Edition Peace: the Right Version for the Right Game [Archive]

EccentricCircle

2011-03-01, 08:02 AM

one of the things that i've kept hearing about 4th edition D&D is that it is a very different game, and having now played it a bit I can see what they mean. so much has been changed and overhauled that there is very little continuity with the third edition of the game.
while i'm now getting more familier with how 4e works i'm still not convinced to run a game as DM myself, it always comes down to a question of could I not run that using 3.5 just as easily if not more so due to knowing the system better.
both games have more or less the same genre. they are fantasy adventures. so are a number of other roleplaying games. but I wonder if the changed mechanics and different feel of one system over another makes it more apropriate for certain games rather than others in the same way that I could run a warhammer game more effectively using WFRP than D&D seeing as it is tailor made for that sort of wolrd.

so the basic question for debate is this:
are different editions more tailored to different types of games?
are there certain stories that can be run more effectively using one edition rather than another?

this isn't just limited to the transition from 3.5 to 4e, pathfinder is nice, but is almost too close to 3.5 to sugest a different way of playing the game.
what about the earlier editions? i've not had opertunity to play 1st or 2nd edition so am not familier with how similar or different the games are but would be interested in hearing other peoples opinions on the matter.

EC

true_shinken

2011-03-01, 08:18 AM

so the basic question for debate is this:
are different editions more tailored to different types of games?
Yes. That's pretty much a consensus here, I believe.

are there certain stories that can be run more effectively using one edition rather than another?
Yes, of course.

Totally Guy

2011-03-01, 08:21 AM

Totally right. We can take this one step further though. Role playing systems, outside of and including D&D, do different things.

Leolo

2011-03-01, 08:23 AM

I would say yes.

Of course the rules system affects the stories - and therefore it can be better to switch the rule system for a specific story. But you should know that most times those are details, as D&D in general is a mainstream system. It is not really specialised to a single story.

The most simple example for this would be 4E and 3.5. While 4E does have things like skillchallenges and rewards for non combat encounters you could not really say that 3.5 (that is missing such things) is not usefull for non combat adventures, because the DM can adjust this without changing the feeling of the rule system. (Please note that this is not the "there is no problem, because the DM can solve it" fallacy - the point is only valid if this is no major change for the rule system)

You do feel a difference between both systems when you play such stories. As a DM i feel more encouraged to use those things as they are part of the core rules. And maybe i can use them now more often or easier. But both systems allow such stories, and you could tell the same story in both rule systems.

Same would be true for combat heavy stories. A classic dungeon crawl story is possible in every edition of D&D - but feels different, too. For example 3.5 is much more about preparation than 4e, while 4E is much more tactical.

EccentricCircle

2011-03-01, 11:11 AM

CycloneJoker

2011-03-01, 11:12 AM

CycloneJoker

2011-03-01, 11:15 AM

Prehaps my question wasn't clear,
I'm not so much interested in a yes and no answer as to whether you agree as your thoughts on what makes each edition unique. why choose one over another? and how can the idiosyncracies of a game be used by DM's to run a better game by picking the edition most suited to their concept.

4e was designed for newbies or for those that don't want to think about combat, ability rationing, or character design. Much more newbie-friendly, and much too boring. Also, true optimization doesn't exist. You can't do anything cool, like having a Samurai keep up with a well done wizard. And, as I said, powers are a terrible system. Fighters should NOT be able to cast, and the idea of only being able to swing really hard only once per day is absurd.

Kurald Galain

2011-03-01, 11:20 AM

Saph has made an insightful post on the topic:

4e was designed to be played in a very specific way. Each character plays a Hero (capitalisation intended) who joins up with a party that contains at least one each of the four roles. The party then travels around and kills monsters (assembled in level-appropriate groups). Combat is the main focus of the game, the way you fight combats is by reducing monster HP, and most of what PCs can do revolves around either taking off monster HP or helping to take off monster HP. In between fights you have occasional skill challenges, which are basically a way of organising every encounter that's not a combat so that it follows the same basic structure/XP format as a combat.

This is what 4e does, and it's good at it. If the above paragraph appeals to you, you'll like 4e: there's a lot of content, it's reasonably simple to learn, and it's fairly well balanced.

The drawbacks of 4e are all mirror-images of its good points. 4e works great as long as you play it the way the designers want, but it quickly starts running into problems when you try something different. If you decide you don't want to organise a party in terms of roles or don't want to play a character who does HP damage or don't want to play a game that revolves around killing small groups of monsters, 4e isn't going to work very well.

