is it thats stopping you RPing during combat?
If you're not roleplaying. Thats your groups problem. not the systems.
My groups best roleplaying comes DURING the combat. Nothing gets the Gnome abusing the dwarf quite as much as him firing a fireball that took out 9 minions but also hit said dwarf.



This only happens if you announce." Twin Strike - roll attack and then damage." If the paladin shouts 'By Moradin grant me a strike and i will blast this evil minion with the light of rightesness" Then yeah - people tend to remember you more. Don't allow anyone just to say the power name and roll. Get them describing their actions. thats the way to imortallity! :smallsmile:



I have to agree with Grogmir here. And as to all the classes appearing the same to an onlooker....

I don't want someone watching my game to see a paladin, two fighters, a rogue and a hexblade.

what i want them to see is: "Lucas is the guy that gives rousing speeches and charges strait down the enemys' throat wiht a glowing blade; "Dave" is the dragon-guy with a spiked chain calling out to god of death as he punishes the enemy for attacking his allies; Desmond is the dark elf with the flashing rapier and crossbow killing the enemy straglers left and right; Nura is the creepy guy with the black blade that devours his fallen enemy's souls; and Tirian is the quiet noble that runs in quiickly and beats the enemy to death with a flurry of attacks from his staff."

The point is I don't want them to identify the characters with class names or roles. I want them to see the CHARACTERS. No game rule can do that.

Only DM's and players can make that happen.

Every system has clunky, inefficient or flat-out broken rules.

There is no Oberani fallacy by saying it takes people with emotional and intellectual investment in the game to make the game work, make the game fun, and bring the characters and world to life. No published rule book is going to do that for you.

Grogmir
2011-01-24, 10:00 AM
I'm not saying this is a problem[/B]. I like board games. Many people do. A board game with a bit of RP on it? Awesome.

Ok you don't see it as a problem. for me. i just don't see it. Combat in 4th doesn't stop us RPing.


I had a group where everyone hated each other and actively tried to kill others... when out of combat. It's like we were playing two separate games. It bothered me immensely; though this can happen in most systems

As you say thats not a 4th ed problem its a DnD problem. 'Conflict' is hard to stimulate in DnD. If you had been playing 3.5 would your players have been able to do anything different in that team up to kill the dragon in front of them?


although, if the best RP in your group is saying 'haha, I hit a fireball and also I hit you' I'm afraid we don't share the same concepts of what RP is

yeah thats what the player said 'in character'. I assure you that our RP gets a little more meaningful and mature. But if your NOT RPing during combat. Because someone told you you can't in 4th. Or because having a little mini in front of you some how stops you from taking and thinking in character then I'm afraid we don't share the same concept of what the game is about.

Anyroad - Happy Rollin' all. Whatever and however you roll!

RebelRogue
2011-01-24, 10:01 AM
So you find it diverse enough, fine. You call it 'streamlining of mechanics', fine. It's still that classes are more similar to each other than they ever were. Call it 'evolution' if you want, it's still a fact - classes are more similar to each other in 4e. If that's a good thing or not, it depends on who you ask. But this is a fact.
It's a very hard thing to quantify this metric of sameness of classes between game systems. It's hard to pin down as hard fact!

That said, I guess I do agree with you on a principal level. But (as I see it, anyway) it's minor: The difference in party role and play style between classes is very much alive in 4e!

Kurald Galain
2011-01-24, 10:02 AM
Every system has clunky, inefficient or flat-out broken rules.

Yes, and I find pointing them out hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 10:07 AM
Yes, and I find pointing them out hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

Quoting myself: clunky rules to everyone!

Heck, we didn't even get to AD&D darts yet.

Gryndle
2011-01-24, 10:13 AM
Me too, Kurald. When those insane rules pop up from time to time in my game, we all get a laugh out of it, then return to the game.

What I have issues with is the folks here that point to those rules and go "OMG that game is so lame, and any one having fun with it is doing it wrong."

I am paraphrasing ofcourse, but that is the general attitude that gets thrown around a lot on this forum.

Sipex
2011-01-24, 10:27 AM
Wow, this discussion went far. I want to pull back to the original topic for a moment.

Sunrods? I hate the things. Magical darkness tends to work best but also finding enemies who follow the PCs until their sunrods run out or are lost. I've had shadow bats who followed PCs for hours, making swooping attacks from the darkness every once in a while to try and steal their sources of light. Just gotta play it right.

On the subject of drowning and starvation? Yes, it takes a long time before these become significant threats and while that makes mundane hazards even more mundane it is more to allow the PCs to take greater threats.

Need an underwater battle? Your PCs can actually do that without requiring magical breathing? "What's the point of magical breathing then?" you may say, well...what if you want an underwater dungeon?

Same goes for food, forgetting to eat for a couple days will wear on your PCs but won't be anywhere near fatal. This opens things up to...oh, I dunno, stranding the PCs out in the middle of a featureless desert and actually giving them a chance to survive.

I've always seen 4e about being fantastical badasses and it works out very well that way.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 11:19 AM
While off the current topic, and back to the original, I have a question: Why in the name of all that is good and bacon-y can a dude with a sword only swing his sword really hard once per day? That has baffled me since the first time I played 4e.

Sipex
2011-01-24, 11:22 AM
While off the current topic, and back to the original, I have a question: Why in the name of all that is good and bacon-y can a dude with a sword only swing his sword really hard once per day? That has baffled me since the first time I played 4e.

This is something you kind of learn to live with, my players had some problems adjusting to this too (and myself I admit) and we eventually had to boil it down to 'This is to help balance the game' and accept it.

It's not perfect but it works.

RebelRogue
2011-01-24, 11:25 AM
It's tiring or something... Yeah, it takes a bit of handwaving, but really, when you think about it, it's no weirder than a level 1 barbarian only being able to become really angry once a day.

Reverent-One
2011-01-24, 11:33 AM
While off the current topic, and back to the original, I have a question: Why in the name of all that is good and bacon-y can a dude with a sword only swing his sword really hard once per day? That has baffled me since the first time I played 4e.

Because such a daily power doesn't neccesarily represent swinging harder than when you use any other power, but instead could represent that the enemy left a gap in their defenses that you can exploit for a hard hit somewhere vulnerable or something of that nature.

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 11:38 AM
It's tiring or something... Yeah, it takes a bit of handwaving, but really, when you think about it, it's no weirder than a level 1 barbarian only being able to become really angry once a day.
Considering that Rage is really really explicitly tiring, with game effects tied to it... I'd say you're wrong. Rage is pretty justified in the limited uses per day.
There are other examples in 3.5, though. Smite evil, for example. "Sorry, dude. You only get to do your job once a day. Who cares if you're doing it in my name? Once a day and be happy with it."

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 11:39 AM
It's tiring or something... Yeah, it takes a bit of handwaving, but really, when you think about it, it's no weirder than a level 1 barbarian only being able to become really angry once a day.

That seems more like encounter powers.


Because such a daily power doesn't neccesarily represent swinging harder than when you use any other power, but instead could represent that the enemy left a gap in their defenses that you can exploit for a hard hit somewhere vulnerable or something of that nature.

So you can choose when your opponent leaves a sloppy defense? I'm going to go with Sipex's idea on this one.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-24, 11:41 AM
Alternatively, you got a sore muscle after doing your sky-cleaving hit. Not strong enough to impose a penalty, but hindering enough that you can't do it again until you get a good night's rest.

Or in other words, wing it the same way you did with extraordinary abilities that were only usable once per day in prior edition, like for example defensive roll.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 11:42 AM
Considering that Rage is really really explicitly tiring, with game effects tied to it... I'd say you're wrong. Rage is pretty justified in the limited uses per day.
There are other examples in 3.5, though. Smite evil, for example. "Sorry, dude. You only get to do your job once a day. Who cares if you're doing it in my name? Once a day and be happy with it."

Well, Pelor is evil, it makes sense he'd be a ******. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558798/Pelor,_the_Burning_Hate)

Reverent-One
2011-01-24, 11:49 AM
So you can choose when your opponent leaves a sloppy defense? I'm going to go with Sipex's idea on this one.

While it could also be that your character would miss this vulernability or be otherwise unable to take advantage of it without you (the player) using the power, having daily powers represent the player affecting the story as you suggest does fit the cinematic style 4e aims for. Several game systems have fate or destiny points that can make your character succeed at something automatically, cause an enemy's attack that should hit to miss, or something similar.

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 12:39 PM
Well, Pelor is evil, it makes sense he'd be a ******. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558798/Pelor,_the_Burning_Hate)

The whole paladin class is a big 'wtf'.
Pelor: "Rise, my paladin! You are now immune to disease. Go kill evil liches!"
Paladin: "What?! But you gave that cleric over there holy word! He justs speaks and people die! I am your champion and all I get is immunity to disease?"
Pelor: "Dude, chill. Paladins get all the ladies. Now go on and kick some ass!"
(Paladin leaves, Angel arrives)
Angel: "You can be a pain in the ass when you're drunk, sir."
Pelor: "Oh, please. It's going to be hilarious."

Vknight
2011-01-24, 01:42 PM
You know I'm surprised how this went.

But exactly the Paladinm gets a sword & holy beams that shoot guys that don't punch him.
The Cleric he gets to summon angels that fire bigger beams & carry bigger swords.

Callista
2011-01-24, 01:59 PM
There's such a thing as streamlining the rules too much.

You could, of course, play D&D by having every class flip a coin to determine whether you killed the monster you just attacked. You could role-play just as much with that system as with any other. But you would have to role-play completely independently of the mechanics--the rules wouldn't spark any ideas about your character. And with 4th, the streamlining has gone too far--not as bad as flipping a coin, but far enough that you can't really get very many ideas for your character from the mechanics. The way combat and such is done is just not intrinsically flavorful--it's +1, +2, daze, and extra damage to one or more, and that's about as far as it goes...

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 02:09 PM
This isn't about edition comparison. In 4e, lightning bolt and other ranged attacks don't work so well when you can't see the target. Area attacks like fire burst ignore that completely, though they didn't back in Keep on the Shadowfell, the 4e preview adventure. Why was that changed to favour area attacks?

Was it because your encounter powers had to hit to do damage? If so, Essentials moves away from that trend. It's still not that hard to hit a target with a -5 penalty, and certain feats will negate it entirely. Why make it too easy?

Area attacks are like fireball. If there was an invisible target (or you were blind in either case it makes for the same problem here) in 3.5 and you cast fireball it did not have any sort of miss chance or reductions in power. The reason is you do not need to see to hit with a fireball. In 4e it is the same. Area powers are fireballs and similar effects. Just like in 3.5 seeing is not important to hit with fireball and so spells of that sort do not take penalties just like in 3.5.

