How to make 4e DnD more diverse like 3.5?

[randomhero00]

I was thinking of implementing character points that you earn on level up that you can spend to diversify your character. For instance, say you were a barbarian with an encounter power that hit all adjacent enemies, if you chose controller then you might be able to slow them as well. I was also thinking that everyone gets a free multiclass feat per tier. That, and maybe give more points for stats (but with a max amount.)

Obviously balancing would be harder but I'm not as worried about that as my players simply don't like 4e because it feels so cookie cutter. Which makes roleplay feel forced and repetitive.

So, combing encounter powers, increasing secondary and tertiary stats, free multiclass feat per tier, anything else?

[Tyndmyr]

If your players don't like 4e, I'd suggest just playing 3.5. It's easier to make 3.5 feel like 4e than vice versa.

Or of course, pathfinder or one of the other variants out there. Lots to choose from, really.

[randomhero00]

If your players don't like 4e, I'd suggest just playing 3.5. It's easier to make 3.5 feel like 4e than vice versa.

Or of course, pathfinder or one of the other variants out there. Lots to choose from, really.

Well we've been playing 3.x and pathfinder since it came out. I want something new without getting rid of diversity. We already got most of 4e books anyway. Plus I really really like the character builder.

edit 4e is also a lot easier to balance.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, your changes won't be in the character builder anyhow, unless they've added something Im not aware of.

The best I can advise you is try a different game or setting. There's some solid third party stuff out there for D20 systems that really mixes it up. D20 past. Iron Kingdoms, etc. Similar system, very different feel.

[randomhero00]

Well, your changes won't be in the character builder anyhow, unless they've added something Im not aware of.

The best I can advise you is try a different game or setting. There's some solid third party stuff out there for D20 systems that really mixes it up. D20 past. Iron Kingdoms, etc. Similar system, very different feel.

The extra stat points would be, and I think you can force extra feats, but I forget. The combining of powers would be the only thing.

[Kurald Galain]

my players simply don't like 4e because it feels so cookie cutter. Which makes roleplay feel forced and repetitive.
Then I don't think that character points (which let you take "cookie cutter" options) are going to help. You're treating a symptom, not a cause.

That said, it's easy to implement something like this. Your option basically boils down to "more feats". Give the PCs a feat every level, instead of every other level, and that should cover all of your options. Possibly add a feat that increases a stat by +2 (other than your primary stat; this is a useful feat but not overpowered), or one that adds a boost of your choice to the encounter power of your choice (this has a chance of being overpowered depending on writing).

[TroubleBrewing]

Honestly, if you want to make 4e feel more like 3.5... play 3.5. It's probably easier in the long run. If you're worried about balance issues, spend a few months on forums like this one learning what not to allow. (Dweomerkeeper, I'm looking at you. Same goes for you, Incantatrix.)

[Surrealistik]

My biggest problem in this regard is power monotony rather than actual build homogeneity but it's probably worse in 3.5 for certain classes (looking at you martial types). In otherwords, you only get a few powers, which you'll be using basically ad nauseum over the course of your career. More At-Wills, and an additional Encounter and Utility power per level you get them that you can choose to 'prepare' in place of another during an Extended Rest (exactly as per the Essentials Mage) would address this nicely.

Also, adding more feats to help mitigate the burden of feat taxes like Expertise and Improved Defenses (or providing them as bonus feats) would certainly be of great help in improving build diversity.

[Eldan]

Why not go the other way around? Several people have said it, but if you take D&D and only allow the most balanced tiers, 3 and 4, you have something that gets pretty close to what you want anyway. You have quite a few classes with at will and encounter powers, even, between initiators and warlocks.

If you are just bored of 3.5, then grab some homebrew from these boards. There's a few completely new power systems floating around that are quite interesting. Then get a new campaign setting you haven't played in.

Or just get a different system. There's even a few free ones, if you are worried about books.

Alternatively, from looking at 4E core (the only thing I know): homebrew more utility powers, and give everyone three or four of them.

[randomhero00]

reply: because we've already spent money on 4e :)

I like the auto bonus feat thing. Especially since several feats are obviously needed. Combine that with a free multiclass feat, and a +4 to a tertiary stat, plus extra encounter powers (maybe 1 from another class every 5 levels or something)...and it should be good.

[Tyndmyr]

Just because you spent money on a system doesnt make it the correct one to run. If your players hate it, why run it?

It's not like the 3.5 srd and homebrew costs you more money.

[Akabana_Shin]

I once tried to make difference for each power source. Like, martial classes get more at-will, can power their at-wills, but have less daily powers. Arcane classes, on the other hand, have only one at-will, less encounter, but more daily powers. And things like that for the other sources. That way, each power source becomes something original and not just a fluffy concept without any real meaning.

[Kylarra]

How about giving a free multiclass feat+associated feat chain for power swapping?

[randomhero00]

Plus I just take this as a challenge to make 4e fun. I like moding things. So sue me.

[TroubleBrewing]

We aren't necessarily criticizing your intentions, as they ARE good ones: you're simply trying to improve a product to make it like a product that already exists. We're merely suggesting cutting out the middleman: all of the work and effort that would go into converting one system into a system that is largely available through the SRD and various homebrew items located on this and similar sites. Plus, it's not really a mod if it's just product B (which is derivative of product A) made to look like product A. It's just uneccessary work.

[randomhero00]

We aren't necessarily criticizing your intentions, as they ARE good ones: you're simply trying to improve a product to make it like a product that already exists. We're merely suggesting cutting out the middleman: all of the work and effort that would go into converting one system into a system that is largely available through the SRD and various homebrew items located on this and similar sites. Plus, it's not really a mod if it's just product B (which is derivative of product A) made to look like product A. It's just uneccessary work.

Well no, I'm not trying to make it exactly like 3.5. I want its newness + its balance and then 3.5. Get what I'm saying now?

Basically I think its easier for my tastes to diversify 4e than to balance 3.5.

[Tyndmyr]

It's just uneccessary work.

This one. For good homebrew, start with what's closest to your goal. Klepto things that work from other systems relentlessly. Sure, you can mod anything into anything...you can build a whole system from scratch if you want. But if it already exists, why not save the effort?

[randomhero00]

This one. For good homebrew, start with what's closest to your goal. Klepto things that work from other systems relentlessly. Sure, you can mod anything into anything...you can build a whole system from scratch if you want. But if it already exists, why not save the effort?

because i like 4e. who cares why man?

[TroubleBrewing]

who cares why man?

We aren't asking why you like 4e. Heck, I like 4e as a tactical combat game. It's interesting, it's easy to pick up and play, and it plays well with inexperienced players. What we're wondering is why you'd want to take a game whose main virtue is its simplicity, and add elements of a game known for its almost impenetrable complexity. It seems counter-intuitive, that's all.

[randomhero00]

We aren't asking why you like 4e. Heck, I like 4e as a tactical combat game. It's interesting, it's easy to pick up and play, and it plays well with inexperienced players. What we're wondering is why you'd want to take a game whose main virtue is its simplicity, and add elements of a game known for its almost impenetrable complexity. It seems counter-intuitive, that's all.

Hmm, probably the same reason I'll study math even though I've graduated college and don't need math for my current job.

[Tyndmyr]

If it helps, I give the exact same reaction to people who want to play a hack and slash game with CoC rules or whatever other odd combo you have. It all can be done...but every ruleset has a given focus. If someone asks how to get rid of all the distrust in Paranoia, I'd strongly suggest they pick a different system, because by the time they get done hacking that out...it wont be the same system anyway.

In short, 4e's non-diverse(don't want to use the word simple) nature is pretty integral to it. You'll end up gutting the whole thing to change that.

[Reverent-One]

Exactly what sort of diversity are you looking to add to 4e?

[Doug Lampert]

Well no, I'm not trying to make it exactly like 3.5. I want its newness + its balance and then 3.5. Get what I'm saying now?

Basically I think its easier for my tastes to diversify 4e than to balance 3.5.

I don't really get what sort of diversity you want. The various 4th ed classes IN PLAY are quite diverse in terms of what they do. Character to character diversity is there.

As for diversity of choices in play, have you COMPARED a 4th ed martial type to a 3.5 martial build? 3.5 probably has one decent trick at mid level, 4th ed at mid level typically has 2 at wills, 3 encounters, a paragon path encounter, 3 dailies, a racial power, an action point, a second wind, and a bunch of item powers, and ALL of these are likely to be at least occassionally useful in combat (except for rangers where the second-at will is pointless since it's not named twin-strike).

Or do you mean build choices? Level 1 3.x, one race, one feat, one class, maybe a handful of spells. And most of your "choices" are traps. Level 1 4th, one race, one feat (which can be a multiclass feat), one class (or two if taking a hybrid class), 2 at will powers, 1 encounter power, 1 daily power. And you almost have to deliberately TRY to get fourth ed wrong.

There are orders of magnitude more real choices at level 1 in 4th ed, despite the fact that there are far fewer books full of races and feats and classes. And pretty much every level will give at least one attack power, utility power, stat increase, or feat. There is a problem of MAD on many hybrids/multiclasses, but that's WORSE in 3.x too.