Asheram

2011-03-01, 11:20 AM

The most simple example for this would be 4E and 3.5. While 4E does have things like skillchallenges and rewards for non combat encounters you could not really say that 3.5 (that is missing such things) is not usefull for non combat adventures, because the DM can adjust this without changing the feeling of the rule system. (Please note that this is not the "there is no problem, because the DM can solve it" fallacy - the point is only valid if this is no major change for the rule system)

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Double negative, Joker

Comet

2011-03-01, 11:27 AM

Also, powers are a terrible system.

Not helping, man.

Anyway, my views on AD&D (and older editions, in my case the red box), 3.5 and 4th ed, based on my experiences as a DM and a player:

AD&D is all about the story and the classic, unique settings. The DM has a lot of control over everything, the rules are limited and several conflicts require the players, not the characters, to be up for the task at hand. The art, mechanics and writing in AD&D books draw me into adventures that resemble those in Dragonlance, Planescape: Torment, Baldurs Gate and other classics.

3.5 is about the multitude of options. Imaginative races, vast opportunities for spellcasters and a comprehensive set of mechanics that allow you to make almost any character or world come alive with a bit of work. The art, writing and mechanics are more bland, though, making the books themselves less fun to read and, as such, I get my inspirations for stories from other sources and use the mechanics to play simply because it's what my players know best.

4th edition takes the middle ground between AD&D and 3.5, with an added element of tactical thinking and a fast pace that's great for a dynamic action adventure. The art and writing are more specific to a certain style instead of trying to do everything in a generic way, making the books more interesting to read than in 3.5.

All in all, AD&D is my favourite but I often end up playing 3.5 because the system is so readily familiar to a lot of players. I would play 4th ed more, but the bookkeeping with powers and such and the more involved encounter designs make it harder to wing the story without extensive prep work. I'm lazy like that.

The Rose Dragon

2011-03-01, 11:38 AM

Saph has made an insightful post on the topic:

The same can be said of 3rd Edition and 3.5, though. As long as you try to play a "dungeon crawl" (as characterized by a series of events where you fight and suffer consequences connected by certain pathways all leading to a main event with a big fight), 3rd Edition works passably. It breaks down quickly with most anything else.

Kurald Galain

2011-03-01, 11:45 AM

The same can be said of 3rd Edition and 3.5, though.
Perhaps, but it is fair to say that 3E can handle a wider variety of situations or settings than 4E does. This is easy to see: 4E was explicitly and intentionally designed to feel like 3E at approx level 6-12 (what WOTC calls the "sweet spot"), and can deal with neither the fragile ordinary people that 3E characters are at level 1, nor with the ridiculously overpowered deities they can become at level 17.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-03-01, 11:50 AM

Saph has made an insightful post on the topic:
I actually agree with most of that statement. My caveat is that the Minion mechanic makes mass combat as easy to do as "killing small groups of monsters."

Of course, you can say the same basic thing ("If you don't play the system as it's intended to be played, you run into problems") about every system.

Prehaps my question wasn't clear,
I'm not so much interested in a yes and no answer as to whether you agree as your thoughts on what makes each edition unique. why choose one over another? and how can the idiosyncracies of a game be used by DM's to run a better game by picking the edition most suited to their concept.
The rules make each game unique. All of them.

There isn't some base RPG rules paradigm from which you can gauge idiosyncrasies between system. Each system operates in a particular manner (whether by design or accident) and that action defines the sort of gameplay it is well suited for. WotC D&D, for example, does a really poor job of running a "diplomacy" game: the bulk of the rules are designed to adjudicate combat and the rules for non-combat encounters lack depth at best and are inoperable at worst. By comparison, Burning Wheel does a terrible job of adjudicating tactical combat - its rules just don't cover that sort of game play.

If you, as a DM, are looking for a system to run a particular sort of game then you need to understand how a system operates and what it is designed to do before making your selection. In a perfect world, the DM would be able to always use the most appropriate system for the sort of game they want to run; in reality DMs are constrained by the availability of systems and the ability/desire of Players to learn new systems. As such DMs tend to mod the systems they and their Players know in order to produce something like the sort of game they want to play.