Now lightning bolt in 4e is a ranged attack which does not correspond with the lightning bolt spell in 3.5 (it is a line which is not used in 4e). 4e lightning bolt has more to do with a spell like acid orb. In 3.5 if you cast acid orb at an invisible target or you are blind and shoot the orb at a target then you had miss chance at 50% which could be eliminated by various means. In 4e you can cast lightning bolt at an invisible target or be blind you take a -5 to hit. A -5 to hit in 4e is a big deal considering how the numbers work in 4e and is much bigger problem than in 3.5. Now you can limit the penalty by getting bonuses on your attack role because a leader class boosts your attacks but it is still a large penalty.

So in other words area attacks have always had this advantage in D&D from 1e-4e and has not changed. Blindness is a nasty condition especially if you are using melee and ranged attacks.

Gryndle
2011-01-24, 02:17 PM
Callista, I'm not sure you and I are even talking about the same game.

Because I HAVE been inspired to do certain things, or play certain characters based on the mechanics of 4th Ed.

I don't see the way 4E is made as any more limiting than anything I saw in any previous version of the game.

It simply comes down to preference. The difference I see between us, is I label my preference as just that, preference. And others try to label their preferences as fact.

Sipex
2011-01-24, 02:19 PM
I'll agree there, I've got a player playing a Fire/Ice wizard simply based off of two feats he picked. It's all flavoured in and everything.

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 02:22 PM
Callista, I'm not sure you and I are even talking about the same game.

Because I HAVE been inspired to do certain things, or play certain characters based on the mechanics of 4th Ed.

I don't see the way 4E is made as any more limiting than anything I saw in any previous version of the game.

It simply comes down to preference. The difference I see between us, is I label my preference as just that, preference. And others try to label their preferences as fact.

It is probably a reference to how in 3e you chose a class at every level to suit your tastes. Of course the counter to that is 3e was the closest that D&D has ever gone to being a classless game and its rules made it easy to weaken class roles and class identity. I mean how many times do you see somebody say "I want to play sorcerer' in 3.5 get answered by "Don't do that be a sorc5/prcX/prcY/prcZ?

Leolo
2011-01-24, 02:24 PM
@Callista: Well this does not makes much sense as the 4E powers are less "flip the coin" like for example 3.5 combat actions.

In fact now the attacks of two similar classes are more different than before. Whats the difference between my 3.5 rogue and my 3.5 fighters attacks? It is very slim. I can "role play" that my rogue is using dirty tricks and agility - but in fact he doesn't, he just attacks.

That's no longer true in 4E where such things can be part of a power. And where the type of dirty trick can actually determine the result of my action or provide side effects.

Streamlining can also lead to more flexibility by making design and balancing easier.

And that is not only true for melee characters. If you ask yourself why spells are reused in 3.5 by different classes than "it is less effort for the designers than to design a special variant of the spell for every class" would be a plausible argument. Streamlining mechanics is just a different approach to reach the same goal: Flexibility without too much effort.

Vknight
2011-01-24, 03:12 PM
Exactly as Leolo stated

My rouge does a Sly Flourish which is a manuever putting him into a counter attack poistion well the Fighter uses Cleave using there weapon to strike at as many targets as possible.

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 03:28 PM
In fact now the attacks of two similar classes are more different than before. Whats the difference between my 3.5 rogue and my 3.5 fighters attacks? It is very slim. I can "role play" that my rogue is using dirty tricks and agility - but in fact he doesn't, he just attacks.

You chose a really wrong example. A 3.5 Rogue can actually play dirty (and most do). Other than winning initiative, you feint or you gang up on him or attack him from hiding. You use agility all the time - every 3.5 Rogue is almost expected to have maxed Tumble! That is playing dirty. You can even play a Rogue that doesn't!
In 4e? Your power heading says 'you deal X damage. oh, and you're playing dirty'. X is usually the same as other strikers.
So while 4e does some archetypes better than 3.5 (like Fighter), you chose one that 3.5 does a lot better. You have to be a tricky player to be a good Rogue in 3.5; in 4e, you just have to pick powers. That's why some people say it was oversimplified - it's very good to see your crafted combat plan go right, and with a 3.5 Rogue each strike is a combat plan on it's own.

Vknight
2011-01-24, 03:42 PM
Guys can we stop this it is becoming edition wars which is what we said we wouldn't do.
Let us post problems & discuss them.

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 03:43 PM
You chose a really wrong example. A 3.5 Rogue can actually play dirty (and most do). Other than winning initiative, you feint or you gang up on him or attack him from hiding. You use agility all the time - every 3.5 Rogue is almost expected to have maxed Tumble! That is playing dirty. You can even play a Rogue that doesn't!
In 4e? Your power heading says 'you deal X damage. oh, and you're playing dirty'. X is usually the same as other strikers.
So while 4e does some archetypes better than 3.5 (like Fighter), you chose one that 3.5 does a lot better. You have to be a tricky player to be a good Rogue in 3.5; in 4e, you just have to pick powers. That's why some people say it was oversimplified - it's very good to see your crafted combat plan go right, and with a 3.5 Rogue each strike is a combat plan on it's own.

A 4e rogue can actually play dirty (and most do). Other than winning initiative, you feint (bluff check though it sucks in general in 4e just like in 3.5) or you gang up on him or attack him from hiding (or use your utility powers or tricks if you are a thief which you cannot do in 4e though you might get a class feature from an obscure prc). You use agility all the time-every 4e rogue is almost expected to have acrobatics trained! That is playing dirty. You can even play a rogue that doesn't. In 4e you can also have powers in addition to all that that have flavor of fighting dirty that are also as effective as other striker powers (though they are not the same compare barbarian to rogue and you will notice that rogues get a lot more nasty status effects and barbs do not have nearly as many).

4e is very tactically rewarding and the rogue gets a lot for thinking ahead and being tricky.

EDIT: Also this was just to show that 4e rogues have the same options as before and have new options. They also still need to be played intelligently if you want to shine just like always. I just used the quote as a way to get that point across.

Sipex
2011-01-24, 03:45 PM
I disagree, while the initial framework makes most classes feel the same each do require their own play styles.

I'll take Rogue for example, sure, they have a bunch of dastardly named attacks but what else is Roguish about them? Well, Sneak Attack, the Rogue's staple is still around and requires a Rogue to have combat advantage to use. Getting combat advantage can be obtained by teaming up on an enemy (via flanking), attacking an enemy out of hiding, feinting (in battle bluff check) or using a rogue power which grants it (ie: Blindness, etc)

That said, 4e has a bit of a crippling bit with players thinking too inside the box. The combat rules are so detailed that players who are usually bound to rules find themselves unable to stretch out. You need the right DM and right state of mind to play outside the box.

For examples, I've got a Rogue who, including in game rules, has a pouch of sand he keeps on his person at all times (which he yells POCKET SAND!!!) and gives him a temporary advantage without burning an actual power. (It only works once an encounter as enemies catch on afterward and it doesn't deal any damage like the Rogue's 'Sand in the Eyes' power)

edit: Ninjad, also, it is getting kind of Edition Warsy. Hasn't crossed the line yet (ie: I still feel like it's an intelligent discussion) but it's not the purpose of the topic so I'll stop.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-24, 03:51 PM
For examples, I've got a Rogue who, including in game rules, has a pouch of sand he keeps on his person at all times (which he yells POCKET SAND!!!) and gives him a temporary advantage without burning an actual power. (It only works once an encounter as enemies catch on afterward and it doesn't deal any damage like the Rogue's 'Sand in the Eyes' power)
Sorry but how is this "out of the box"? The rogue has plenty of printed powers and feats that grant combat advantage under some condition, or as a minor or move action. Several of those work at-will, too. Having a trick to gain CA strikes me as precisely the rogue's "box".

It's not all that hard for a rogue to have CA 95% of the time, really.

Sipex
2011-01-24, 03:53 PM
Circumstantial really, he was only level 3 and didn't have access to Martial Power. He also wasn't aware of 'Sand in the Eyes' at the time.

It's still out of the box though, he didn't feel restrained by his power choice in order to do something he wanted to do.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-24, 03:58 PM
It's still out of the box though, he didn't feel restrained by his power choice in order to do something he wanted to do.
We have different standards for a "box" then. In my opinion, this is very much inside the box. I prefer "stunt" mechanics for an out-of-the-box experience.

Vknight
2011-01-24, 03:59 PM
There we go see discuss how powers actually show those tactics of the class they are for.

Sipex
2011-01-24, 04:07 PM
Yeah, I'm thinking more along the lines of 'Outside the immediately written rules'.

Leolo
2011-01-24, 04:08 PM
The problem is the result. What does feinting in 3.5 do for the rogue?

It adds bonus damage. What does feinting in 4E do for the rogue? It actually depends on the feint. It could add bonus damage. But it could also let a opponent run into a dangerous position. Or lead to an extra attack. Let him fall prone.

The point is that the type of feint matters. It does matter if i do a riposte or a brutal trick or if i position the opponent or if i setup the next strike.

Because those actions have different results. Can i say my feint let someone run into a dangerous position in 3.5? Of course. But in the game mechanics the opponent does not move at all. He loose his dexterity modifier. And yes - this is as atmospheric as it sounds.

But aside from that it is not even different from moving into flanking position.

Ragitsu
2011-01-24, 04:09 PM
{Scrubbed}

Arbitrarity
2011-01-24, 04:19 PM
EDITED: Apologies. Forgot the no-vigilante-modding

I try to pre-plan terrain uses when designing encounter areas. However, the occasional amusing situation comes up, and I've started using terrain and stunts as power multipliers. I'll tend to be more liberal in their effects and power levels if I've obviously imbalanced the encounter, which is one of the benefits of 4e's combat system: It's fairly easy to tell when you've overdone it, and it's easy to avoid instant kills on players. This lack of rocket tag allows you to rebalance encounters on the fly, simply by hinting at potential stunts, and allowing relatively large payoffs (assuming they're not usable outside of the specific area/reusable)

I have had the Barbarian bust through a wall, Kool-Aid style. OH YEAH.
Hitting two enemies for full damage as a consequence? Definitely made the daze-lock fight much easier, given the rather absurd damage output of your typical barbarian.

Vknight
2011-01-24, 04:21 PM
Finally someone else with common sense

Sipex
2011-01-24, 04:42 PM
EDITED: Apologies. Forgot the no-vigilante-modding

I try to pre-plan terrain uses when designing encounter areas. However, the occasional amusing situation comes up, and I've started using terrain and stunts as power multipliers. I'll tend to be more liberal in their effects and power levels if I've obviously imbalanced the encounter, which is one of the benefits of 4e's combat system: It's fairly easy to tell when you've overdone it, and it's easy to avoid instant kills on players. This lack of rocket tag allows you to rebalance encounters on the fly, simply by hinting at potential stunts, and allowing relatively large payoffs (assuming they're not usable outside of the specific area/reusable)

I have had the Barbarian bust through a wall, Kool-Aid style. OH YEAH.
Hitting two enemies for full damage as a consequence? Definitely made the daze-lock fight much easier, given the rather absurd damage output of your typical barbarian.