So, no, I don't get what you're saying. The only diversity missing in 4th ed is the ability to freely multiclass, and in fact between hybrids, multiclass feats, paragon paths, and epic desitines you have plenty of ability to multiclass in 4th ed.

Do you want character to character diversity or diversity in the actions any one character can reasonably choose in battle or diversity in build choices or something else. Because it seems to me that the only way 4th ed characters are lacking in any sort of diversity compared to 3.x builds is in that all 4th ed powers are called "at-will" "encounter" or "daily" and they're earned at the same level (baring essencials and PHB3 classes) and in 4th ed you don't have as many sucky or brokenly powerful choices filling entire books.

[ericgrau]

I'm agreed with those who just say play 3.5. It's a lot of work and any balance you like in 4e will be gone. At least with 3.5 there's been some testing. You'd be taking total shots in the dark.

Some things I like from 1e/2e that I think is missing from 3.5e and 4e are unusual dungeons and worlds. Basically tricky challenges that don't fall under the mechanical rules. Thus any game system could have them but they seemed to have disappeared in 3e, perhaps crowded out by all the new rules. I'd google all kinds of clever challenges which require players describing what they do to overcome them more than rolling dice to do so. Make sure you find popular ones; others can be a tedious headache.

Under worlds comes more role-playing aspects. Set up economies, trade routes, society motivations, basic needs, etc. Also provides more opportunities for clever plans as in "lets sneak in as one of their _____" or "let's block off their supply of ______", etc. There are old world building books for this, but I don't know how good they are.

I think both of these could add diversity to any campaign, without getting into mechanical balance.

[Dalek-K]

I'm also slightly confused as to what you are getting at...

Sure when 4th edition first came out it was very sharp around the edges but since then... Like most games... It has become more fluid over time.

Compare 3.X fighter to 4.0 fighter ... Which one is more flexible?

Maybe you should just run a hybrid game... Maybe that will help with whatever you are trying...

[Sine]

Just getting rid of class skills does wonders for diversity and rp potential. (AKA "all skills are class skills") Players should play their characters, not their class.

[randomhero00]

I guess I want it to FEEL like there are more options. Maybe 4e is too "perfect." You almost can't go wrong. It feels like you're no longer building a character, you're just choosing random stuff .

[Tyndmyr]

Honestly, it sounds like you really like 4e, and your players really like 3.5.

The best way to handle a conflict like that is to take a short break and play something else entirely.

[randomhero00]

Honestly, it sounds like you really like 4e, and your players really like 3.5.

The best way to handle a conflict like that is to take a short break and play something else entirely.

possibly. I'm trying to convince them that there are more options than there appear and that paragon + opens even more.

I guess I just hate the feat tax and stat tax...

[DeltaEmil]

Well, if you do want to incorporate system mastery and trap options, just house-rule a bunch of bad stuff in. Like an encounter power called dodge that can only be used against one enemy giving you +1 AC (totally overpowered against solos, people will think), toughness (gives you 2 hit points... that's like +2 to your constitution score) or re-introducing racial penalties. All races get two -2 penalties for some specific attributes (elves and eladrins shouldn't be healthy, so -2 to constitution and strength should balanced their overpowerdness out), humans on the other hand only get a -2 penalty to any other stat they can choose, to balance it out with the free +2 bonus they receive to any stat of their choice.
Give elves the ability to findsearch hidden doors when they stand right infront of one. Oh yeah, and bring back elven variety. 1000 elven subraces for 1000 classes, each one specifically bred for the classes they are meant to synergize with. Want a barbarian-elf? Let's take wild elves. Do we need more magical elves than eladrins? Sure we do, let's call them gold or grey elves (gold and grey elves are two different subraces, because the grey ones have an even better bonus to search for hidden doors, but a penalty on their other perception rolls). Then there's winged elves, round-ear-elves (they get a bonus feat, and a bonus at-will power, replacing humans), star elves, big elves, santa clause elves, wood elves (they're made of wood), elf-elves (they're double the elfiness that elves normally have), dark elves (not the same race like the drows), and aquatic elves, flying elves (they're similar to winged elves, but don't have wings), sea elves (they're like aquatic elves, but they live in saltwater), green pinewood elves, sand elves, dune elves, thunder elves, dire elves, super elves, blue elves, elvis elves, and more and more elves.

That should be enough character options to fullfill the heart of anyone.

[The Glyphstone]

I would totally play an Elvis Elf Bard.:smallsmile:

[randomhero00]

I would totally play an Elvis Elf Bard.:smallsmile:

ahahah.

Actually tho seriously. I've always wanted an inherently musical race. A race that has its own language that must be spoken in poetry and song. And have some sort of sonic ability. As well as prefer some sort of unique sonic weapon. And probably live underground (accoustics) and use the shatter spell to create tunnels.

[Mando Knight]

I would totally play an Elvis Elf Bard.:smallsmile:

Or is he just an Elvish impersonator (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgGYXwPWmLw)?

[Tyndmyr]

Or is he just an Elvish impersonator (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgGYXwPWmLw)?

Oh that hurts. It's so, so very bad.

I'd play it.

[TroubleBrewing]

Can we have an elven subrace that's Diminutive-sized and gets a +2 racial bonus to Craft: Delicious, Horribly Addictive Cookies?

[WitchSlayer]

Make someone take the whip multiclass path feats. Those are pretty awesome.

[Jothki]

If a player really wants a particular option that 4e doesn't already have, how difficult would it be to whip up a pseudo-multiclass feat that gives bonuses and an otherwise nonexistant power?

[Analytica]

My suggestion for more 3.5 feel in 4e:

- Make rituals expend healing surges, but less money. Perhaps rituals of half your level or less are free, something like that.
- Make more classes use a "spellbook" feature like the wizard, but do not limit it to one extra power per that level that you can choose from - rather you can learn as many as you can find books describing, and choose from them all each day.

Not necessarily good from a balance standpoint, I guess.

Also:

- Add in skills with no combat uses and provide more trained skills for everyone so these can be taken as well.

[Sine]

ahahah.

Actually tho seriously. I've always wanted an inherently musical race. A race that has its own language that must be spoken in poetry and song. And have some sort of sonic ability. As well as prefer some sort of unique sonic weapon. And probably live underground (accoustics) and use the shatter spell to create tunnels.
3e Planar Handbook, page 8. "Buommans are quiet, withdrawn, and deferential. Though they appear capable of understanding languages, they "speak" no tongue other than their low, booming songs in a dialect called Buommi, which appear to be more music than actual language."

Buommans are basically gith-lite, with an anti-language compunction. If one speaks at all, to cast spells or even to ask where the nearest privy is, he takes Wis damage and attack/save/skill penalties.

Personally, I'd just reflavor some other race, but there ya go.

[Kylarra]

If a player really wants a particular option that 4e doesn't already have, how difficult would it be to whip up a pseudo-multiclass feat that gives bonuses and an otherwise nonexistant power?It's not really that difficult to create a power, it's just a matter of balancing it against existing options.

[tcrudisi]

Well, your changes won't be in the character builder anyhow, unless they've added something Im not aware of.

The newest offline character builder has all the options from all the sources, even the new Heroes line.


Honestly, if you want to make 4e feel more like 3.5... play 3.5. It's probably easier in the long run. If you're worried about balance issues, spend a few months on forums like this one learning what not to allow. (Dweomerkeeper, I'm looking at you. Same goes for you, Incantatrix.)


If you are just bored of 3.5, then grab some homebrew from these boards. There's a few completely new power systems floating around that are quite interesting. Then get a new campaign setting you haven't played in.

Homebrew really doesn't help, at least in my case. If I'm bored with a system, no amount of homebrew is going to change the fact that I'm bored with the system. A new class doesn't make me want to play a system any more.


Just because you spent money on a system doesnt make it the correct one to run. If your players hate it, why run it?

It's not like the 3.5 srd and homebrew costs you more money.

It's beginning to feel like the majority 3.5 on this board is trying to push the OP back to 3.5. At this point, I'd like to suggest to the OP to try going to a majority 4e board and asking; you will be a lot more likely to get the answers you seek.

Having said that, I agree with Tyndmyr's original sentence. There's a thing called "sunk costs" in economics. Once you have spent money on it, that money is gone. You don't factor in the money you've spent on something to determine whether you should spend more. Look it up, and I think you'll find this may apply to you.


My suggestion for more 3.5 feel in 4e:

- Make rituals expend healing surges, but less money. Perhaps rituals of half your level or less are free, something like that.
- Make more classes use a "spellbook" feature like the wizard, but do not limit it to one extra power per that level that you can choose from - rather you can learn as many as you can find books describing, and choose from them all each day.

Not necessarily good from a balance standpoint, I guess.

Also:

- Add in skills with no combat uses and provide more trained skills for everyone so these can be taken as well.

The first one? Sure. Really, at that point the rituals pretty much are free anyway, so that's not changing anything. At lower levels it will make a difference, but once you are up to level 10, rituals half your level cost pretty much nothing anyway.

The second one? That's fine. The spellbook only really gets abused by Wizards anyway, so just be careful not to allow them to expand it for free (feat expenditure is fine, as normal). Otherwise you'd get some optimizer like me break it... but it's only breakable as a Wizard.