An imperfect process, but it usually works well enough :smallsmile:

EDIT: Comet actually makes a neat comparison there. I'll also add in a pat piece of comparison - 3.5 is the GURPS of D&D. It can do anything you want if you work hard enough at it. Of course, I don't personally regard that as a virtue of a system :smalltongue:

Sine

2011-03-01, 11:52 AM

so the basic question for debate is this:
are different editions more tailored to different types of games?
are there certain stories that can be run more effectively using one edition rather than another?
D&D is essentially the same game, regardless of edition. The only thing I can categorically say about the editions is "Each new edition gets more balanced, more heroic, less gritty and less dependent on DM skill." So if you want to play a dark gritty game that requires a great DM to be a great game? Play AD&D. Want to play a heroic game that can get by with a mediocre DM? Play 4e.

But the more important factors are: "Which edition am I familiar with?" "Which ruleset do I like best?" "Which edition did I start with, or have the best groups with?" "Which is the current edition, and therefore the easiest to find groups for?" Few gamers play D&D based on its ability to be tailored to a particular type of campaign, because D&D is essentially vanilla fantasy. Its strength, like the strength of the Bible, is that it appeals to a wide audience. It can be tailored to certain stories, but that's not what D&D is best at.

Kurald Galain

2011-03-01, 11:56 AM

My caveat is that the Minion mechanic makes mass combat as easy to do as "killing small groups of monsters."
Except if you have any auto-hit power.

Of course, you can say the same basic thing ("If you don't play the system it's intended to be played, you run into problems") about every system.
Well, that's pretty much the point. Anyone who claims that RPG system X is the bestest game ever and that it is ever so suitable for every setting and genre is, fundamentally, not familiar enough with other RPG systems.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-03-01, 11:59 AM

Except if you have any auto-hit power.
Hardly.

I could argue this further, but to what end? And it is somewhat inappropriate for the "Edition Peace" thread, no? :smalltongue:

WarKitty

2011-03-01, 12:08 PM

If you, as a DM, are looking for a system to run a particular sort of game then you need to understand how a system operates and what it is designed to do before making your selection. In a perfect world, the DM would be able to always use the most appropriate system for the sort of game they want to run; in reality DMs are constrained by the availability of systems and the ability/desire of Players to learn new systems. As such DMs tend to mod the systems they and their Players know in order to produce something like the sort of game they want to play.

This so much. From what I know, my games and DMing style would probably work better in a system that emphasized skills and roleplaying more and de-emphasized rollplaying. (I really detest 3.5 skill check "roll until it works" mechanism.) But my group and my players are familiar with 3.5, so it's easier to modify the existing system than to drag everyone through learning a completely different ruleset.

valadil

2011-03-01, 12:09 PM

I've run both quite a bit now. My games are full of plot and intrigue rather than the usual D&D stuff. While I agree that a game system affects the stories told within that system, I don't think 3.5 and 4e are dissimilar enough that you couldn't tell a story in one system but not the other.

I can think of a few campaign themes that make sense in just one though. I wouldn't want to run a low magic game in 4e. If you take away the magical classes, everyone else still behaves like a martially themed mage. I don't think 3.5 is ideal for low magic either, but you an make it work. I also think a high magic game where spell components are used as currency would be out in 4e unless you homebrewed your spell components. But I don't see either of these as a story per se.

The biggest difference for my group has been familiarity. In 3.5 everyone knew all the core spells. If I threw a mechanical puzzle at the players, they could quickly list all the ways they could cast it with two level 3 or lower scrolls. Now if I give them a cliff to climb and they don't have a fly speed, they don't automatically know the right rituals to solve that problem. This opens the game up for more discovery and exploration of solutions, instead of using a solution they saw written up on the charop boards 6 months ago.

Actually I take back what I said about some stories not working. 4e is not designed for PC on PC conflict. If you were running something where the PCs were supposed to kill each other, it might work oddly. I can't comment on how oddly though.

Prime32

2011-03-01, 12:11 PM

Random note: Someone's running a PbP 4e game here based on Touhou. I can see how it's more suited for the task than 3e... since all combat in Touhou is in the form of ritualised magic duels (http://en.touhouwiki.net/wiki/Spell_Card) where all forms of attack become non-lethal spells (even slashing someone with a sword) and you can only use each non-basic attack once. Which is probably the reason these (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Touhou_Power_Cards) exist.

Though it seems kind of odd something that's supposed to be natural in one source simulates something artificial in another so well. :smallconfused:

Tiki Snakes

2011-03-01, 12:14 PM

Well, I can see your point Valadil, but I disagree slightly on the low-magic point. Personally, I'd say 4e works much better for (heroic) low magic, simply because the martial and other non / partially magical classes are much more capable of surviving without the arcane/divine/etc power sources than in 3.5, where a beatstick without a heal-bot or so on is effectively a pretty sad fellow (and so on).