That is amazing.

And I agree, this sort of thing really helps the campaign. Not only does it help re-balancing but it makes your players feel like heroes.

I've had players slide down railings ala: Legolas style, players riding a Bulette which was chasing them (the player in question was even tied and anchored by another player in the vehicle they were getting chased in), players jumping off high vantage points to attack and players making explosions out of materials they can buy in town (Note: If you DM for science geeks this is something you should expect).

Tyndmyr
2011-01-24, 04:50 PM
First, I call Oberoni on this one.

Second, I don't think your penalties are nearly big enough. Have you ever tried swimming in plate armor? Well, okay, I haven't either. But I've tried running in chainmail, and that's quite a bit more fatiguing than it sounds. I would suggest that a character needs olympic-level strength to even try swimming in plate, anything less and it's sink, no save.

I don't think it's unfair to make swimming in plate highly lethal considering how easy it is to avoid. Either don't wear heavy armor on a boat, or have some magical means of floating or water breathing.

Hi. I make and wear a wide variety of armor. Swimming in a chain vest is remarkably easy. I don't recommend it if you like taking care of your armor, but swimming in it isn't nearly as hard as you'd think. See, waters a lot denser than air. Therefore, the relative weight of the armor is a great deal less than it is on land.

Plate armor is also historically tailored to you, and does not restrict movement much at all. It is fairly heavy, but there's a few things you need to consider here. First, the effective weight is reduced by the amount of water it displaces. Note that trapped air inside plate/undergarments can be a significant factor, at least for a while. Consider that a decent set of period plate is often only about 60 lbs.

Modern shark armor is routinely used by divers, and is a form of chain mail. In addition, we have historical evidence of units of armored troops swimming in their armor, including the romans and the japanese. Hell, some of the romans are said to have done it while still carrying sword and shield.

It'll tire you out faster, sure, but it's absolutely possible.

On the flip side, once you are underwater, you will assuredly not be be able to swim wearing armor for five minutes. No matter how strong you are, you do need air.


Less rules doesn't necessarily make a simpler game. Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28game%29) has very simple rules. The pieces can't even move. But it's more complex than chess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess

Go is not at all a simple game. Pieces moving is not what makes it complex, true, but it is still quite complex. That's why the rules page for it is ludicrously longer.

kyoryu
2011-01-24, 05:03 PM
4e and 3.x are definitely different games, that offer somewhat different playstyles. Perhaps more importantly, they offer customization and creativity in different areas. Going to one system with the expectations that it acts like the other will be a good way to not enjoy one or the other.

In terms of "balance", the balance of the system is over-emphasized by many. 4e is "balanced" in terms of JaronK tiers - basically, every class in 4e is about Tier 3. Some classes and builds are better than others, even within the same role. But, there's nothing at all like the Tier1-Tier5 discrepancy. You can argue that this is a good thing, or a bad thing.

Similarly, build customization is very different in 3.x and 4e. 4e build customization is about what powers you choose, what feats support them, and how they work together. 3.x build customization is more about how you combine various classes, and how you build synergies between them. That kind of multiclassing customization doesn't really exist within 4e, and so if you're looking at "customization" in terms of "how can I synergize different classes and abilities together", then you're looking in the wrong place in 4e.

Combat options are another area of difference between the two editions. 4e has less open-ended powers - things like illusions or effects where what happens in the game is up to the discretion of the DM and description of what is happening by the player rather than the description of the power. However, the powers are designed to be useful and interesting in a tactical situation on the board - using your flaming sphere to deny entrance to an area, for instance, or to move opponents to your advantage tactically.

Generally, 4e rewards in-combat, tactical decision making more, while 3.x rewards build optimization more. These are two pretty different playstyles. A lot of very useful powers in 4e don't look all that useful just looking at the description in the rulebook, frankly.

What I also find interesting is that in terms of choices that can be made, 4e generally offers just about everybody choice - but that choice is less than what some classes received in 3.x. So a fighter has more options, but a wizard, fewer.

There's also fewer rules around item creation, "tradeskill" like things, etc. in 4e than there was in 3.x. How much of an issue this is is going to be dependent on how much of a focus those skills are in your game, and how much your DM requires rules for every little thing you want to do.

They both have their place. Each is better for certain playstyles, and certain people. For any game, the players and DM are going to be a far larger influence on the quality of the game than the rules. Liking one or the other does not make you superior.

Vknight
2011-01-24, 05:10 PM
Yeah 4e is about the powers & feats well 3e is about class choices but this topic is about discussing 4e problems & offering suggestions.

kyoryu
2011-01-24, 05:26 PM
While off the current topic, and back to the original, I have a question: Why in the name of all that is good and bacon-y can a dude with a sword only swing his sword really hard once per day? That has baffled me since the first time I played 4e.

I don't have an issue with this, personally.

I've played a lot of hockey, and I can tell you when that things are on the line, people can pull out stunts that you'd *never* think they were capable of. They don't do it all the time, but some people seem to have this internal reserve that they can go to when they really need it. I've seen goalies pull off saves that I'd never think them capable of to keep their team in a game at the last minute, and shooters pull off moves or shots that were beyond what you typically see from them.

This is generally called being a good "clutch" player (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clutch_(sports)). I just figure that all PCs are the equivalent of clutch players, and that it's one of the things that sets them apart. That's how I see "martial" type daily/encounter abilities - it's tapping that internal reserve when it's really needed.

RebelRogue
2011-01-24, 05:26 PM
You chose a really wrong example. A 3.5 Rogue can actually play dirty (and most do). Other than winning initiative, you feint or you gang up on him or attack him from hiding. You use agility all the time - every 3.5 Rogue is almost expected to have maxed Tumble! That is playing dirty. You can even play a Rogue that doesn't!
In 4e? Your power heading says 'you deal X damage. oh, and you're playing dirty'. X is usually the same as other strikers.
So while 4e does some archetypes better than 3.5 (like Fighter), you chose one that 3.5 does a lot better. You have to be a tricky player to be a good Rogue in 3.5; in 4e, you just have to pick powers. That's why some people say it was oversimplified - it's very good to see your crafted combat plan go right, and with a 3.5 Rogue each strike is a combat plan on it's own.
Actually, I think at its core playing a rogue in 3.5 is very much like playing one in 4e: You do the same things (including, but not limited to, everything you've mentioned above) to acheive the same goal: getting your sneak attack damage (i.e. fighting dirty).

Vknight
2011-01-24, 05:36 PM
Think of Daily Powers as so excerting that using any daily more then once would put a considerable strain.
In a 4e game I played you could use Daily's again but it cost 2Healing Surges for Daily's 5& below
Above 5, 3Healing Surges and so on and so forth
It is strange but works somewhat.

I would never use it.

Ragitsu
2011-01-24, 05:49 PM
There's a bit too much "same-ism" in that system, for my liking.

kyoryu
2011-01-24, 05:57 PM
There's a bit too much "same-ism" in that system, for my liking.

I'm not quite sure what that means. Could you explain? Give an example, perhaps, and what you feel might be a better system that has less "same-ism"?

jseah
2011-01-24, 06:26 PM
Just to add a few more "was it too much trouble to..." gripes, here's mine.

Was it too much trouble to give crunch effects for the fluff of abilities?
eg.
Fireball makes combustibles in area burn.
Make a really hard sword swing apply as a bonus to strength for 1 attack (instead of a different attack)
A rules-based, canon explanation for each power would settle the vast majority of my complaints with 4E (and provide lots more badly needed fluff and serve to further differentiate the powers)

Was it too much trouble to provide environmental rules?
Heat/cold damage - conversion from temperature and damage
How tough is X material? Like the example of a barbarian busting through a wall, the 3.5 system of strength check to break + hp per inch was pretty good.
Weather... Damage of lightning? Tornadoes?

Those two, would give a massive boost to the overall immersion.


About sameness, I think if you made fluff have crunch effect (my first was it too much trouble...), you'd very quickly find that fighters and wizards become different. Despite the fact that some melee daily and thunderwave have a number of things in common, being able to exert a sudden burst of strength (say +4 strength for purposes of breaking and lifting objects) has far different applications out of combat compared to... oh, let's say, making a burst of compressed air shove things aside.
Thing is, if you support that with mechanics presently, it becomes houserules. I want these things in the core rules, not have to game my DM whenever I want to get creative.

Mando Knight
2011-01-24, 06:38 PM
Was it too much trouble to provide environmental rules?
Heat/cold damage - conversion from temperature and damage
How tough is X material? Like the example of a barbarian busting through a wall, the 3.5 system of strength check to break + hp per inch was pretty good.
Weather... Damage of lightning? Tornadoes?

Most environmental hazards for travel are discussed in the DMG, page 159... Endurance checks to avoid losing healing surges (that actually can't be restored until you leave the condition). I would add that it's not unreasonable to state that a character with resistance to an element would render himself more resistant (or invulnerable) to appropriate weather types.

Object HP is covered in pages 64-65, but are more of guidelines than definite rules. Adamantine gets x5/3 the HP of an Iron object, which is x3 stronger than wood. Most of the object-kill rules are strength checks to tear apart/break down/force open.

jseah
2011-01-24, 06:51 PM
Yes, I suppose I should clarify.

Was it too much trouble to give concrete numbers for weather rules?
Especially how they interact with resistance/immunities.

I take the thing about breaking objects back. Presumably they apply to weapons and armour, as well as things like dungeon walls and such.
Perhaps a reminder that AoEs will hit surroundings. Might want to think about casting that super-powered fireball if you're in a wooden tower. Could end up with everyone dumped 40ft in the air.
Also, a definition of "1 object" would be good, but not really required.

EDIT: they also had the chance to settle the entire cold/fire damage needed to boil X amount of water.

Mando Knight
2011-01-24, 07:15 PM
Yes, I suppose I should clarify.

Was it too much trouble to give concrete numbers for weather rules?
Especially how they interact with resistance/immunities.
A legitimate complaint. Unofficially, I'd say that a Resist value grants a bonus to Endurance checks against the appropriate weather (Necromantic storm: Necrotic. Frigid cold: Cold. Blazing heat: Fire. Thunderstorm: Lightning. etc.) equal to half the resistance value, and if you lack any healing surges when you fail the Endurance check, you reduce the damage you take by your Resist value.

EDIT: they also had the chance to settle the entire cold/fire damage needed to boil X amount of water.
I think this was left out purposely because WotC's editors didn't want to learn thermodynamics. They'd have to answer questions like

"What temperature is any given source of fire?"

"Is a more damaging fire so because it's a denser flow of fire, or because it's hotter, or because it's more magical?"