The third one? I have never cared for this suggestion. If it's Craft, they can make it anyway. If you really want to make people roll, have it be a skill challenge. I'm even okay with it being a group skill challenge; it's not as if blacksmiths never had apprentices.

[Kurald Galain]

The newest offline character builder has all the options from all the sources, even the new Heroes line.

Are you sure about that? According to my sources, the offline character builder stopped updating around the Dark Sun book, and the online character builder has everything since then (but is buggy and incomplete).

[Surrealistik]

Are you sure about that? According to my sources, the offline character builder stopped updating around the Dark Sun book, and the online character builder has everything since then (but is buggy and incomplete).

I think he's referring to the rated ARRRrrrr version.

[Callista]

Just because you spent money on a system doesnt make it the correct one to run. If your players hate it, why run it?Yes. This is exactly the problem I've seen in multiple groups... "We spent money on the books; we have to try it."

It's pretty much the sunk cost fallacy... you spent money on something, so you try to convince yourself that you made a good purchase.

But just spending money on a game system doesn't mean that your group will enjoy it; and if they don't enjoy it, don't spend time with it just because you feel you "have to". When you bought the books, did you sign a contract in blood promising your firstborn child if you didn't play the game forever and ever? No? Then you're free to choose.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Sunk cost fallacy is one thing, but if you already have the books there's not much of a cost to giving the system a try. I personally prefer 3.5, especially for the diversity, but 4e (and almost any system) can make for a fun game with the right attitude. Just whip up a one shot, and if you don't like it go back to 3.5/PF. Or switch to something else entirely.

Edit: I've found in my 4e play that the characters are less versatile than most of 3e's magic and subsystem users, but more versatile than the mundanes (especially in core). Not sure what you mean by "diverse," other than "different subsystems." But if you have PHB3, those classes do have a (slightly) different system.

[Kurald Galain]

Sunk cost fallacy is one thing, but if you already have the books there's not much of a cost to giving the system a try.
Definitely, but then I would start by giving the rules-as-written a try before starting to tinker with them. You've probably made some assumptions on how it would play, which may or may not turn out to be correct once you're actually playing it.

If you want some diversity, start at level 5 instead of 1, have everyone create a simple character for a one-off dungeon crawl, then see how people like it.

[true_shinken]

Compare 3.X fighter to 4.0 fighter ... Which one is more flexible?

3.x, of course. All 3.x fighters can trip, grapple, disarm, sunder, bull rush, attack or full-attack, charge and all that stuff.
4e restricts you to builds. Once you decide you use two weapons, you will always use two weapons. If you want to trip, you must have a power that knocks people prone. You flat out can't disarm people. Etc etc.
4e makes the Fighter more reliable. It also makes the Fighter less versatile, like all other classes.

[Eldan]

It does, however, also make the fighter useful past level five (while still being recognizably a fighter), which 3.5 often fails to accomplish.

[true_shinken]

It does, however, also make the fighter useful past level five (while still being recognizably a fighter), which 3.5 often fails to accomplish.
And so what? I wasn't talking about that.
I'm saying my new shirt is not red and you're pointing out that 'its not red, but it's black, and your previous shirt wasn't black'.

[Indon]

Compare 3.X fighter to 4.0 fighter ... Which one is more flexible?

The 3.x fighter, because of how magic can potentially enhance capability.

4.0 characters have a lot of various ways they can hit things, but that's a lot of diversity in a very narrow space, which makes for little flexibility. For instance, if the 3.x fighter even so much has an item of flight, he's got more maneuverability than just about any 4.0 power - and most rituals - can grant.

Anyway, on the topic! I have a suggestion that I think can both improve character build diversity and sate your drive to tweak the system.

Allow players to use powers from other classes, basing the powers off of an appropriate stat (ie one their character has), that they meet the level qualifications for, so long as they can justify using that power with a reflavor.

So, for instance, if I'm running a clever and dexterous fighter-type, and I want the Wizard's Fireball power, I'll say that I'm using molotov cocktails or the like to do the effect, and that since it's based on my physical aim and alchemical knowhow that the power should use Dex primarily and Int for secondary effects.

There you go, now your players have access to much broader sources of power, much like in 3.5.

[Vknight]

4e has plenty of diversity within it already.
It's diversity is just with a different style then that of 3.5 not less diveristy just a different style.

[Sine]

3.x, of course. All 3.x fighters can trip, grapple, disarm, sunder, bull rush, attack or full-attack, charge and all that stuff.
Well, dude, well.

4e has builds and page 42, 3e has feats you need to do anything well. In TSR editions, you need a DM who thinks your maneuvers are plausible and/or fun.

Let's not pretend any edition has a monopoly on diversity.

[The Glyphstone]

The 3.x fighter, because of how magic can potentially enhance capability.

4.0 characters have a lot of various ways they can hit things, but that's a lot of diversity in a very narrow space, which makes for little flexibility. For instance, if the 3.x fighter even so much has an item of flight, he's got more maneuverability than just about any 4.0 power - and most rituals - can grant.

Anyway, on the topic! I have a suggestion that I think can both improve character build diversity and sate your drive to tweak the system.

Allow players to use powers from other classes, basing the powers off of an appropriate stat (ie one their character has), that they meet the level qualifications for, so long as they can justify using that power with a reflavor.

So, for instance, if I'm running a clever and dexterous fighter-type, and I want the Wizard's Fireball power, I'll say that I'm using molotov cocktails or the like to do the effect, and that since it's based on my physical aim and alchemical knowhow that the power should use Dex primarily and Int for secondary effects.

There you go, now your players have access to much broader sources of power, much like in 3.5.

This could be cool, actually.

[Dalek-K]

Well, dude, well.

4e has builds and page 42, 3e has feats you need to do anything well. In TSR editions, you need a DM who thinks your maneuvers are plausible and/or fun.

Let's not pretend any edition has a monopoly on diversity.

+1

In 4.0 the fighter can grapple any enemy... yes any enemy as long as her power hits... That is including that white dragon breathing down her neck.

Try grappling a dragon in 3.X see how much work it takes to do it effectively :)

[Vknight]

Well, dude, well.

4e has builds and page 42, 3e has feats you need to do anything well. In TSR editions, you need a DM who thinks your maneuvers are plausible and/or fun.

Let's not pretend any edition has a monopoly on diversity.

Exactlly Sine its not a monopoly of diversity they each have there own style and way with diversity.

-Edit-

Swordsaged by someone saying the same thing!

[true_shinken]

Well, dude, well.

4e has builds and page 42, 3e has feats you need to do anything well.
You need feats to do stuff well. Anyone can try it.
That is more diverse.
Why can't 4e people understand this? Every edition has it's strenghts. 4th edition is a great game, it just can't do some stuff that 3.5 can. There is plenty in 4e that 3.5 can't do as well. It's just a difference, no one is saying one edition is better than the other. Yes, 3.5 is more diverse, 4e is more balanced. 3.5 has more classes, 4e has more powers. 3.5 is more simulationist, 4e is more tactical.



+1

In 4.0 the fighter can grapple any enemy... yes any enemy as long as her power hits... That is including that white dragon breathing down her neck.

Try grappling a dragon in 3.X see how much work it takes to do it effectively :)
That is a horrible, horrible example. You need a lot of effort to make grappling effective in 4e as well. I play a Brawler Fighter myself - you need a specific build and a feat to make it effective.

[Lord Raziere]

4e has plenty of diversity within it already.
It's diversity is just with a different style then that of 3.5 not less diveristy just a different style.

agreed. its style is subtler and and more about branching paths and development rather than randomly choosing to suddenly be this or that.

also, people underestimate the differences between two powers- sure they might be both area of effect attack spells, but their other effects- say like a fires extra damage or ice slowing things down are critical differences to consider cause you want the ice area of effect spell for situations to slow things down and the fire area of effect spell to finish things off quickly, they looked outwardly similar but look closer and you'll see differences that are important- which is pretty true for classes and races to.

and if you want, those subtle differences don't even have to matter and you can play a dwarf sorcerer or dwarf bard with no penalty.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes. This is exactly the problem I've seen in multiple groups... "We spent money on the books; we have to try it."

It's pretty much the sunk cost fallacy... you spent money on something, so you try to convince yourself that you made a good purchase.

But just spending money on a game system doesn't mean that your group will enjoy it; and if they don't enjoy it, don't spend time with it just because you feel you "have to". When you bought the books, did you sign a contract in blood promising your firstborn child if you didn't play the game forever and ever? No? Then you're free to choose.

Yup, pretty much everything is worth trying once...but Ive even bought books knowing Im never going to run a game with the system. I've also seen groups, including my own, spend large amounts of money on a system with the assumption that we'll use it forever(4e), and quit after one campaign. Such is life. Sometimes you don't know beforehand if you'll like something or not.

If cost is a factor, try to invest the only the minimum in new systems to play them until you've given it a test run.

I presume that in this case, the OP has already given 4e a shot, hence his comments about the players likes and dislikes. If they're whining without having actually played it...then telling them to suck it up for a game is fair. And for first time gaming, I always advise using the rules as written in order to give it a fair shake. You can always hack out the problematic bits later.