For non-heroic low-magic, though, they both are pretty rubbish in comparison to any intentionally gritty system.

High Magic is definately all about 3.5, though. You really can't justify the Tippyverse in quite the same way in 4e.

valadil

2011-03-01, 12:34 PM

Personally, I'd say 4e works much better for (heroic) low magic, simply because the martial and other non / partially magical classes are much more capable of surviving without the arcane/divine/etc power sources than in 3.5, where a beatstick without a heal-bot or so on is effectively a pretty sad fellow (and so on).

Yeah, that's fair. A party of all martial classes could get by without too much trouble. I just don't think it would feel like a low magic game since you still have daily attacks. At any rate, I don't think I'd choose D&D if I wanted gritty realism in the first place.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-03-01, 12:44 PM

Yeah, that's fair. A party of all martial classes could get by without too much trouble. I just don't think it would feel like a low magic game since you still have daily attacks. At any rate, I don't think I'd choose D&D if I wanted gritty realism in the first place.
Eh, gritty is about gameplay. 4e isn't great for it (nor is any HP-based RPG) but Dailies wouldn't be the problem.

As a DM, you just run more Encounters per day so that the drain on Surges and the expenditure of resources becomes a real issue. Do you use your Daily now to geek the Mage or will you grind him down (and risk losing Surges of HP) in case he has friends :smallamused:

Honestly, looking at my current games which are too story-rich and Encounter poor I think my Players would almost appreciate a "grittier" game. Hell, the last 4e game I ran caused the PCs to hop into a one-way portal to an Epic Dungeon in the Shadowfell 'cause they got bored with political intrigue.

They were Heroic at the time.
It didn't go well :smalltongue:

Totally Guy

2011-03-01, 12:53 PM

By comparison, Burning Wheel does a terrible job of adjudicating tactical combat - its rules just don't cover that sort of game play.

Do you perhaps mean big ol' mass battles? You can have tactical fights, there's an entire subsystem devoted to it.

EccentricCircle

2011-03-01, 12:57 PM

I agree with the sugestion that seems to be comming up that 3.5 is better for the grittier style games while 4e is more of a game of Heroes (in fact I think i've heard it described as fantasy superheroes somewhere)

I think that one of the great strengths of any roleplaying game is the ability of the story to transcend the intentions of the designers, ultimately the plot is in the hands of the DM and if they want to take a game of magical monster slaying and turn it into a gritty game of intrigue and treachery it is entirely possible. that sort of game doesn't neccersarly play to the games strengths but it is still entirely doable.

some of my favourite games are those that don't fit the "traditional" model of kick in the door and kill the monsters. grittier games can be achieved fairly easily with 3.5 by ensuring that the players do not optimise their characters. I'm not sure to what extent that aproach can be applied to 4e due to the games greater balance between the classes.
that said there may well be other ways to play a grittier game in that system. I think to a large extent I have gotten used to using 3.5 for non typical games and learnt all of the ways to use the system for the game I want to play rather than playing the game the designers wanted me to play.
I suspect that I would find that 4e can be adapted. albeit in different ways to the same playstyles.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-03-01, 01:09 PM

Do you perhaps mean big ol' mass battles? You can have tactical fights, there's an entire subsystem devoted to it.
Damnit, did I miss another section in that book? :smallsigh:

So far I haven't gotten anyone to play a game of Burning Wheel so I just read the book for inspiration. Is it remotely on par with the tactical combat of 4e? :smallconfused:

@EccentricCircle - I think you might have a better understanding of systems if you played some non-D&D games. Also, you may want to define "gritty" as I somehow doubt any system can be made gritty merely by "not optimizing" :smallsmile:

Britter

2011-03-01, 01:16 PM

Burning Wheel's Fight! system is nothing at all like 4e, in any way.

It is, however, a deep and interesting subsystem designed to model the fundamentally unpredictible nature of combat, force you to out think your opponenets, and has a lot of depth and nuance.

Fight is played out in a manner very similar to the Duel of Wits system, though it is more complicated, having mechanisms to simulate superior and inferior possitioning, stance, and different types of attacks and defenses which interact in multiple ways.

No grid or map is used.

It is not in any way designed to simulate the type of encounter that is typical of DnD.

I feel, personally, that it is a better system by far than any version of DnD for resolving violenct conflcits, but it won't fill the same need that 4e combat does.