"Do we actually want to have some kind of complicated thermodynamic equation in our sourcebooks detailing the heat transfer of a power with any elemental keyword so as to tell people with a background in thermodynamics how much magic they need to apply to heat a given mass of any given material a given amount of time?"

The last one they did answer. The answer was "What? Why in the Nine Hells would we put anyone through that? This is a game with swords and magic, not a physics lecture!"

Blackfang108
2011-01-24, 07:36 PM
While off the current topic, and back to the original, I have a question: Why in the name of all that is good and bacon-y can a dude with a sword only swing his sword really hard once per day? That has baffled me since the first time I played 4e.

It helps to think of the non-magical Daily and Encounter Powers as "Situational" i.e., it requires hitting not only hard, but right, with the proper combination of strategy, planning, and dumb luck such that you're not going to run across that every fight, but every few fights.

You're not just swinging Hard, you're swinging Hard and Precise.

Example: Fighter level 1 Daily, Knee Breaker: while fighting, your enemy leaves his leg a little too open, and he doesn't notice that he's leaving the opening until just after he feels the Crunch.

None of this is in the power itself, but it helps put the daily limit back under "acceptable breaks from reality."

Or, think of them as special techniques that are difficult to use, a la Grandia's weapon Techniques.

Vknight
2011-01-24, 07:38 PM
Exactly as you stated Blackfang.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 08:11 PM
If they are trying to make a completely balanced game why did they make Blade Cascade or let Elves be Astral Weapons?

I am aware they errata'd Blade Cascade. Does not change the fact that they made it.

Reverent-One
2011-01-24, 08:22 PM
If they are trying to make a completely balanced game why did they make Blade Cascade or let Elves be Astral Weapons?

I am aware they errata'd Blade Cascade. Does not change the fact that they made it.

Because people aren't perfect maybe? I don't know why we should expect the designers to be when no one else is. :smallconfused:

Mando Knight
2011-01-24, 08:24 PM
If they are trying to make a completely balanced game why did they make Blade Cascade or let Elves be Astral Weapons?

I am aware they errata'd Blade Cascade. Does not change the fact that they made it.

Intention and results are not the same. Also, Astral Weapon isn't broken, and I don't see anything that would make an Elf AW stronger.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 08:33 PM
Intention and results are not the same. Also, Astral Weapon isn't broken, and I don't see anything that would make an Elf AW stronger.

Forgot to say demigod(I think it's that), sorry. Burn through all your dailies, and then Vorpal everyone's heads off with ever-returning Elvish Accuracy.

Blackfang108
2011-01-24, 08:35 PM
Forgot to say demigod(I think it's that), sorry. Burn through all your dailies, and then Vorpal everyone's heads off with ever-returning Elvish Accuracy.

2 things:

1: Of course, a sane reading of the Demigod Capstone would posit that the power isn't refreshed until the triggering action is resolved. (i.e. the attack is resolved and damage is dealt)

2: Vorpal doesn't work that way anymore. It's not an insta-gib.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 08:40 PM
2 things:

1: Of course, a sane reading of the Demigod Capstone would posit that the power isn't refreshed until the triggering action is resolved. (i.e. the attack is resolved and damage is dealt)

2: Vorpal doesn't work that way anymore. It's not an insta-gib.

No, you can keep critting with an ability which lets you hit again on the crit. Infinite damage and all, assuming I am remembering correctly.

Mando Knight
2011-01-24, 08:44 PM
Third thing:
Demigod's been Errata'd. It's no longer quite as ridiculous. (You only get 1 free Encounter power each encounter, rather than infinitely returning Encounter powers)

Also, that's at level 30. At that point, you're going to be thinking about laying the smackdown on Vecna, Orcus, Tiamat, or the like, and honestly, you need all the help you can get.

Blackfang108
2011-01-24, 08:45 PM
No, you can keep critting with an ability which lets you hit again on the crit. Infinite damage and all, assuming I am remembering correctly.

Nope.

Vorpal: Whenever you roll the maximum result on any damage die, reroll that die again and add the new result to the damage total. If a roll results in another maximum damage result, roll it again and keep adding.

Elven Accuracy doesn't touch damage dice, and on a crit, the base weapon dice aren't rerolled (as they're not rolled, but instead maximized.)

Edit: there is the Rending property. It's the only way I can think of offhand that gives you extra attacks that have no action attached to them, because you can make only one free action attack per round, as the new errata state, IIRC.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-24, 09:00 PM
I believe the way to get infinite damage is to take a Vorpal weapon with d4 damage dice, and use a certain Artificer power to put brutal-3 on it.

WitchSlayer
2011-01-24, 09:01 PM
If you got edition problems I feel bad for you son

I got 99 problems but a game ain't one.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 09:11 PM
Nope.

Vorpal: Whenever you roll the maximum result on any damage die, reroll that die again and add the new result to the damage total. If a roll results in another maximum damage result, roll it again and keep adding.

Elven Accuracy doesn't touch damage dice, and on a crit, the base weapon dice aren't rerolled (as they're not rolled, but instead maximized.)

Edit: there is the Rending property. It's the only way I can think of offhand that gives you extra attacks that have no action attached to them, because you can make only one free action attack per round, as the new errata state, IIRC.

Doesn't Critting max damage? I haven't played 4e in ages.

nightwyrm
2011-01-24, 09:23 PM
Doesn't Critting max damage? I haven't played 4e in ages.

Criting maxes damage dies that you normally roll, not the bonus dies that critting gives you.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 09:50 PM
Criting maxes damage dies that you normally roll, not the bonus dies that critting gives you.

Then doesn't one power let you reroll damage? If not, I just have terrible memory, and should be ignored about 4e. I think it's part of Astral Weapon.

Blackfang108
2011-01-24, 10:11 PM
Doesn't Critting max damage? I haven't played 4e in ages.

Regular damage, and any other dice rolled because of the attack (not rolled because of the crit)

As those dice are not Rolled, they are not rerolled for the Vorpal ability.

kyoryu
2011-01-24, 10:26 PM
Then doesn't one power let you reroll damage? If not, I just have terrible memory, and should be ignored about 4e. I think it's part of Astral Weapon.

Astral Weapon paragon path has a power (encounter) which allows you to reroll a damage dice.

A Vorpal Weapon allows you, when rolling max on a dice, to roll again for more damage, and continue so long as you roll max damage.

That does allow for a small chance of really, really good damage. But if your entire critique of the system is based on that, it seems awfully nitpicky.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 10:46 PM
Astral Weapon paragon path has a power (encounter) which allows you to reroll a damage dice.

A Vorpal Weapon allows you, when rolling max on a dice, to roll again for more damage, and continue so long as you roll max damage.

That does allow for a small chance of really, really good damage. But if your entire critique of the system is based on that, it seems awfully nitpicky.

No, not just that, though I would swear there was a trick for infinite damage, are you sure it isn't daily? But A) it feels like an MMO or something, B) WHY CAN I ONLY SWING A SWORD HARD ONCE A DAY?!? C) there is little skill, IMO, and it feels like "derp, power, derp charge power, derp," the same thing every encounter d) I like my 3.5s, E) Almost everything feels the same, and F) Even if I want to, my fighter can't learn a couple of dirty tricks, like some sneak attack, or can't have a short temper, or some rages. Multiclassing adds a lot to the game.

I could add on, but it would probably be skimmed past, and otherwise be pointless, or lead to edition wars, so I won't.

tcrudisi
2011-01-24, 10:56 PM
/sigh


A) it feels like an MMO or something, B) WHY CAN I ONLY SWING A SWORD HARD ONCE A DAY?!? C) there is little skill, IMO, and it feels like "derp, power, derp charge power, derp," the same thing every encounter d) I like my 3.5s, E) Almost everything feels the same, and F) Even if I want to, my fighter can't learn a couple of dirty tricks, like some sneak attack, or can't have a short temper, or some rages. Multiclassing adds a lot to the game.

A) I can't argue with how you feel about it.
B) Why do you think you can only swing a sword hard once a day?!? You have 3 daily attacks by the end of heroic and 4 daily attacks by the end of paragon. Oh, oh, so level 1? I get it. I'll tell you why: balance. But in my eyes, it's a heckuva lot more fun having 2 standard attacks you can always do versus 1 from previous editions. "I full attack" gets really boring. I like having options, and 4e really opened up options for melee types. Furthermore, Power Attack still exists. Want to hit hard more than once a day? Power Attack.
C) This really, really confuses me. It doesn't require skill? /boggle. In previous editions, the Fighter had a choice: move + attack or full attack. That's it. Now? There's so much strategy on the battlefield that if you have a DM who is even remotely competent with strategies, you and your party will have to work together or die. The Fighter has important decisions to make, while in 3.5 it was mostly "how much do I power attack for". Compare this to previous editions where the party never had to work together in combat. Everyone could do their own thing just fine. If you have one optimized character, everyone else was superfluous. In 4e if you have one optimized character, he still needs the party to save his hide.
D) I used to like 3.5 too. Not any more. 4e really exposed it's flaws to me, and while 4e sure isn't perfect, it's the closest to my idea of fun out of any edition I've ever played (and I started with AD&D).
E) I can't argue with how you feel about it, I just know that I'd much rather have the options melee's have now versus what they had in previous editions.

And this is the big one:
F) You can get sneak attack. Multiclass Rogue and you get it. You can get Rages. Multiclass Barbarian and power-swap. Or take a paragon path that gives it to you. Or take an epic destiny. You can get that stuff. It's all there for the taking, and really easy too. Your Fighter can sneak attack at level 1.

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 11:16 PM
If they are trying to make a completely balanced game why did they make Blade Cascade or let Elves be Astral Weapons?

I am aware they errata'd Blade Cascade. Does not change the fact that they made it.

Well you see one big difference is that in 4e if there is a problem there is a fair chance it will be updated to not be so bad. In 3.5 few broken things were changed which is one reason you get the 3.5 is broken comments. Then again people complain that since 4e gets updated so much you cannot trust your books so both ways have their own issues. Overpowered things will always be created the question is will it be worth it to make changes for the sake of balance.

There were tricks for infinite damage but they were all updated away. They decided allowing such things to be in a game was a bad idea.

A) While obviously I cannot tell you how to feel I can say I have never felt a MMO vibe by having daily martial powers. Heck the MMOs I have seen daily powers generally do not exist.

B) Also a good way to think of daily martial powers is in a narativist fashion in that the daily power is a way to show the climatic hits you see in movies and books. That was a large part of the intent.

C) Seriously in 3.5 so many classes do the same thing over again it seems a little hypocritical to say 4e plays the same especially how the powers interact with terrain, enemies, and ally tactics. Both editions have instances of doing the same thing over and over again.