Im not gonna argue over a category as broad as "diversity". It's too subjective.

[Kurald Galain]

In 4.0 the fighter can grapple any enemy... yes any enemy as long as her power hits... That is including that white dragon breathing down her neck.
Actually, in 4.0, you can only grab enemies that are large size or smaller, which does not include most dragons. PHB page 290.

(aside from that, a grab has a much smaller effect than a grapple, and grappling doesn't exist in 4E at all)

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I know that Dark Sun implemented "themes", which give characters special powers as they level up, in keeping with the theme. Like, you could have an "Inquisitor" theme that gives you some undead-hunting powers, or a "Brawler" theme that gives you some unarmed strike powers.

However, I don't know much about it. Still, a theme could be a great way to go to add diversity, and it can't be that hard to homebrew one.

[tcrudisi]

3.x, of course. All 3.x fighters can trip, grapple, disarm, sunder, bull rush, attack or full-attack, charge and all that stuff.
4e restricts you to builds. Once you decide you use two weapons, you will always use two weapons. If you want to trip, you must have a power that knocks people prone. You flat out can't disarm people. Etc etc.
4e makes the Fighter more reliable. It also makes the Fighter less versatile, like all other classes.

1st - 4e fighters can trip, grapple, bull rush, attack, charge, force monsters to focus on them via marking, perform impressive feats/tricks of athleticism and acrobatics that allow for impressive damage, heal themselves in combat, shrug off impairing effects like weakness and immobilize, etc, etc. You don't need a power that knocks people prone, btw, since there are ways to do it with feat choices.

The only things they can't do that you mentioned? Sunder (which I never saw a player do in 3.x anyway since it lowered the loot you received) and Disarm.

Once you decide to use two weapons in 4e, you are not locked into permanently using 2 weapons. You get a +1 to hit if you use two weapons, sure, but that's not the same thing as "you MUST use two weapons." If you start with an 18 str and choose 1-h weapon talent and a Barbarian starts with an 18 str, then you are at +1 to hit over the Barbarian. If you suddenly pick up a really awesome 2-h weapon, your hit bonus is the same as the Barbarians. You lose the +1 bonus, but it's not as if you can "never, omg, ever, switch weapons."

One final note: I've reflavored powers to be a disarm against enemies that actually use weapons. There's still no mechanical difference in what I used and what actually happened, but they "waste their actions picking up their weapon, leaving themselves exposed to attacks", which becomes the same thing as "stunned".

[Kurald Galain]

1st - 4e fighters can
I'm quite sure I did not write the part you're quoting me on.

[DeltaEmil]

Stuff about what fighters can do is all nice and good, but this thread shouldn't devolve into an edition-war-ground. The purpose of this thread is how to incorporate 3.5-elements into 4th edition, not talk (once again) about which edition is superior.

[tcrudisi]

I'm quite sure I did not write the part you're quoting me on.

Oops! Sorry about that. Whoa - okay, that is really weird. I have no idea what happened but I'll fix it immediately.

[Nu]

Actually, in 4.0, you can only grab enemies that are large size or smaller, which does not include most dragons. PHB page 290.

Technically, while the "Grab" (attack) as defined on page 243 of the rules compendium has that size restriction, if you use a power such as "Grappling Strike," which has no such restriction, you can grab larger enemies.

[Vknight]

Also we should stop this thread no matter intentions will disolve into arguments between generations.

[Sine]

{{scrubbed}}

[Bardic]

If I may, why not investigate DnD Essentials 4e? It certainly has more options than normal 4e, with each class having different progressions instead of the same general format, fighters not having to use one specific main stat again (this applies to most martial classes), etc, etc. I've played it a couple of times, and it certainly offers more 3.5-esque flexibility, if that's what you're looking for. Also, the books are cheaper than the rest of 4e.

[WitchSlayer]

I know that Dark Sun implemented "themes", which give characters special powers as they level up, in keeping with the theme. Like, you could have an "Inquisitor" theme that gives you some undead-hunting powers, or a "Brawler" theme that gives you some unarmed strike powers.

However, I don't know much about it. Still, a theme could be a great way to go to add diversity, and it can't be that hard to homebrew one.

I really would like to see a lot more themes to be honest. They're a great way to expand things.

[Vknight]

Yeah themes are something I would like to see more of. They add a lot of varieation to a already diverse game.

[Lord Raziere]

I really would like to see a lot more themes to be honest. They're a great way to expand things.

yea.......

lets see......

Themes:
Diplomat
Mercenary
Veteran (...and I've got no idea why this is different from a mercenary...)
Scholar
Pirate
Devout (religion is important to you, but not as much as say, the divine classes)
Noble (?)
Peasant/Commoner (?)
Explorer
Merchant

thats all I got, but do you think it to make lycanthropes and such a theme?

and you know what we could also do? make half-demon or half-angel themes, as well as being half-dragon or something.

[Fox Box Socks]

DIVERSITY OF GAMEPLAY STYLES IS NOT THE POINT OF 4TH EDITION

There was an interview with Mike Mearls a few years ago. I read it, and thought it was very smart, and I agreed with its sentiment. I can't find it, so I'll sum it up.

The prevailing wisdom of 4e design is that a game that does only one thing but does it really, really well is a better game than a game that does a bunch of things, but only does them mediocre. Basically, a one-trick pony with a really fantastic trick is more entertaining than a pony with several lackluster tricks. This is why the DMG doesn't have things like rules for how doors works, or charts for population breakdowns of various cities, or why NPCs don't have class levels; that isn't important for the game 4e is trying to be. 4e lends itself to a handful of styles of gameplay (smash and grab, cinematic action, etc). The combat is a blast, so games where combat is important thrive under 4e. By contrast, non-combat stuff can come off as forced and stiff if not run correctly.

This is intentional. This was by design.

If you want to play a "broad" system, don't play 4e. I love it to death, but it's not meant for simulation, or low combat investigation, or low-magic gritty campaigns. Making 4e broader is kind of not the point.

Go play Pathfinder. You'll be happier there.

[Vknight]

Yeah we need to make our own Theme's.

[Bardic]

I believe the purpose of this thread was to find some ways to make 4e a little more diverse, not argue about why it's not, or just request another game system. I agree in that themes would be an excellent way to accomplish this. I'll whip up some ideas for basic themes...

[Fox Box Socks]

There was an article in Dragon not too long about where the WotC basically said "we are looking to expand themes beyond Dark Sun, please send some to us".

So while you're cooking up homebrew themes, consider submitting them to Dragon Magazine.

[WitchSlayer]

yea.......

lets see......

Themes:
Diplomat
Mercenary
Veteran (...and I've got no idea why this is different from a mercenary...)
Scholar
Pirate
Devout (religion is important to you, but not as much as say, the divine classes)
Noble (?)
Peasant/Commoner (?)
Explorer
Merchant

thats all I got, but do you think it to make lycanthropes and such a theme?

and you know what we could also do? make half-demon or half-angel themes, as well as being half-dragon or something.

I think Lycanthrope and the like are more bloodline feats, like the vampire and deva one they already have. I can kind of see lycanthrope as a racial class like the vampire they're doing (NO ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S A GOOD IDEA OR NOT)

I'd also like to see an Inquisitor theme amongst other things. In fact, I think instead of adding a ton of new classes they should instead start adding more themes, as they're easier to make AND it doesn't have to fill a completely new niche. Just make a theme and a couple of paragon paths for that theme to go into and bam.

[true_shinken]

DIVERSITY OF GAMEPLAY STYLES IS NOT THE POINT OF 4TH EDITION
It's so good to find people that accept their favorite games have flaws of their own. Thanks for existing, Fox Box Socks. Have a cookie.

[Fox Box Socks]

At the risk of nitpicking, it's not a flaw if it's intended in the design.

A blender isn't a bad blender just because it isn't also a toaster.

[Lord Raziere]

I think Lycanthrope and the like are more bloodline feats, like the vampire and deva one they already have. I can kind of see lycanthrope as a racial class like the vampire they're doing (NO ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S A GOOD IDEA OR NOT)

I'd also like to see an Inquisitor theme amongst other things. In fact, I think instead of adding a ton of new classes they should instead start adding more themes, as they're easier to make AND it doesn't have to fill a completely new niche. Just make a theme and a couple of paragon paths for that theme to go into and bam.

meh, the concept of vampire and werewolf are too narrow for a class, I'd actually prefer if they were themes in my opinion. I mean try coming up with a bunch of different powers every level for almost 30 levels for a thing that mainly bites people and drains their blood, I'd be impressed if someone could actually pull that off without resorting to some excuse but I see that as highly unlikely.

that said, I'll add were-animal, inquisitor and vampire to the list of themes, because I honestly don't see the vampire as a class happening, I'm not saying its a good or bad idea- I'm just saying that it isn't practical.

also, gonna start a thread for themes over in homebrew. not gonna keep this off-topic.

[Indon]

DIVERSITY OF GAMEPLAY STYLES IS NOT THE POINT OF 4TH EDITION

Yeah, but the system is convenient, simple, and modular enough that you can fairly easily tweak it towards improved character build diversity, and I would argue even diversity of gameplay to a more limited degree.