Edit: I should note that I don't consider 4e's combat system to be very tactical. It is much more strategic, in my opinion, playing out like a more complex version of chess. Fights in 4e always feel quite predictable to me, and I usually can pick the moment in which my side has crossed the line and will win, regardless. Burning Wheel Fight! has you on your toes all the time, because the unexpected can, and will, happen, and your victory can very easily be snatched away.

Fight! is a very deep system, and is at least as complex as 4e combat, if not more so in some ways, but it won't appeal to everyone. I tend to only use it for big deal encounters, conflicts with major villains, and moments of violence that have deeper meaning to the characters. Otherwise I tend to use the simpler vs. test method of resolution.

NMBLNG

2011-03-01, 01:32 PM

Oracle_Hunter

2011-03-01, 01:41 PM

I think we're missing an important part of the equation here. Yes, the DM's style and the kind of game they want to run needs to be well matched with the system they're playing. A no-combat, skill heavy campaign will not go over well in 4e and will need a lot of work in 3.5.

But just because the DM wants to run a game of intrigue doesn't mean that the players want to as well. I do like campaigns where I get to sneak around, mess with politics and all that stuff. But some days I just want to bash/stab/explode something in the face.

So don't forget what the players are planning on doing. I've seen groups get frustrated because they didn't know what the DM wanted them to do, players struggle to find the best course of action in combat, players that want to find a way out of combat when the DM is planning a fight, etc.

You can do a intrigue campaign in 4e, I'm in one now. But it wouldn't work if the players only wanted to kill stuff.
In my defense, I did pitch the game as an intrigue game to the Players and they said they wanted to play. And it certainly wasn't a matter of Players getting confused - they knew the factions involved and were engaging with them.

It's just that they wanted to get out there and work their character sheets. Kill some orcs, loot some dungeons, etc. 4e, as a system, focuses on "characters in combat" and unless your intrigue game involves a lot of that (which it probably does) it can feel a little silly spending all this time picking out Attack powers that you never really use.

One of my Players put it best when he said "you run the most 1st Edition game of 4th Edition I've ever seen" - I was focused on engaging the player characters in a narrative story rather than their character sheets in mechanics. So I shelved that game of 4e and ran a game of Bliss Stage instead. The next 4e game I ran took more care into structuring the story as a series of Encounters and it works much better.

N.B. Structuring a story is a question of organization, nothing more. I don't find my storytelling more limited because I conceptualize things as Encounters (and opportunities for Encounters); I simply take more care to engage with the system when writing. Each system lends itself to a particular brand of storytelling in the same way that it lends itself to a particular form of game play.

navar100

2011-03-01, 01:56 PM

Campaign elements are independent of the system. Plots, combat, non-combat stuff happen in every edition. The only difference between them is the game mechanics used. If you don't like particular game mechanics, you're not going to like the system.

However, I think there's another element involved related to the game mechanics: the tolerance level of how powerful a player character can be. Regardless of edition anything that's broken for within that system is to be done away with, but the concept of a player character being powerful is not in itself broken. Those who are comfortable with powerful characters can play any system, but in some cases dislike a system that doesn't allow "powerful enough" in their subjective opinion. Those who are uncomfortable with powerful characters will have a preference, and in some cases vehemently dislike the systems they don't prefer because they allow for "too powerful" characters.

EccentricCircle

2011-03-01, 02:00 PM

I think defining gritty is one of those things where everyone has a slightly different idea, but I would say that a gritty game is one where the world is a dark and dangerous place and no amount of encounter powers is going to change that. the characters will struggle, they will have to use their wits (and indeed the wits of their players) rather than their special abilities.
a gritty game is one where fighting should be a last resort, rather than the buisness of the day. it is a game where characters can be killed if they don't think before they jump and a game in which every action has a consequence even if it does arguably succeed.

that sort of game isn't what D&D is designed to do. a gritty game is not a heroic game or a game of tactical battles. I agree that 3.5 is better than 4e for such games but that there are a lot of better systems out there. The point I was making was essentially that an optimised party will make the DM's job of running such a game a lot harder than it would otherwise be. I apreciate in hindsight that it reads as "the way to be gritty is not to optimise" and so apologise for any confusion.

its interesting that the consensus seems to be that the older versions of D&D lend themselves better to this sort of game. I suppose that a lighter rules load gives the DM more flexibility to create a grittier story.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-03-01, 02:06 PM

its interesting that the consensus seems to be that the older versions of D&D lend themselves better to this sort of game. I suppose that a lighter rules load gives the DM more flexibility to create a grittier story.
Nah, characters were simply frailer and using Real Ultimate Power was inherently dangerous.