D) I like it too, though I do know it has its faults. I also like 4e and it has its own faults too. The faults in 4e do not bother me as much as 3.5's faults do at this time. In fact I would by far prefer to DM a 4e game than a 3.5 game. As a player I still prefer 4e though it is not as big of a difference. In building a character for a game 4e wins but in terms of making an obscure unplayable but interesting theoretical build 3.5 wins.

E) Have to disagree with you there. Every combat is a new and exciting tactical challenge to me.

F) You totally can learn tricks. Just because you can not do it by taking a level from this class and a level in another does not mean the concept cannot be done.

kyoryu
2011-01-24, 11:16 PM
No, not just that, though I would swear there was a trick for infinite damage, are you sure it isn't daily? But A) it feels like an MMO or something, B) WHY CAN I ONLY SWING A SWORD HARD ONCE A DAY?!? C) there is little skill, IMO, and it feels like "derp, power, derp charge power, derp," the same thing every encounter d) I like my 3.5s, E) Almost everything feels the same, and F) Even if I want to, my fighter can't learn a couple of dirty tricks, like some sneak attack, or can't have a short temper, or some rages. Multiclassing adds a lot to the game.

I could add on, but it would probably be skimmed past, and otherwise be pointless, or lead to edition wars, so I won't.

A) Well, I can't argue with how you feel. I can only say that the most "MMO-like" experience I've had with a pen and paper RPG was with 3.0. In fact, in general 4e recommends fighting multiple enemies, while most MMOs are designed around single opponents.

B) Read my post on "clutch" players.

c) Fighters and most non-magic types get more options. Wizards can, admittedly, have fewer. Also, if you're fighting a single enemy on open terrain, I can easily see the game devolving into that. That's not a good way to play 4e.

D) Cool. There's nothing wrong with 3.5. That doesn't mean you have to dislike 4e. I like chocolate ice cream, and vanilla, and I even enjoy cake.

E) I still haven't seen a good explanation of this. Yes, it's somewhat true of builds (in that you don't have the multiclassing options available). However, there's still a ton of variety within each build. It's trivial to make 2 Fighters that do not play alike, or two Wizards. They'd look closer alike on the character sheet, admittedly.

F) Yeah, it's a class-based system. 3.x was closer to a skill system. But, with multiclass feats in 4e, you *can* do what you're asking. At 1st level, you can get a "rage-like" ability - and by 10th level, you can get an actual, standard, Barbarian rage daily ability.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 11:45 PM
/sigh



A) I can't argue with how you feel about it.
B) Why do you think you can only swing a sword hard once a day?!? You have 3 daily attacks by the end of heroic and 4 daily attacks by the end of paragon. Oh, oh, so level 1? I get it. I'll tell you why: balance. But in my eyes, it's a heckuva lot more fun having 2 standard attacks you can always do versus 1 from previous editions. "I full attack" gets really boring. I like having options, and 4e really opened up options for melee types. Furthermore, Power Attack still exists. Want to hit hard more than once a day? Power Attack.
Allow me to rephrase: I can only swing my sword in a really cool, flashy way once per day.
C) This really, really confuses me. It doesn't require skill? /boggle. In previous editions, the Fighter had a choice: move + attack or full attack. That's it. Now? There's so much strategy on the battlefield that if you have a DM who is even remotely competent with strategies, you and your party will have to work together or die. The Fighter has important decisions to make, while in 3.5 it was mostly "how much do I power attack for". Compare this to previous editions where the party never had to work together in combat. Everyone could do their own thing just fine. If you have one optimized character, everyone else was superfluous. In 4e if you have one optimized character, he still needs the party to save his hide.
Fighter Tripper that has 15' reach and can trip you for doing anything, Shock Attacker, Grappler, Dungeoncrasher, Zhentarim, cleavemonster, all different builds. Just because your fighters sucked at doing anything but standing and hitting doesn't mean the rest of ours are
D) I used to like 3.5 too. Not any more. 4e really exposed it's flaws to me, and while 4e sure isn't perfect, it's the closest to my idea of fun out of any edition I've ever played (and I started with AD&D).
If I want a little taste of 4e, I hit the ToB. It has the Powers system, but in a more effective way, and can change and do other things.
E) I can't argue with how you feel about it, I just know that I'd much rather have the options melee's have now versus what they had in previous editions.

And this is the big one:
F) You can get sneak attack. Multiclass Rogue and you get it. You can get Rages. Multiclass Barbarian and power-swap. Or take a paragon path that gives it to you. Or take an epic destiny. You can get that stuff. It's all there for the taking, and really easy too. Your Fighter can sneak attack at level 1.

Meh, What if I decide I want to be an angry fighter at third level? Or a Psionic dude with monastic training. I'm pretty sure talashatora doesn't exist.


Well you see one big difference is that in 4e if there is a problem there is a fair chance it will be updated to not be so bad. In 3.5 few broken things were changed which is one reason you get the 3.5 is broken comments. Then again people complain that since 4e gets updated so much you cannot trust your books so both ways have their own issues. Overpowered things will always be created the question is will it be worth it to make changes for the sake of balance.
In a good group, those didn't happen, and there was no need to unmake them. TheoOp is called THEORETICAL for a reason.
There were tricks for infinite damage but they were all updated away. They decided allowing such things to be in a game was a bad idea.

A) While obviously I cannot tell you how to feel I can say I have never felt a MMO vibe by having daily martial powers. Heck the MMOs I have seen daily powers generally do not exist.
The encounter and cooldown were more specifically, really.
B) Also a good way to think of daily martial powers is in a narativist fashion in that the daily power is a way to show the climatic hits you see in movies and books. That was a large part of the intent.
I don't understand, please elaborate.
C) Seriously in 3.5 so many classes do the same thing over again it seems a little hypocritical to say 4e plays the same especially how the powers interact with terrain, enemies, and ally tactics. Both editions have instances of doing the same thing over and over again.
I play Binders, Totemists, Factotums, and Truenamers when I am not a warlock throwing bat swarms in people's faces. I rarely do the same thing every round.
D) I like it too, though I do know it has its faults. I also like 4e and it has its own faults too. The faults in 4e do not bother me as much as 3.5's faults do at this time. In fact I would by far prefer to DM a 4e game than a 3.5 game. As a player I still prefer 4e though it is not as big of a difference. In building a character for a game 4e wins but in terms of making an obscure unplayable but interesting theoretical build 3.5 wins.
I have found it is MUCH easier to homebrew 3.5 things, and that makes a casual game more fun. Also, it is fun to do funny things to high-powered parties.
E) Have to disagree with you there. Every combat is a new and exciting tactical challenge to me.
It either ends up feeling to me like a 3.5 wannabe or a WHFB wannabe, or a game where you can turn your brain off, in which case I'm good with my Chaos Space Marines.
F) You totally can learn tricks. Just because you can not do it by taking a level from this class and a level in another does not mean the concept cannot be done.
Ah, but it is more convenient in 3.5.

A) Well, I can't argue with how you feel. I can only say that the most "MMO-like" experience I've had with a pen and paper RPG was with 3.0. In fact, in general 4e recommends fighting multiple enemies, while most MMOs are designed around single opponents.
And the fact that you can sit there while being mobbed by a bunch of weak chodes and laugh it off at level one. I like my 16 hit-point barbarians.
B) Read my post on "clutch" players.
I've been in enough fights to know that you really can't do that sort of thing in a real fight.
c) Fighters and most non-magic types get more options. Wizards can, admittedly, have fewer. Also, if you're fighting a single enemy on open terrain, I can easily see the game devolving into that. That's not a good way to play 4e.
Meh.
D) Cool. There's nothing wrong with 3.5. That doesn't mean you have to dislike 4e. I like chocolate ice cream, and vanilla, and I even enjoy cake.

E) I still haven't seen a good explanation of this. Yes, it's somewhat true of builds (in that you don't have the multiclassing options available). However, there's still a ton of variety within each build. It's trivial to make 2 Fighters that do not play alike, or two Wizards. They'd look closer alike on the character sheet, admittedly.
I have played a fighter, assassin, swordmage, warden, and psion, and the one that felt any different from the others was the psion.
F) Yeah, it's a class-based system. 3.x was closer to a skill system. But, with multiclass feats in 4e, you *can* do what you're asking. At 1st level, you can get a "rage-like" ability - and by 10th level, you can get an actual, standard, Barbarian rage daily ability.

To the same extent I can go Clawlock 3, Grapple monk 2, grapple fighter 1 or 2, Lock x?

Blackfang108
2011-01-24, 11:50 PM
No, not just that, though I would swear there was a trick for infinite damage, are you sure it isn't daily? But A) it feels like an MMO or something, B) WHY CAN I ONLY SWING A SWORD HARD ONCE A DAY?!? C) there is little skill, IMO, and it feels like "derp, power, derp charge power, derp," the same thing every encounter d) I like my 3.5s, E) Almost everything feels the same, and F) Even if I want to, my fighter can't learn a couple of dirty tricks, like some sneak attack, or can't have a short temper, or some rages. Multiclassing adds a lot to the game.

I could add on, but it would probably be skimmed past, and otherwise be pointless, or lead to edition wars, so I won't.

a.) {Response Deleted}
B.) There are several ways to reconcile this. See my above posts. also: Nonmagical Dailys aren't just "I swing my [whatever] hard"
C.)That's your DM's fault. Wizards gets secondary blame if it's a published module.
D.) fair enough, but doesn't matter. [in the context of this discussion]
E.)That's a personal problem, and I can't help you. Especially when classes feel VERY different in play. (I'll admit, they can look similar on paper, if you don't read the power's descriptions)

F.) A fighter can take the rogue multiclass feat to gain sneak attack, and can then swap powers with further feats, or he can take a rogue Paragon Path. Or he can take the Barbarian multiclass feat (gaining a mini-rage once per day) and then gain a rage with the Daily Power swap, and gain another rage by taking a Barbarian Paragon path.
If you're going to complain about something being a problem with 4e, make sure it's an actual complaint instead of something that you just don't know how to do.
And having a short fuse isn't a mechanics issue, it's a RP issue. There is no reason you can't do that in 4e.

YOUR CLASS NAME ISN'T A STRAIGHTJACKET.

Edit2: "Or a psionic dude with monastic training" This discredits your entire F arguement, as far as I'm concerned.

Dude, you can do that out of the box in 4e. It's called the Monk, and he's in the Psionic Power source. PHB III.

You lobbed that one right over the plate.

Edit 3: "I've been in enough fights..." Really? You've been in fights in D&D land? Because those are the types of fights that mater in this discussion.

Thomo
2011-01-25, 12:02 AM
Honestly, a lot of your problems with 4E seem just that - YOUR problems, not the systems.

It's not the same game as 3.5 - was never intended to be - and it may mean that you have to think a little differently about them.