[WitchSlayer]

meh, the concept of vampire and werewolf are too narrow for a class, I'd actually prefer if they were themes in my opinion. I mean try coming up with a bunch of different powers every level for almost 30 levels for a thing that mainly bites people and drains their blood, I'd be impressed if someone could actually pull that off without resorting to some excuse but I see that as highly unlikely.

that said, I'll add were-animal, inquisitor and vampire to the list of themes, because I honestly don't see the vampire as a class happening, I'm not saying its a good or bad idea- I'm just saying that it isn't practical.

also, gonna start a thread for themes over in homebrew. not gonna keep this off-topic.

Excellent idea.

[Bardic]

I concur. Expect to see me there.

[true_shinken]

At the risk of nitpicking, it's not a flaw if it's intended in the design.

A blender isn't a bad blender just because it isn't also a toaster.

Indeed. I wasn't clear with my wording. I apologize.

[The Glyphstone]

Indeed. I wasn't clear with my wording. I apologize.

However, a blender that is also a toaster is an awesome blender.

[DeltaEmil]

Depends on how well it toasts. Unless it toasts really good, but blends very bad, making it a bad blender, but a superb toaster. But if you already have a superb toaster, and just wanted a functionally good blender, then you didn't gain anything worthwile.

Which is when you need to get the bloaster, the blending toaster. Don't mistake it with the toander, the toasting blender.

[Eldan]

So, I was thinking...

If you want to make the game diverse...
Would the system still work if you could freely select your powers from all classes, or just classes with the same basic role? Basically, the 4E equivalent of generic classes.

I must admit, I'm not really familiar with 4E, so there could be horrible, horrible problems with this.

[Kurald Galain]

If you want to make the game diverse...
Would the system still work if you could freely select your powers from all classes, or just classes with the same basic role? Basically, the 4E equivalent of generic classes.
That would probably make the game less diverse, as everyone can just cherry-pick the best powers of each level.

[Eldan]

But it seems to go in the direction the thread starter wanted, giving more options to each character.

[DeltaEmil]

Even the generic classes in 3.5 don't give access to all abilities, only a few selected ones.
The closest analogue to that would be hybriding, but WotC admits that the rules published for that stuff is not to be regarded as balanced.

[blackleaf108]

I personally find Pathfinder (or 3.5, not much difference) with feats every level, and a Fallout 3 style feat that gives you +2 to an ability score when you take it works quite well.

[NMBLNG]

Have we come to a conclusion as to what the OP meant by 'diversity'?

[Vknight]

No we did not.

I believe they were talking about the greater variety of classes and maybe multiclassing.

Which can be done in 4e but works differntly.

Or maybe weapon enchantments but its different not less diverse.

If its the inability to choose some monstrous races that makes sense your heros in 4e not villians or monstrosities.

[Fox Box Socks]

...now I want a bloaster.

At the risk of mixing metaphors, I look at 3.5/PF (and to a much lesser extent AD&D) as a Swiss army knife, and 4e as a steak knife.

The Swiss army knife can do all sorts of neat stuff; it has a compass and a saw blade and a corkscrew and scissors. However, if you're eating a steak, you'll want the steak knife. Why? Because the saw blade and the compass and the corkscrew and the scissors don't improve your ability to eat steak. The steak knife is better for that. Conversely, while I can think of any number of things you can do with a steak knife (like, say, killing a man, or using the blunt end of it to open a jar of strawberry jam, or whatever), the Swiss army knife is always going to have more legitimate uses, if only because of the sheer number attachments it has. This isn't to say that you can't use your steak knife to do the things you can with your Swiss army knife, it's just that your steak knife is designed for other things.

Which one is more diverse? This depends entirely on how much steak you eat. If you eat a lot of steak, you're going to get more use practical use out of the steak knife. If you don't like steak very much, the Swiss army knife is your best bet.

[The New Bruceski]

If you want to play a "broad" system, don't play 4e. I love it to death, but it's not meant for simulation, or low combat investigation, or low-magic gritty campaigns. Making 4e broader is kind of not the point.

Now I'm imagining this being played for laughs. Some larger than life heroic characters trying to investigate a mystery in a mansion. They're followed around by a very exasperated servant, "no no no! Absolutely no burning of the tapestries! Why is that wolf in here?"

[Leolo]

...

Which one is more diverse? This depends entirely on how much steak you eat. If you eat a lot of steak, you're going to get more use practical use out of the steak knife. If you don't like steak very much, the Swiss army knife is your best bet.

Now i am so hungry. :smallsmile:

I think your description fits very good, but i want to broaden it a little bit more.

There is another problem with the swiss army knife. You do not use all of it's 200 options. In fact, most of the time you will end up using 3-4 of them, because they are the best for the tasks that you have to accomplish.

To bring this on a role playing game level: I have played nearly 10 or 12 bards in 3.5 because i love playing bards. But if i would look on them without the flavour or the role playing background and ethics they all look very similar. They do have similar spells, they do use similar tactics. To the point that they do have the same feats taken at the same levels.

Because they should be effective, at least to a moderate degree. And bards are already a class with some inherit diversion, as you have to choose a playstyle for them and focus on it. A melee bard, a buffer bard and a ranged bard are already different themes. Nevertheless they look and feel very similar in game.

Looking at the characters in my groups over the years they all look even more similar. The difference between two fighters was not much more than weapon and race choice. And most times both are limited to some few options, just because the other options are considered not good enough.

Diversity is not just about having options, it is about having equal options. Balance and diversity have to complement each other.

[Eldan]

In most cases, diversity in D&D does not come from base classes, true. There's very few base classes (Tier 1&2 casters, if you allow homebrew styles, the ToB classes) that allow much diversity within the class beyond maybe one to three different basic build styles.

The diversity really more comes from prestige classes, multiclassing and the greater variety of races.


While two Bards 20 are very similar, a Warchanter, Seeker of the Song and Virtuoso are very different.

[Leolo]

Sure, but this is not much more than to say bard and cleric are different, or bard and fighter.

They are - to some degree.

But they are different classes, too. In fact this is something 4E might does better. If you choose a paragon path, you are still a bard and still get additional bard levels. You just add something.

[tcrudisi]

If you want to play a "broad" system, don't play 4e. I love it to death, but it's not meant for simulation, or low combat investigation, or low-magic gritty campaigns. Making 4e broader is kind of not the point.

Simulation? Certainly not. But neither is any D&D predecessor. The only game that I've personally played which does simulation even remotely well is Gurps.

Low combat investigation? I'd argue it does it better. 4e has fewer skills, but I think that works out better. If you are doing a low combat investigation in 3.5, the poor Fighter isn't going to be doing much. With the condensed skills, he has a much better chance of being able to participate. Tack on skill challenges and suddenly his Athletics can become useful.

Low-magic gritty campaigns? Of course it's great at it. Use the low/no magic rules that were printed and you've got a low-magic campaign world. In fact, it's laughably easy. And 4e can easily do gritty, that's mostly a matter of DM style.

[Mando Knight]

Low-magic gritty campaigns? Of course it's great at it. Use the low/no magic rules that were printed and you've got a low-magic campaign world. In fact, it's laughably easy. And 4e can easily do gritty, that's mostly a matter of DM style.

Hint: get the DMG II. That's where those rules are printed.

[Darth Stabber]

Good Investigatory Systems - Call of Cthulu, Hero Systems (Like Gurps only good), and strangely SWSE (ignore soldiers and you have it going on, and Jedi domination is mitigated in an investigatory story).

[Lord Raziere]

Hint: get the DMG II. That's where those rules are printed.

and if you want to really be gritty, combine those with Dark Sun's lessened magic item tables or whatever you call them.

[Kurald Galain]

This is a classic "hammer" problem: if your only tool is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.

That is, while technically any RPG system can be used for every possible setting you can imagine, it is clear that certain systems are better or much more suitable for certain settings. For example, you can, at least technically, run an investigative horror game using Amber DRP, or run an epic fantasy with Paranoia rules.

So asking "can system X be used for setting Y" is a red herring. The proper question is, "is system X a good choice for setting Y". Frequently people will say "yes" because X is the only system they're familiar with, but that doesn't make it so.

[Leolo]

Of course, and thats what arguments are for.

I could simple say: "4E is a good system for low combat games with much investigation" - and this might be enough for some people who simple trust someone they do not know and who is saying something on the internet.

Or i could explain why i do think that it is a good system for such campaigns.
That still leaves the decision to trust this words up to the fellow reader.

But it makes it easier to judge, if someone claims a different opinion without such arguments.

Why is 4E not only useable for such campaigns, but good for it? Because it has explicite rules for them, tools for the players and the dm to create and solve such tasks. Skillchallenges, Skills, Rituals, Non Combat Powers, but also things to hide the evil guys so that an investigation does make sense. The DM tips for such situations teaches the DM that not only some people in the group should have fun with such encounters but all. And they are bind into the system regarding rewards and experience. Both points help to use this tasks more often as a DM, without boring half of the group or slowing down the game.