A) No response is necessary for this.
B) As has been stated numerous times a Daily doesn't just mean you hit something really hard once...
C) The lack of skill isn't a fault on behalf of the system. This is a personal issue and one you need to raise with the DM
D) This, I think, is the crux of your problems with 4th Ed. You need to stop thinking of it as 3.5+
E) Apart from a twin-striking ranger, I've never had this problem. Nor has anyone at my table. This, once again, is a personal issue.
F) Uh, have you read the 4th ed rules? Multiclassing is an option (different to what it was, but still an option). If you meet the requirements for the feats, then you are free to take it. And do you honestly need crunch to ROLEPLAY your fighter with a short temper? Once again, this is a personal issue that is not accurately reflected within the rules for 4th ed.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-25, 12:07 AM
Honestly, a lot of your problems with 4E seem just that - YOUR problems, not the systems.

It's not the same game as 3.5 - was never intended to be - and it may mean that you have to think a little differently about them.

A) No response is necessary for this.
B) As has been stated numerous times a Daily doesn't just mean you hit something really hard once...
C) The lack of skill isn't a fault on behalf of the system. This is a personal issue and one you need to raise with the DM
D) This, I think, is the crux of your problems with 4th Ed. You need to stop thinking of it as 3.5+
E) Apart from a twin-striking ranger, I've never had this problem. Nor has anyone at my table. This, once again, is a personal issue.
F) Uh, have you read the 4th ed rules? Multiclassing is an option (different to what it was, but still an option). If you meet the requirements for the feats, then you are free to take it. And do you honestly need crunch to ROLEPLAY your fighter with a short temper? Once again, this is a personal issue that is not accurately reflected within the rules for 4th ed.

Just pointing out 2 things. One, I just threw those as an example, I, in fact, don't play barbarians, or find them particularly amusing, it just the first thing that popped into my head after fighter and rogue, but before ToB. 2) I am ending this battle of the edition wars before the Great Modthulu devours all our souls, m'kay?

Shatteredtower
2011-01-25, 12:37 AM
In short, this doesn't even become a mechanical glitch until after someone has thrown common sense out the window.

On the one hand, people claim all you need is to apply common sense. On the other, people--sometimes the same people--claim that because you are playing exceptional individuals, normal limits do not apply. They seem to forget that when you've surpassed norms, common sense limitations can no longer be assumed.

Which is it, folks? How many free hands does it take to climb a rough cliff face in a game? Common sense snaps the first time the halfling paladin does it while carrying a dragonborn in plate armour.

As for drowning or starvation rules, this isn't an issue of how long it takes before they become lethal, but how long before they become even remotely inconvenient. Note that this only applies to PCs. A fragile PC wizard unable to escape the grasp of an immobilized, submerged dragonborn mercenary still has an edge in holding breath.

kyoryu
2011-01-25, 12:42 AM
And the fact that you can sit there while being mobbed by a bunch of weak chodes and laugh it off at level one. I like my 16 hit-point barbarians.

You seem to be shifting the argument here - I don't know what that has to do with MMOs, and frankly at level 1 in most MMOs you don't laugh off multiple enemies. Anyway. I played a 1st level barbarian on sunday - I had an AC of 16, and somewhere around 30hp. Which is probably close to what a 3.x barbarian would have on the AC front, and about double the hp.

But let's make another comparison - the humble kobold. In 3.x, a kobold does 1d6-1 damage in melee, with +1 to hit, and has 4hp.

In 4e, that same kobold has 27 hp, +6 to hit, and does 1d8 damage, plus 1d6 if he can get combat advantage. Plus additional +1 to hit for every one of his allies adjacent to the target.

That means that the 3.x kobold is doing 2.5 damage on a hit, with less likelihood of a hit. The 4e kobold is doing 4.5 damage on a hit, with a higher likelihood of a hit - plus extra damage if the kobold gets combat advantage.

The 30hp 4e barbarian will drop to 6 kobolds a lot faster than a 3.x barbarian will. Yes, they have more hp, but enemies do much more damage, are typically (except for minions) more durable, and are also more likely to hit.

Heck, in the same game, we had a Paladin drop to a bunch of 1st level minions, even though he had one of the highest ACs I've seen on a 1st level character.


I've been in enough fights to know that you really can't do that sort of thing in a real fight.

A) You're not really pulling out the realism argument, are you?
B) You're not REALLY pulling out the Internet Tough Guy thing on a ROLEPLAYING GAME FORUM, are you?????


Meh.

You have succinctly countered all of my points. I bow to your wit.


I have played a fighter, assassin, swordmage, warden, and psion, and the one that felt any different from the others was the psion.

I find this hard to believe, unless your DM was pulling solo monsters in a big empty field (in which case, sure.). But I'll go along - what felt "the same" about them? What would have made them feel different? We can start easy - just the assassin and the fighter.

What ability did the assassin have that was anything like marking? What ability did the fighter have that was anything like shroud stacking? How were they similar, except that they each had at-will powers, encounter powers, and daily powers?

WitchSlayer
2011-01-25, 12:50 AM
Don't Fighters get a Battlerager Fighter option at first level? I've never taken it, but doesn't it provide something similar to BARBARIC RAGE?

kyoryu
2011-01-25, 12:55 AM
Don't Fighters get a Battlerager Fighter option at first level? I've never taken it, but doesn't it provide something similar to BARBARIC RAGE?

They can get battlerager vigor, which gives them temporary hit points (similar to rageblood barbarians, but based on the use of Invigorating powers, rather than dropping an enemy to 0hp).

If they choose the multiclass barbarian feat, they can, once a day, go into a pseudo-rage and gain +2 to damage for the rest of that encounter.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-25, 12:55 AM
You seem to be shifting the argument here - I don't know what that has to do with MMOs, and frankly at level 1 in most MMOs you don't laugh off multiple enemies. Anyway. I played a 1st level barbarian on sunday - I had an AC of 16, and somewhere around 30hp. Which is probably close to what a 3.x barbarian would have on the AC front, and about double the hp.

Minions. You can laugh off all of the weak people peppering you with arrows.

But let's make another comparison - the humble kobold. In 3.x, a kobold does 1d6-1 damage in melee, with +1 to hit, and has 4hp.

In 4e, that same kobold has 27 hp, +6 to hit, and does 1d8 damage, plus 1d6 if he can get combat advantage. Plus additional +1 to hit for every one of his allies adjacent to the target.

That means that the 3.x kobold is doing 2.5 damage on a hit, with less likelihood of a hit. The 4e kobold is doing 4.5 damage on a hit, with a higher likelihood of a hit - plus extra damage if the kobold gets combat advantage.

The 30hp 4e barbarian will drop to 6 kobolds a lot faster than a 3.x barbarian will. Yes, they have more hp, but enemies do much more damage, are typically (except for minions) more durable, and are also more likely to hit.

Heck, in the same game, we had a Paladin drop to a bunch of 1st level minions, even though he had one of the highest ACs I've seen on a 1st level character.

I believe Glyphstone was cleat, and so was I, about the edition wars

A) You're not really pulling out the realism argument, are you?
B) You're not REALLY pulling out the Internet Tough Guy thing on a ROLEPLAYING GAME FORUM, are you?????

We're all nerds here. I'd be willing to bet all of us have been in a fight or few.

You have succinctly countered all of my points. I bow to your wit.

Good. To elaborate, as I was busy, basically, you double strike every time with the ranger, Avengers just mark then beat them with at-wills or normal attacks, whatever. Barbarian will probably just charge, or whatever, the psion will mostly be abusing betrayal for all that fun goodness, etc.

I find this hard to believe, unless your DM was pulling solo monsters in a big empty field (in which case, sure.). But I'll go along - what felt "the same" about them? What would have made them feel different? We can start easy - just the assassin and the fighter.

Either move up, or pull them with Noose if you're the assassin, laugh off any insignificant damage it can do to your massive Temp HP, smack it, get more temp HP, lather, rinse, repeat.

What ability did the assassin have that was anything like marking? What ability did the fighter have that was anything like shroud stacking? How were they similar, except that they each had at-will powers, encounter powers, and daily powers?

They would both walk up, hit with a big metal stick, get huge amounts of temp. HP every time.

MeeposFire
2011-01-25, 01:16 AM
Meh, What if I decide I want to be an angry fighter at third level? Or a Psionic dude with monastic training. I'm pretty sure talashatora doesn't exist.


Ah, but it is more convenient in 3.5.


To the same extent I can go Clawlock 3, Grapple monk 2, grapple fighter 1 or 2, Lock x?

NOt being able to use the multi quote thing well I will do my best to answer your queries.

1st Angry fighter-battlerager fighter sounds right up your ally. Hit somebody and you anger rises during the fight giving you tmep HP (toughness) and bonus damage (it used to be when you were hit but that became too powerful)

Psionic dude with monastic training-Monk is an easy answer though if that does not strike your fancy (ugh bad unintentional pun) you will have to explain monastary in context and how much psionic is enough to count to you.

You show off all these fighter builds that in the end are variations of "I attack you" but if I do that using a 4e character you will say I am doing the same thing. I can make a tripper by using a lot of prone powers, grapple from brawler fighter style, the rest I do not really know the schtick but there is a good chance I can find a similar version of the build.

You cannot use the term "a good group" since not all groups are good and what is defined as good depends on each group. 3.5 has lots of issues by the standard rules and just because you can houserule or decide not to use them does not mean they do not exist.

4e characters do not do the same thing every round unless you want to. You get two at wills, 2 types of basic attacks, bull rush and other tactical maneuvers, environmental maneuvers (these are based on what is around so it may not be available), encounter powers, utilities, and dailies possibly more. That is a lot of choices.

If you mean easier to homebrew in that you are more likely to need it then yes otherwise I do not see what you need.

I have no idea what you are talking about chaos space marines and I fail to see what it has to do with me finding the game fun.

I fail to see how having to make a character using 5+ classes is more convenient since that is what many builds in 3.5 seem to turn into.

It is great that you like your 16 hp barbarian but I hope you realize that 4e creatures have better hp and attacks than 3.5 creatures at that level and I happen to dislike being one crit from instant death and having to make a new character that the DM has to fit in and until he does I have to wait around doing nothing in character until he does.

If you cannot tell the difference playing a defender or a striker I feel for you. I cannot possibly see it but I do feel sorry for you. Those classes play very different from each other. For instance a fighter needs to actively engage targets in melee to lock down enemies. Swordmages tend to mark one target and then run off to attack a different target to force the enemy to waste turns and provoke opportunity attacks to attack the swordmage or waste damage by attacking the swordmage's allies. Swordmages also tend to have lots of controller style powers while fighters tend to have strong striking powers (though grappler fighters tend to have controller type but they are grabs and so are very different from what the swordmage does).

kyoryu
2011-01-25, 01:20 AM
Minions. You can laugh off all of the weak people peppering you with arrows.

Did you miss the part with the AC 20 paladin getting taken down by minions? 5hp per shot adds up, quick. Unless you're only fighting a minion or two, in which case - yeah, they're like 3.x kobolds, or other 1/2 or 1/4d critters.



I believe Glyphstone was cleat, and so was I, about the edition wars

Who's warring? I haven't said a single negative thing about any version, or claimed that any version was superior.

It's also somewhat passive aggressive to get in the last word, and use that as an argument to end the discussion.


We're all nerds here. I'd be willing to bet all of us have been in a fight or few.

Sure. But fighting the middle school bully doesn't exactly give me the perspective to talk about a fight between trained soldiers. And that's a far cry from "I've been in a lot of fights."


Good. To elaborate, as I was busy, basically, you double strike every time with the ranger, Avengers just mark then beat them with at-wills or normal attacks, whatever. Barbarian will probably just charge, or whatever, the psion will mostly be abusing betrayal for all that fun goodness, etc.

How does that make the classes feel like each other? I'm still missing this. How does an archer spamming Twin Strike (admittedly, one of the most boring classes in the game) feel like a Barbarian charging?


Either move up, or pull them with Noose if you're the assassin, laugh off any insignificant damage it can do to your massive Temp HP, smack it, get more temp HP, lather, rinse, repeat.

Massive temp HP? Really? Until 11th level, you get con mod temp hp, if you attack an unbloodied opponent. For most assassins, that's 2, or 3 at most. That's hardly "massive" compared to the increased damage that most enemies do in 4th ed. You're aware that temp hp don't stack, right?

The fighter's ability to debuff its opponents attacks vs. the fighter's allies, and stop it in its tracks even on a shift is pretty different than the assassin's ability to pull the enemy back two spaces - if the assassin is within 5 to begin with. If you're willing to eat an OA, you'll probably get away from the assassin. Not nearly as likely with the fighter.


They would both walk up, hit with a big metal stick, get huge amounts of temp. HP every time.

So, they're both melee classes. And, that differs from any other version, how?

Just to get some perspective on where you're coming from, what classes do you typically play in 3.x?

Shatteredtower
2011-01-25, 02:35 AM
One small point, Kyoryu; you've crossed the fighter's combat challenge with combat superiority. The former lets you use an immediate interrupt to attack a marked opponent trying to shift while adjacent to you. The latter lets you stop movement that triggers an opportunity attack from you.

Back to the subject, was it too much trouble to make item creation worth the hassle? You don't save any money brewing your own potions, you take a huge loss when selling them, and there isn't even the benefit of being able to produce them in the middle of nowhere because you still need to purchase the necessary components first.

Speaking of potions, was it too much trouble to let healing potions scale along with character level? Maybe that one was to keep everyone from using lots of them during each short rest, but it gets silly in comparison. A dragonborn fighter could find them inefficient at 1st level while a wizard could still find them advantageous as late as 5th?

MeeposFire
2011-01-25, 02:41 AM
I am not sure who would buy hordes of magic items but in the end it was a matter of balance. If you do not like a game reason go outside of the game and make it work for you. But in terms of the game as a game it is better to keep balance in the standard rules.

Potions suck no joke about it. Though I do think it is nice to be more reliant on your party than on random magic loot. Even wizards quickly dislike potions.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-25, 03:52 AM
Balance should not be dependent upon the ridiculous. If you've gone to the trouble and expense of acquiring the brew potion and enchant magic item rituals, there should be some benefit to this beyond greater flexibility in residuum use. It's not the ability to create rare items.

Making players less item dependent is good. Doing so at the cost of making items bad investments suggests it would have been better to leave them out of the game entirely.

By all means, using them as automatic revival tools for people out of healing surges is fine. Beyond that, let each one grant you the ability to expend a healing surge in combat, at a penalty to attack rolls for each potion consumed. Let one used during a short rest grant an item bonus to healing surges used.

Again, balance shouldn't demand silliness.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-25, 04:59 AM
Hi. I make and wear a wide variety of armor. Swimming in a chain vest is remarkably easy.
Thank you, that was interesting to read.

Okay, let me rethink my opinion on swimming checks. Actually, it's a pretty silly concept that you have to roll a check each turn to move; swimming doesn't work that way. If you can swim (and it's fair to assume an adventurer can) then you can move around in water every round. The issue should really be fatigue: not everybody who can swim can do it for a full mile. Swimming while wearing jeans is (somewhat) more exhausting than swimming in beach clothing. Swimming in plate mail is (substantially) more exhausting than swimming in jeans.

So a better rule instead of rolling each turn to see if you can move, would be to roll each minute to see if you lose a healing surge. I do maintain that heavy armor should give a much greater penalty to this check than -1 or -2, although it is not as crippling as I thought it would be.

My overall point here is that fighting in or under water should play substantially differently than fighting on land, and by RAW it doesn't really.


in my eyes, it's a heckuva lot more fun having 2 standard attacks you can always do versus 1 from previous editions. "I full attack" gets really boring.
Ah, but it's important to note that many people like to full-attack every single turn. WOTC is banking on this: the main selling point of 4.4 is that it has classes that use a basic attack every turn. Having fewer options is not objectively bad.

Also, in my opinion, "using an at-will" is the 4E equivalent of "full attacking"; that is, 4E combat tends to get boring at the point where you use an at-will every round. This is why the Thief and Slayer classes are not to my taste.


And this is the big one:
F) You can get sneak attack. Multiclass Rogue and you get it. You can get Rages. Multiclass Barbarian and power-swap.
I wouldn't mind having more multiclass options, actually. If you point at two randomly chosen class features, the odds are pretty good that it's not possible to combine both in a single character. For example, I'd like to be obtain the wizard's cantrips, or the fighter's stop-movement ability, or the ranger's wilderness knacks.


Well you see one big difference is that in 4e if there is a problem there is a fair chance it will be updated to not be so bad.
I'm afraid this is no longer the case. WOTC has basically stopped errata'ing all the books prior to HOFK, except where needed to make them compatible with 4.4.


Potions suck no joke about it.
I think this is fair criticism: with a few notable exceptions, almost all consumable items are really not worth it, including alchemy. That could have been done better.

tcrudisi
2011-01-25, 08:28 AM
Fighter Tripper that has 15' reach and can trip you for doing anything, Shock Attacker, Grappler, Dungeoncrasher, Zhentarim, cleavemonster, all different builds. Just because your fighters sucked at doing anything but standing and hitting doesn't mean the rest of ours are

Fighter Tripper? It's an easy build to make a Fighter in 4e who knocks people prone every round.

Shock Attacker? I assume you mean the Shock Trooper, Leap Attack jump-charging build? The one that greatly reduces it's AC instead of BAB? Charging is a very viable strategy on a 2-h weapon Fighter and it works really well for dpr.

Grappler? Oh man, this is one of my favorite Fighters in 4e. It's now a sub-class of Fighter called, appropriately enough, Brawler.

Cleavemonter? Cleave has been in the game since day 1, albeit as a power instead of a feat. The best mimic I can think of would actually be the Barbarian who gets to charge when killing an enemy. But it's there.

I have no idea what Dungeoncrasher or Zhentarim are, however. I mean, I know the Zhentarim are the evil people from Forgotten Realms, but I've never heard of a Zhentarim build. If I had to guess, I'd say it was something assassin related, but I'm guessing at this point.

So there's a build for every 3.5 Fighter you just mentioned that I knew of.

Also, 4e Fighter has plenty of other options available as well (since above I didn't even consider the plethora of options available through paragon paths or epic destinies) like: the Tempest Technique for attacking multiple enemies or Fighters that hit so hard that with every hit they daze their opponent into taking only 1 action per round.

In 4e Fighters have one huge, amazing advantage over Fighters in all previous editions: they actually do what they were designed to do. Fighters are designed to be the tanks. In the previous editions this meant the DM having to play nice and choose to attack the Fighter over other characters just because he was supposed to. Now? The Fighter gets attacked because if the monster doesn't do it, he'll be punished.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-25, 08:39 AM
Zhentarim fighter is a fighter guy who uses intimidate to frighten people. It's a class level substitude released for Champions of Valor (for whatever strange reason - one would think that Zhentarim Fighter and Dark Moon Disciple sould rather be put together with Champions of Ruin or so).

tcrudisi
2011-01-25, 08:52 AM
Zhentarim fighter is a fighter guy who uses intimidate to frighten people. It's a class level substitude released for Champions of Valor (for whatever strange reason - one would think that Zhentarim Fighter and Dark Moon Disciple sould rather be put together with Champions of Ruin or so).

So it's something that every class in 4e can do anyway? Fighters make even better use out of Intimidate (Rattling keyword to give enemies -2 to attack) as well as forcing enemies to surrender.

Callista
2011-01-25, 08:58 AM
Huh, you can force enemies to surrender? That's... interesting. Instant moral dilemma, if you can't afford to feed a bunch of prisoners.

Kylarra
2011-01-25, 09:28 AM
For example, I'd like to be obtain the wizard's cantrips, or the fighter's stop-movement ability, or the ranger's wilderness knacks.Just to be pedantic, Hedge Wizard's gloves gives you most of them. The others are fair enough.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-25, 09:33 AM
Huh, you can force enemies to surrender? That's... interesting. Instant moral dilemma, if you can't afford to feed a bunch of prisoners.
Yes, by making an intimidate check when they're bloodied. With a bit of investment in that skill, this becomes either horribly broken, or something that DMs simply veto.


Just to be pedantic, Hedge Wizard's gloves gives you most of them.
Sure, but not at level 1.

Blackfang108
2011-01-25, 09:58 AM
Sure, but not at level 1.

yeah. you have to wait all the way to, what? 4th level?

CycloneJoker
2011-01-25, 10:05 AM
Did you miss the part with the AC 20 paladin getting taken down by minions? 5hp per shot adds up, quick. Unless you're only fighting a minion or two, in which case - yeah, they're like 3.x kobolds, or other 1/2 or 1/4d critters.

What about an AC high Warden? Not happening.

Who's warring? I haven't said a single negative thing about any version, or claimed that any version was superior.

Whatever then, I'll continue.

It's also somewhat passive aggressive to get in the last word, and use that as an argument to end the discussion.

That was a clarification more than an argument, for reference.

Sure. But fighting the middle school bully doesn't exactly give me the perspective to talk about a fight between trained soldiers. And that's a far cry from "I've been in a lot of fights."

No, it really isn't. Why wouldn't someone fight to kill the opponent, or whatever the objective, from the getgo.

How does that make the classes feel like each other? I'm still missing this. How does an archer spamming Twin Strike (admittedly, one of the most boring classes in the game) feel like a Barbarian charging?

I really do lack insight on barbarians, but it just is similar. It's like asking why throwing Magic Missiles is similar to throwing Fireball. Just a similar mechanic, and this one is just repeated endlessly.