And because the options are balanced enough to solve such problems using different approaches, those can be choosen by the player characters. This balancing is a very important point. Options to solve a problem have to be of similar effectivness (even if this means they have different pro's and con's) or they aren't options at all. If the best solution to a task is always: "Ask the mage to solve it" you will not see many creative ideas.

[true_shinken]

Why is 4E not only useable for such campaigns, but good for it? Because it has explicite rules for them, tools for the players and the dm to create and solve such tasks. Skillchallenges, Skills, Rituals, Non Combat Powers
You were doing pretty well up until the bolded part.
I do agree with you, though. I think the skill challenge system is wonky at best, but it's a good idea.

[Leolo]

Although i wouldn't say that 4E has many usefull out of combat powers most characters do have them.

Can an assassin sneak by using special powers? Yes - he can. Can a wizard teleport himself up to the window in the tower? Yes. Can a Bard make the group look as if it where a couple of orcs? Sure. Or use his magic to increase his diplomancy? Of course.

Most of those things are less useable than in former editions, to avoid the problem mentioned above: If spells do everything easier than mundane actions those are lost as options for the game. And many former similar tricks are now rituals.

But nevertheless i wanted to mention those things, because they are part of the game, and part of the topic "non combat tasks and what does the system provide to solve them"

[Kurald Galain]

You were doing pretty well up until the bolded part.
I do agree with you, though. I think the skill challenge system is wonky at best, but it's a good idea.
"Game X is good at Y because it has rules for Y" is, of course, fallacious. After all, FATAL also has rules for non-combat investigation.

[true_shinken]

"Game X is good at Y because it has rules for Y" is, of course, fallacious. After all, FATAL also has rules for non-combat investigation.
It's impossible to argue once you put FATAL on the opposing end of your point. :smallamused:

[Kurald Galain]

It's impossible to argue once you put FATAL on the opposing end of your point. :smallamused:
Yeah, Godwin's Law and all that :smalltongue:

Still, my point is that if you consider 4E's out-of-combat system to be above average for an RPG, then I'm curious as to how many different RPG systems you're actually familiar with.

[true_shinken]

Still, my point is that if you consider 4E's out-of-combat system to be above average for an RPG, then I'm curious as to how many different RPG systems you're actually familiar with.
Touché.
The same can be said about any edition of D&D, though. I think Leolo was for some reason restricting his comments on versions of D&D.

[Tyndmyr]

At the risk of nitpicking, it's not a flaw if it's intended in the design.

A blender isn't a bad blender just because it isn't also a toaster.

This is true. A blender is a really poor toaster, but most people will just look at you and ask why you're trying to toast bread in a freaking blender.

4e isn't flexible, and yeah, it wasn't supposed to be. If you enjoy the type of games 4e was designed for, you will almost certainly like 4e. It was very good at achieving it's design goals.

Sure, you *can*, with significant work, refit a blender to toast bread. However, if you do that, I can pretty much guarantee that it won't be a good blender anymore. If you do it poorly, it may suck as a blender AND as a toaster. The same is true for 4e. You hack it to be a lot more like 3.5, and you'll likely lose the things that make it good at what it currently does. There is no such thing as a perfect roleplaying system for everything.


Although i wouldn't say that 4E has many usefull out of combat powers most characters do have them.

...

Most of those things are less useable than in former editions, to avoid the problem mentioned above: If spells do everything easier than mundane actions those are lost as options for the game. And many former similar tricks are now rituals.

Not true. Consider the classic out of combat role of searching for things. Yes, spells like "detect secret doors" exist, and are excellent within their limited scope, but do not come close to the utility of having a properly paranoid rogue(or similar) with lots of ranks in search. Spells are limited. Skills are not. The skillmonkey is a classic role, and non-combat options have historically been of significant importance in D&D. Heck, in the earliest versions, avoiding combat altogether was generally the smart move if available.

Also, in 3.5, skill tricks are underrated.

[Grogmir]

I agree with Leolo, I have no probs running 4th on a low magic, investigation type style of campaign.

The majority of the action is outside combat (and Skill challenges), just me (the DM) and the rest of the guys Role Playing. There are a list of skills that anyone can use; and all PCs have a decent score in some; If you need them to roll a dice.
Some of the PCs have utility powers, or other powers with Effects that they have used to create unknown ways of solving things and the party has a few rituals to cover other situations.
It rare for me to have a situation where the players fell like there have no options. While also they don't do the same things over and over again.

With regards to the OP, 4th can seem a little restrictive at character builder stage, I can houseruled 'In' the floating stat rule with minimums for each class / race. that really opened up the options.

I certainly felt more options than when playing 3.5 where it was, Okay Cleric, Druid or Wizard (Thats simplified of course but you get the idea i'm pointing at)

overall though -without getting into a ed war. I don't agree with a lot of the statements on this thread. 4th has been a revelation in our group. Finally we can just turn up and play, I forget the last time we had a PHB or DMs guide open at the table of play - its been months at least.

its just pure RPing, with the occasional roll thrown in, and were lovin it.

Which is the main point - play whatever you find fun. If the majority are against 4th then you're better off taking a back seat - statting up a Wizbang and having some fun.

happy Rollin
Grog

[Kurald Galain]

The same can be said about any edition of D&D, though.

Yes, although there are some fundamental differences. Whether these are good things or bad things is, of course, subject to opinion. This assumes the non-weapon proficiency rules for 2E.


In 2E, the biggest factor for success is whether you have a skill trained; in 3E, it's how many points you've invested; in 4E, it's which attribute it's based on.
2E has more skills than 3E, which in turn has more than 4E.
In 2E and 3E, you learn more skills as you level up; in 4E, you don't.
In 2E and 3E, learning out-of-class skills has a price in terms of class skills; in 4E, it has a price in terms of combat efficiency.
In 2E and 3E, you get more skills if you have a higher intelligence; in 4E, you don't.
In 3E, you become better at existing skills as you level up; in 2E and 4E, you don't (in 4E, both your skill bonus and the target DC go up at roughly the same rate, so your chance for success doesn't actually increase).
In 3E, your class is a big factor in determining how many skills you get; in 2E and 4E, it is a small factor.
3E has skill points, 2E and 4E don't.
4E has skill challenges, 2E and 3E don't.
3E and 4E have skill powers, 2E doesn't.


Of course, the resolution mechanic is the same in each.

[true_shinken]

I certainly felt more options than when playing 3.5 where it was, Okay Cleric, Druid or Wizard (Thats simplified of course but you get the idea i'm pointing at)
No I don't get the idea you're pointing at. Are you saying you can only have fun in a game if your character is powerful enough to break the game? :smallconfused:

[Kurald Galain]

its just pure RPing, with the occasional roll thrown in, and were lovin it.

So in terms of blender/toaster metaphors: you actually want to eat a piece of fruit which you're not going to blend or toast anyway, and you're buying a toaster to put in the corner of the table because you think it's prettier than the blender.

You're certainly entitled to own a toaster when you're not toasting anything; but this really doesn't say anything about the toaster.

[Grogmir]

No I don't get the idea you're pointing at. Are you saying you can only have fun in a game if your character is powerful enough to break the game? :smallconfused:

No i'm saying there's no fun playing Robin. or one trick ponies. (melee classes)
As another have said - it doesn't matter if you have a million options. if only one of them is the only decent option.


So in terms of blender/toaster metaphors: you actually want to eat a piece of fruit which you're not going to blend or toast anyway, and you're buying a toaster to put in the corner of the table because you think it's prettier than the blender.

You're certainly entitled to own a toaster when you're not toasting anything; but this really doesn't say anything about the toaster.

Nope... What I'm saying is that while 4th has a Rep as a blender - its actually a toaster or a blender, or a airplane. Its a simple system and you make of it what you want. Thats the beauty of it.

[true_shinken]

No i'm saying there's no fun playing Robin. or one trick ponies. (melee classes)
As another have said - it doesn't matter if you have a million options. if only one of them is the only decent option.
You're wrong in so many ways I don't know where to begin.
First, while you may not enjoy playing a sidekick, many people do. We even have works of fiction where the sidekick's name is on the cover (like Green Hornet or Pokémon).
Second, not being a spellcaster does not make you a sidekick in 3rd edition unless you're playing a hyper optimized game with a bad DM. Once or another a spellcaster might overshadow you, but that's not being a sidekick. It's being the Red Tornado in the Justice League and being pissed off about the Flash being faster than you.
Third, more options always matters, even if they are not the 'best' possivle choices. I'm old school, sorry. My RPGs are not about winning, losing or having the best DPS.


Nope... What I'm saying is that while 4th has a Rep as a blender - its actually a toaster or a blender, or a airplane. Its a simple system and you make of it what you want. Thats the beauty of it.
That's true for every system ever and Kurald has gone on lenght explaining why. Maybe you should read his posts.

[DeltaEmil]

Edition-fighting is not the point of this thread. It's how to add more options to 4th edition D&D so that it feels more like 3.5 edition D&D.

[Kurald Galain]

Nope... What I'm saying is that while 4th has a Rep as a blender - its actually a toaster or a blender, or a airplane. Its a simple system and you make of it what you want. Thats the beauty of it.
Any system with hundreds of pages of rules is absolutely not a simple system. You're talking about one of the most rules-heavy RPGs on the market, here.


Edition-fighting is not the point of this thread. It's how to add more options to 4th edition D&D so that it feels more like 3.5 edition D&D.
For that, we first need a definition of what the OP means by that. So far, we're only turning up that "4E is already like 3E because in both cases you can ignore the entire system to do freestyle playacting". While technically correctg, that's not a very helpful statement.

[Grogmir]

Indeed mateio. Moving On….

How to increase options:

1) Take the essentials guidelines as per floating stats and implement that – really opens up Class/ Race combo’s.
2) Allow more skills to be ‘trainable’ by each class.
3) Grant a free feat for either skill training or multi-classing
4) Allow home brewed powers
5) ReRead page 42 and explain the power of it to your group. It may be ‘fudging’ but boy does the fudge taste good!

Good Luck and Happy Rollin’
Grog

[Kurald Galain]

It's funny how people keep pointing out Page Forty-Two as a specific virtue of 4E, considering how this principle is present in literally every single RPG in the world. Yes, in an RPG you can do creative things and have the DM decide the outcome. That's the whole point of RPGs. 4E is apparently the only RPG where the players tend to forget this and have to be reminded regularly.

[Darth Stabber]

Tips to make 4e like 3.5

-Play 3.5
-Play 3.0
-Play Pathfinder

4e is it's own shtick, and it is significantly divergent in terms of game design and Run off of irreconcilably different assumptions and philosophy. Balance and homogeny is king 4e, and 3.5 only pays lip service to balance and thinks homogeny is a crock of crap. 4e while sharing a name, tropes and die set with 3.5 is still entirely different.

Also the toaster/blender metaphor is painfully bad for this purpose. More like Stove v. Grill (and call roleplaying cooking). They both cook, they just cood diffent things.

[Grogmir]

You are of course correct. Anyone can fudge in any system. But there was less need in 3.5 due to the amount of specific rules.

Pulling back to 4th - people needed / still need to be reminded of this.

P42, gives specific rules to the chaos. It gives you a frame to build anything you want to on. While also informing the players there is method behind your madness.

Lots of people have said this helped them relax their DMing, and create full situations in a system that has been accused of a lack of options.

In a 'diversifing 4 thread' making full use of p42 is a valid topic for discussion.

[Kurald Galain]

You are of course correct. Anyone can fudge in any system. But there was less need in 3.5 due to the amount of specific rules.
By that logic, to make 4E more like 3.5 you should be using less of page 42 :smalltongue:

[Grogmir]

And replacing them with complex, individually different rules for each situation that you will be unable to submit to memory and have to look up everygame. :smallwink:

But until he decides to just go back to 3.5 - P42 will have to do to cover these situations.

[Leolo]

I do not think the reminder is for the players, but for the DM, or at least for both of them.

I had enough DM that does not allow creative actions. It is stupid dungeon mastering, and i would not say the system is responsible for it.

But that does not make the 10 feet sized red blinking shields 4E have "listen to your players and allow them creative actions" unneccessary. Or less good.

[true_shinken]

I do not think the reminder is for the players, but for the DM, or at least for both of them.

I had enough DM that does not allow creative actions. It is stupid dungeon mastering, and i would not say the system is responsible for it.

But that does not make the 10 feet sized red blinking shields 4E have "listen to your players and allow them creative actions" unneccessary. Or less good.

3.5 has the same disclaimer on the DMG. There is a whole section devoted to it.

[The Glyphstone]

the first 18 pages, specifically.

And I maintain that a combination blender/toaster would be the coolest kitchen accessory ever.

[Leolo]

Edition-fighting is not the point of this thread. It's how to add more options to 4th edition D&D so that it feels more like 3.5 edition D&D.

I think one option could be to allow some of the multiclass feats to be normal feats and their feat powers to not replace existing powers.

For example things like the arena fighting, spiked chain specialist or something like this. Things that are not classical multiclassing but have the multiclassing keyword in 4E.

This change would also increase the power level - and theirfore helps to come closer to 3.5


3.5 has the same disclaimer on the DMG. There is a whole section devoted to it.

Well, it does. And this is one of the reasons why i would not say the system is responsible. It is the dm who is responsible.

But apart from this statement i would say that there is a difference between 3.5 and 4E how consequently you are told (as a DM) those sentences. I have both (in fact more than both) DMGuides at home, read them and yes - the 3.5 does address this topic. Even it is sometimes only with optional rules.

But 4E makes it more than just a few sentences, but a core part of the rule system. Not only by page 42, but by consequently using this philosophy over every printed book.

[jseah]

To contribute my humble 2 cents on how to increase diversity:

This involves alot of homebrewing.

I think the At-Will, Encounter and Daily powers system is a good idea. I think the flaws as I see it comes from the implementation of the system, not the system itself.

So, to increase versatility, what you need to do is unify the system even more.

Create meta-power feats that allow you to upgrade at-will -> encounter -> daily and downgrade daily -> encounter -> at will.
Maybe some that increase effect for higher level.

Strictly define what each power does, and how it interacts with the world. Fill in the bits you see that the characters can't do.

Magic Missile is a blast of force. It can push light things (and damage them in the process) but needs an item to empower it to make it push heavier things.
Sundering Strike (that's the name IIRC) deals additional damage to crystalline, metal and wooden materials.

Make the system more defined and you will find uses for powers outside of the standard combat area.


Try to make powers do different things. A precise strike that breaks through armour (+2 vs AC) should not be replicated with only a higher bonus, leave that to meta-power feats.
Then allow powers to mix and match for combinatorial flexibility.

[Reverent-One]

And I maintain that a combination blender/toaster would be the coolest kitchen accessory ever.

Impossible, it doesn't make bacon.

[Darth Stabber]

Impossible, it doesn't make bacon.

It makes bacon smoothies!

Okay I am a vegetarian and that just grossed me out.

[Tyndmyr]

the first 18 pages, specifically.

And I maintain that a combination blender/toaster would be the coolest kitchen accessory ever.

We shall rue the day when these entities become intelligent, I tell you. For on that day, the earth is doomed. DOOMED!


Edit: On a slightly more serious note, page 42 isn't that unique. Ive occasionally joked about putting a section in any RPG I build that says "No homebrewing or ad hoc rulings allowed. If you disregard this notice, we will come to your house and beat you for playing the game wrong." After all, it seems like every other game ever printed has a statement to the exact opposite. So many of them even use the same words. Gets boring.

[Mando Knight]

Impossible, it doesn't make bacon.

Then we just add a self-heating skillet to one side. Obviously. :smallamused:

[DeltaEmil]

Bah, you and your outdated bloasters and toanders. My replicator can make whatever I want... although so far, it only replicates Earl Grey Tea instead of blended toast. I gotta read the instruction booklet.

[Numinous]

It's funny how people keep pointing out Page Forty-Two as a specific virtue of 4E, considering how this principle is present in literally every single RPG in the world.

While the principle may be present in every RPG out there, the beauty of Page 42 is how it gives concrete numbers that you can actually use in play. It exposes the underlying maths of the system in a way which few other games do.

[Callista]

It makes bacon smoothies!

Okay I am a vegetarian and that just grossed me out.Hey, I eat meat and it grossed me out too. Bacon should be fried crispy and eaten with eggs, not... smoothied. Blecch.

Seriously, though, I think it's not much use trying to squeeze 4e into the 3.5 mold. It just doesn't work. People expect them to be similar because they are both called D&D; but the fact is, they are extremely different in both mechanics and style. 4th edition is a completely different game from 3.5. Liking one of them has absolutely nothing to do with whether you'll like the other; and trying to turn one into the other is kind of silly, because they're just not compatible like that.

[true_shinken]

While the principle may be present in every RPG out there, the beauty of Page 42 is how it gives concrete numbers that you can actually use in play. It exposes the underlying maths of the system in a way which few other games do.

You mean, like the 18 first pages of the 3.5 DMG? :smallamused:

[Kurald Galain]

While the principle may be present in every RPG out there, the beauty of Page 42 is how it gives concrete numbers that you can actually use in play. It exposes the underlying maths of the system in a way which few other games do.
Before you make such a statement, please tell us how many gaming systems you're actually familiar with.

[Tyndmyr]

Hell, 7th Sea has a giant table in it giving detailed probabilities for rolls in order that you can create things with a very good idea of exactly what can be accomplished at which levels. This is precisely for setting ad hoc DCs, creating ad hoc skills, etc. Advice is also given for doing the above.

Page 42 is really not very unique at all.

Hey, if you insist on comparing to 3.5, look up the spell research section in 3.5. Or, yknow, anything in UA. The idea of exposing the logic behind the existing system for easier creation of modified rules is not at all new.

[Callista]

Item creation rules, too. Custom magic items are lovely.

I like to create little amulets with Message 3/Day and hand them out to the party. Being able to communicate silently in tense situations has saved our butts more than once.

[Numinous]

Before you make such a statement, please tell us how many gaming systems you're actually familiar with.