Massive temp HP? Really? Until 11th level, you get con mod temp hp, if you attack an unbloodied opponent. For most assassins, that's 2, or 3 at most. That's hardly "massive" compared to the increased damage that most enemies do in 4th ed. You're aware that temp hp don't stack, right?
Max out Con, a lot of abilities work on it. You can play a con-based build.
The fighter's ability to debuff its opponents attacks vs. the fighter's allies, and stop it in its tracks even on a shift is pretty different than the assassin's ability to pull the enemy back two spaces - if the assassin is within 5 to begin with. If you're willing to eat an OA, you'll probably get away from the assassin. Not nearly as likely with the fighter.

Then you just run up and hit it, or noose it back, whatever.

So, they're both melee classes. And, that differs from any other version, how?
I believe I've covered how easy it is to make VASTLY different Fighters.
Just to get some perspective on where you're coming from, what classes do you typically play in 3.x?
Mostly Binders, Glaive or Clawlocks, Incarnum, Samurai and Truenamers (real optimizers use them), Factotum, and straight up fighter from time to time.

Fighter Tripper? It's an easy build to make a Fighter in 4e who knocks people prone every round.
Irrelevant, I was pointing out how different 3.5 fighters are, but okay, I'll play this game. Can this fighter hit everything in 15' and get massive boosts to trip them, like my friend Marshal?
Shock Attacker? I assume you mean the Shock Trooper, Leap Attack jump-charging build? The one that greatly reduces it's AC instead of BAB? Charging is a very viable strategy on a 2-h weapon Fighter and it works really well for dpr.
Meh. Never cared for it anyway.
Grappler? Oh man, this is one of my favorite Fighters in 4e. It's now a sub-class of Fighter called, appropriately enough, Brawler.
Okay, see above, monks are more interesting.
Cleavemonter? Cleave has been in the game since day 1, albeit as a power instead of a feat. The best mimic I can think of would actually be the Barbarian who gets to charge when killing an enemy. But it's there.
As a fighter?
I have no idea what Dungeoncrasher or Zhentarim are, however. I mean, I know the Zhentarim are the evil people from Forgotten Realms, but I've never heard of a Zhentarim build. If I had to guess, I'd say it was something assassin related, but I'm guessing at this point.
Bull rush people into walls dealing huge damage, and bust through doors well.
So there's a build for every 3.5 Fighter you just mentioned that I knew of.
So? Not only did you miss two, you also rolled a natural one when hitting the point.
Also, 4e Fighter has plenty of other options available as well (since above I didn't even consider the plethora of options available through paragon paths or epic destinies) like: the Tempest Technique for attacking multiple enemies or Fighters that hit so hard that with every hit they daze their opponent into taking only 1 action per round.
Sure, and I can take a level of binder, then go Knight of the Seal, I can Go Zhentarim, multiclass Samurai, and have fun making people piss their pants as a move action, or a swift.
In 4e Fighters have one huge, amazing advantage over Fighters in all previous editions: they actually do what they were designed to do. Fighters are designed to be the tanks. In the previous editions this meant the DM having to play nice and choose to attack the Fighter over other characters just because he was supposed to. Now? The Fighter gets attacked because if the monster doesn't do it, he'll be punished.
Speak for yourself. Just because a fighter isn't tier one doesn't mean it can't be good.

Zhentarim fighter is a fighter guy who uses intimidate to frighten people. It's a class level substitude released for Champions of Valor (for whatever strange reason - one would think that Zhentarim Fighter and Dark Moon Disciple sould rather be put together with Champions of Ruin or so).
I hardly think that Substitute is appropriate, as they apply only on odd levels, so the fighter loses nothing, but whatever.

So it's something that every class in 4e can do anyway? Fighters make even better use out of Intimidate (Rattling keyword to give enemies -2 to attack) as well as forcing enemies to surrender.

Okay, I can get a high enough Intimidate score, and lock an opponent so he cannot do anything, so he sits there cowering, and I have a greatsword and power attack. Did I mention he doesn't get dexterity to AC anymore? Guess what happens.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-25, 10:45 AM
yeah. you have to wait all the way to, what? 4th level?
Well, this is just an example, but it does mean that the character of "barbarian with mage hand" cannot be played in D&D Encounters (which only goes to level 3) nor in any campaign where the DM restricts item access (which is the official default, after all).

My point is that if an option is only available at a certain level, then in some campaigns this will simply never come up. For example, the vast majority of campaigns (at least in my area) play at heroic tier; that means that if my question is "can I play X in 4E?" and the answer is "yes, but it requires paragon feats", then the practical answer for the actual campaigns in my area is "no, you can't".

For example, the fighter can indeed multiclass to rogue to get Sneak Attack at level one; however, he can only take a Rage power at level ten.



Tangential - CycloneJoker, could you please format your post in a more legible manner?

CycloneJoker
2011-01-25, 10:49 AM
Tangential - CycloneJoker, could you please format your post in a more legible manner?

If I may inquire, what makes it difficult to read?

Kurald Galain
2011-01-25, 10:53 AM
If I may inquire, what makes it difficult to read?

That you put text in a quote box that isn't a quote.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-25, 11:06 AM
That you put text in a quote box that isn't a quote.

And bolded it so it would be clear it wasn't theirs. I'll might try to stop, but it's a fairly old habit.

kyoryu
2011-01-25, 11:24 AM
For example, the fighter can indeed multiclass to rogue to get Sneak Attack at level one; however, he can only take a Rage power at level ten.


Just a minor point here - this is certainly true if you want an actual, Daily barbarian Rage ability. However, the multiclass barbarian feat is called Berserker's Fury, and gives a +2 to damage until the end of an encounter daily. Which seems a lot like rage to me, except in the most mechanics-oriented sense.

WalkingTarget
2011-01-25, 11:29 AM
And bolded it so it would be clear it wasn't theirs. I'll might try to stop, but it's a fairly old habit.

Another reason to think about stopping is that it makes it much more difficult to quote you in turn.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-25, 11:42 AM
Another reason to think about stopping is that it makes it much more difficult to quote you in turn.

Point, though I've always used copy/paste, but, whatever, I'll stop.

tcrudisi
2011-01-25, 12:02 PM
That you put text in a quote box that isn't a quote.

Also, it makes it more difficult to reply to anything you have said, since when one replies, anything quoted in that original post is not copied into the reply.


Did you miss the part with the AC 20 paladin getting taken down by minions? 5hp per shot adds up, quick. Unless you're only fighting a minion or two, in which case - yeah, they're like 3.x kobolds, or other 1/2 or 1/4d critters.

What about an AC high Warden? Not happening.

Sure it will. Assuming a Warden starts with 20 Con, Hide Armor, and a Heavy Shield... his AC is 20. Same as the Paladin used in the example.


It's like asking why throwing Magic Missiles is similar to throwing Fireball. Just a similar mechanic, and this one is just repeated endlessly.

This argument is one I've never understood. In 3.5, you roll a d20+mods to see if you hit. In 4e, you roll a d20+mods to see if you hit. In that regards, is using a bow similar to throwing a fireball? Absolutely. But that's it. The attacks are nowhere near similar. In fact, you chose the one example which is so far separate from each other as to be laughable. Fireball: roll 1d20+mods to see if you hit for 3d6+mods damage. Magic Missile: You don't even roll. Just take X damage. That seems pretty darn similar to 3.5 where in Fireball: "target rolls Reflex (1d20+mods) to avoid damage. In Magic Missile: target takes 1d4+mods damage. Uh-oh. If anything, 3.5 is too similar because you actually roll with both powers! ... yeah, that sounded silly and it was meant to sound silly.


Massive temp HP? Really? Until 11th level, you get con mod temp hp, if you attack an unbloodied opponent. For most assassins, that's 2, or 3 at most. That's hardly "massive" compared to the increased damage that most enemies do in 4th ed. You're aware that temp hp don't stack, right?
Max out Con, a lot of abilities work on it. You can play a con-based build.

Sure, you can max out Con. Then you'll get 5 or 6 temp hps every time you hit! ... Unfortunately, you'll hit 15% less, since you were unable to max out your Dexterity, which is the stat you use to attack. So you'll instead get 0 temp hps every round and gimp your overall damage-output, which as a striker is key.


As a fighter?

4e doesn't care so much about what you call yourself. You want to play a "Fighter"? Congrats, the Barbarian can do it easily. Rename your Rages to instead be "precision attacks and stances" or some-such, and bam - you are a perfectly fine Fighter.


Bull rush people into walls dealing huge damage, and bust through doors well.

There are ways to improve your ability to bull rush and they are all items and feats, so yes, a Fighter can do this well in 4e. Busting through objects? Barbarians do it best (thanks to feat support), but a Fighter could MC Barbarian and steal some of that awesomeness.


So? Not only did you miss two, you also rolled a natural one when hitting the point.

I missed one. I covered the Zhentarim in a later post. So I only missed the Bull Rush one, which I just covered.

I rolled a natural one when hitting the point for a reason. Psychologically speaking, when people have made up their minds about something they feel is important, they are not likely to change their mind even in the face of extreme adversity. And I know this example is impossible, but bear with me: If everyone who ever played or worked with 3.5, excepting you, suddenly said, "Oh man, 3.5 is a terrible system because of the following 5,982 reasons...", you would be highly unlikely to change your mind. If the guy who wrote it then said, "I wrote it while drunk in 2 days. Man, did I make a bunch of mistakes. I'm glad they fixed everything in 4e and 5e", it wouldn't change anything. Why? Because your mind is already made up. And guess what? It's not just you. It's everyone (okay, the study only looked at United States Americans, I should clarify this). I find myself falling victim to it on occasion, too. When 4e first came out, I thought it was okay, but I still liked 3.5 better. The more I played it, the more it grew on me. Then, one day, someone played Pun-Pun in a 3.5 game I was playing in. I was so amazed that I quit 3.5 right then and there. I'll never play 3.5 again because I so love the balance that 4e has brought.

I find it frustrating when people who don't know anything about 4e make false claims about it. If you don't like 4e, well, just say so, but when someone says "Fighters can't learn sneak attack" which has been false since the PHB1... it just seems like a smear campaign designed to convince people that they shouldn't play 4e. There are so many misconceptions floating around, even on these boards, by people who dislike 4e but seemed to have not played more than a session or two (if that). I just don't understand why 3.5 and 4e is so polarizing. People enjoy playing 3.5? Great. I used to as well. I understand. People enjoy playing 4e? Great. I enjoy it a lot right now. When 5e comes out, I'll most likely make the switch and be complaining, "man, that whole balance thing was a crock! I can't believe I ever liked it. 5e does it SOOO much better with the new gaddlygook system!" And then the 4e players I used to associate with will badger me about how it's a bad system. C'est la vie.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-25, 12:20 PM
Great Modthulhu: And inevitably, the edition war happened anyways. Thread locked for review, and very unlikely to be unlocked.