Very well:

AD&D
AD&D 2nd ed
BECMI D&D
3e
3.5e
Pathfinder
Tunnels and Trolls (5th and 7th)
Runequest 2
Runequest 3
Traveller
Megatraveller
Traveller the New Era
The Fantasy Trip
Gurps
Vampire the Requiem
Werewolf the Wild West
Mage the Sorcerer's Crusade
Exalted (1st ed)
Toon
Ghostbusters
Tales from the Floating Vagabond
RISUS
Call of Cthulhu 2nd & 5th ed
Call of Cthulhu d20
Pendragon (2nd and 5th)
Ars Magica
Everway
Dragonquest
Skyrealms of Jorune
Talislanta (2nd ed)
Rolemaster
James Bond 007 RPG
Tribe 8
Heavy Gear
Deadlands
7th Sea
Castle Falkenstein
Amber DRPG

My memory's starting to fail me here, so I'll list those that I own from RPG.net's top rated list:
Nobilis
Spirit of the Century
Unknown Armies
Feng Shui
Mutants and Masterminds
Angel RPG
Mouse Guard
Over the Edge
Prime Time Adventures
Paranoia
Buffy RPG
Don't Rest Your Head
BESM
Fading Suns
Heroquest
Adventure!
All Flesh Must Be Eaten
Faery's Tale
Puppetland
Hollow Earth Expedition
Dogs in the Vineyard
Star Wars d20
Savage Worlds
Polaris
Blue Planet
The Burning Wheel
The Dying Earth
Sorcerer
Smallville
InSpectres
The Dresden Files RPG
Weapons of the Gods

and then plenty that I can't recall off the top of my head. I think I can safely say the total tops 100.
====

So I'm seriously meant to give you a full rundown of my knowledge of different systems before I can have an opinion on page 42?

[Fox Box Socks]

When people talk about page 42, they're really talking about the chart, which is a really nice chart as far as charts go. I'd even go as far as to declare it king of charts, as it tells you more stuff than most charts do.

PCs are level 12 and are trying to negotiate with the local baron, but you forgot to bring the Baron's stats with you. How high is the Diplomacy DC? Page 42.

PCs are level 7 and picked a fight an NPC that you didn't expect them to pick a fight with. You want him to do a lot of damage, but not too much. How do you know how much damage he does? Page 42.

PCs are level 15, and one of them is trying to swing on a chandelier, then back flip through the air before landing behind the orc warlord and stabbing him with a knife. What's the Acrobatics DC? Page 42.

It's not that other systems don't give rules for improvised actions, because they do. It's that if the PCs want to do something nuts, and you're not sure how hard it should be, or if they can even do that at all, you don't need to spend 5 minutes rooting through the DMG to find the appropriate rules regarding competitive fish-juggling or whatever. You just turn to page 42.

It's fantastically simple.

[Tyndmyr]

Simple, yes...but the idea of quick-lookup tables is hardly new. Even when applied in such a way. The odds table in 7th sea does the exact same thing. Granted, you need some extremely basic information about the PCs...but that's pretty unavoidable.

I will say, though, that 4e is at least formatted in a very clear way in general. The books are fairly intuitive to flip through. For me, this is a fairly big deal. I've seen a lot of systems, especially lesser known ones, that were pretty poor in this regard.

[Vknight]

I vote we just give up on this we are not getting anywere and both sides bring good arguments to the table.

[Kurald Galain]

Simple, yes...but the idea of quick-lookup tables is hardly new. Even when applied in such a way. The odds table in 7th sea does the exact same thing. Granted, you need some extremely basic information about the PCs...but that's pretty unavoidable.
Yeah, that's the point. The chart on page 42 is useful, but it's hardly new. Pretty much every RPG ever has a list of standard difficulties for rolls.

[Bagelz]

There are way to many options already.
Just reflavor the existing powers to make your players more unique.

My warden has half dozen powers that slow, RAW some sprout plants, some lay layers of frost, One I just hit hard enough that the monster is "weighed down".
I like to reflavor them as having control over the earth itself, so instead of sprouting plants, i shoot up jagged rocks, instead of laying slippery ice, I make the ground itself unstable. Makes my character less flaky and more thematic.

[Lord Ascapelion]

If this is your first time playing 4e, I suggest to just play the game as is. I think everyone should go into it with an open mind and try to appreciate the game for what it is and don't try to implement any changes until after you have a better feel for the game.


If flexibility is what you're going for, maybe have there be items that allows encounter powers or dailies to be swapped out, either after an extended rest for low cost, or in the middle of the day for a higher cost (action point? Only after a milestone? Healing surges?)

I dunno, though, it all depends on what you mean by "flexibility." 3.0/3.5 has 8 years worth of material, while 4e only has three. Granted, there's still a lot of 4e material out there (a DDi subscription will get you all of it,) but it still can't compete with all the 3.5 stuff out there. Like I said, though, just play 4e straight and see how you like it before trying to tinker with anything.

[NMBLNG]

Making 4e a bit more 'diverse':

Increase the point buy a little bit, but limit the maximum pre-racial stats to 18. Having fewer dump stats will help with prerequisites.

Extra feats, with limits. Mostly multi-class feats and other 'utility' feats rather that combat-specific feats. Or feats that allow the player to focus on a particular aspect.

Maybe a few extra skills.

Encourage creative uses of powers. Scorching burst lights things on fire sort of things. You also may want to allow 'mini' versions of encounters and dailies in non-combat situations, such as allowing sleep to make an NPC drowsy or something.

Give out more alchemical and consumable items.

Really I think the biggest thing is encouraging your players to be more creative with what they have. I've seen the dull Twin-Strike Ranger, and another with almost the same build but role played as if it came right out of a mix between Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and The Matrix.

[Drglenn]

Create meta-power feats that allow you to upgrade at-will -> encounter -> daily

Psionic classes do this already with their power points



Make the system more defined and you will find uses for powers outside of the standard combat area.

Or just be creative: Need something relatively heavy moved about 15 feet or to a wall? Thunder wave!
Also: utility powers.

4e doesn't need any more diversity, it already has 35 viable classes which each have their own way of operating, plus hybrid, each of which have at least 2 'builds' which you don't have to follow. There are plenty of powers that you can mix and match within a class. No two 4e parties will be alike, there'll always be at least something different between them, most of the time you won't get two characters (even if the same race and/or class) alike.

[jseah]

Psionic classes do this already with their power points
Well, extend it to everything else? =P

Maybe throw Psionic classes an additional cookie or two.


Or just be creative: Need something relatively heavy moved about 15 feet or to a wall? Thunder wave!
Also: utility powers.
Rather than trying to second guess your DM ("will he allow THAT?"), defining the actions more clearly will provide a concrete framework to work from.
The biggest thing I disliked about vague systems is the whole "will that work?" question. I want to know if it will work without having to ask my DM for every little thing.

If you know exactly what X does, you can wield it in more areas than if you didn't.


4e doesn't need any more diversity, it already has 35 viable classes which each have their own way of operating, plus hybrid, each of which have at least 2 'builds' which you don't have to follow. There are plenty of powers that you can mix and match within a class. No two 4e parties will be alike, there'll always be at least something different between them, most of the time you won't get two characters (even if the same race and/or class) alike.
But isn't it the title of the thread? Make 4E more diverse like 3.5?

Those were my recommendations.

[TroubleBrewing]

Blender/toaster would be epic. Toasted marshmallow milkshakes? Yes.

[technoextreme]

You mean, like the 18 first pages of the 3.5 DMG? :smallamused:
Seriously, it takes 18 pages in 3.5 E to do what probably can be done in one page in 4 E?

[Leolo]

Seriously, it takes 18 pages in 3.5 E to do what probably can be done in one page in 4 E?

Well, in fact those 18 pages does address other topics first and foremost. For example the book title, credits, and the table of contents (page 1-3), Introduction (Page 4), the topic "what is a DM" (5,6,7), Styles of play (7,8), an long example of a game session (8,9) and tips for a DM who is running a game session from page 10 to 18.

There is a short paragraph about "changing the rules", but in fact the topic "actions the rules don't cover" stays unaddressed on this 18 pages, and you won't find a table like those on page 42 of the 4E DMG there.

In fact, the point that someone could say those 18 pages would contain something similar to the 4E paragraph about actions the rules don't cover (and no one points out those 18 pages have nothing to do with this topic) might be a good hint how intense those parts of the 3.5 have been read. Or how essential they are.

[stainboy]

Seriously, it takes 18 pages in 3.5 E to do what probably can be done in one page in 4 E?

You guys talking about Page 42 should go back and read it. I know it's the noob DM advice section, but don't skim it or look for what you want it to say, read it word for word. Here's what Page 42 actually says:


A PC can roll a stat check or skill check to deal damage. Here's a chart with DCs and damage. Now here's a non sequitur example where a PC performs a Bull Rush.

That's not license to make house rules, that's just... a rule. Dealing damage doesn't cover anywhere near the total scope of things a PC might want to do. And even within that limited scope the writer couldn't come up with a real example of its use. (This says to me that the writer was uncomfortable with this section and not sure what role Rule 0 should play in the game, but that's another argument.)

If your group is more open to improvisation, that's great, I'm glad. But that's not Page 42 and you shouldn't give Page 42 credit.