Complexity of a system has little to do with building a "gritty" game. A diceless game with a hardass GM can be as gritty as your average game of SR1.

The Rose Dragon

2011-03-01, 02:13 PM

Campaign elements are independent of the system.

Spoken like someone who has played only two or three games. Not saying that is the fact with you, but there are many games where the system is the campaign, and it is difficult if not impossible to separate the two. See, for example, Mountain Witch, or Summerland.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-01, 02:22 PM

so the basic question for debate is this:
are different editions more tailored to different types of games?

Absolutely. This is not limited to 3.5 and 4, either. Every system has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Some get more weaknesses than anyone really wants to deal with. *cough* FATAL *cough* However, pretty much any somewhat popular system has something it does rather well.

are there certain stories that can be run more effectively using one edition rather than another?

I would replace the word stories with games. Not everything run with RPG systems counts as a story(thinking of hack and slash campaigns without even character names).

However, yes. Call of Cthulu runs an investigative horror game well. I would not use the system for a game with the feel of Bunnies and Burrows.

4e and 3.5 are rather less different, but still have specializations. 4e is what I would run if I were interested in a tactical combat game at the individual level. Im not...I prefer squad or army level in my combat games...but it's an excellent choice for those who are.

3.5 is what I use for high fantasy with combat and/or dungeon crawling. I tend to use other systems for different forms of fantasy. TBH, I use pathfinder almost identically to 3.5. I consider them as similar as 3.0 - 3.5 was, and thus use them for very similar games, with the choice being made more by whatever people feel like doing.

Edit: I do not consider 3.PF or 4e to be particularly gritty. If you can stab it or blast it and it dies, it's no longer all that scary. If death isn't the end...the game really isn't all that gritty. CoC has grit. Shadowrun has grit. 7th Sea typically does not. A lot of this has to do with the availability of resources and the lethality of combat for the PCs. If you have lots of resources and combat is a low-risk option, it will not be terribly gritty.

Britter

2011-03-01, 02:32 PM

Edit: I do not consider 3.PF or 4e to be particularly gritty. If you can stab it or blast it and it dies, it's no longer all that scary. If death isn't the end...the game really isn't all that gritty. CoC has grit. Shadowrun has grit. 7th Sea typically does not. A lot of this has to do with the availability of resources and the lethality of combat for the PCs. If you have lots of resources and combat is a low-risk option, it will not be terribly gritty.

I don't exactly agree here. Yes, 3.5 and 4e are not gritty games, on that we can agree. But I think it is because when you get stabbed, it really doesn't matter so long as your hit point total is still positive.

In Shadowrun, Burning Wheel or similar systems, getting shot or stabbed can end a fight even if you aren't dead. You spend a good deal of time operating under constant fear of sudden and unexpected death. Life is cheap. Disfiguring wounds that have both mechanical and narrative weight are not unheard of. For me, that is what makes a game feel gritty.

I don't think DnD of any stripe, including my much beloved 2nd edition, can do gritty without a lot of houseruling, at least according to my definition.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-01, 03:14 PM

I don't exactly agree here. Yes, 3.5 and 4e are not gritty games, on that we can agree. But I think it is because when you get stabbed, it really doesn't matter so long as your hit point total is still positive.

That's also a factor. I kinda lumped that all under lethality of combat and resources...but definitely, the ongoing loss of sanity is part of the defining grittiness of CoC. It's not just that combat is lethal...it's that even winning may be costly, and those resources are scarce. Losing hp in D&D, even if it takes you reasonably low, is not terribly scary. It's pretty replaceable.

Sine

2011-03-01, 03:51 PM

its interesting that the consensus seems to be that the older versions of D&D lend themselves better to this sort of game. I suppose that a lighter rules load gives the DM more flexibility to create a grittier story.
Like Oracle said, it's not the number of rules that makes a system gritty.

In AD&D anyone, including the fighter, can start with 1 HP at level 1. And after level 10, nobody rolls HP anymore -- you get 1 or two more per level, period.

In 3e, even a mage starts with at least 3 HP. And nobody ever stops rolling and adding Con every level.

In 4e, PCs start with between 20-30 HP, and get plenty more as they level. (High level 4e combat is sometimes known as padded sumo wrestling.) In addition, 4e has few options that bypass HP, and none that insta-kill.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-03-01, 03:58 PM

Ah, time to add "gritty" to the List of Terms That Don't Aid Discussion :smalltongue:

The List (so far)
Verisimilitude
Balance
Simulationism
Gamism
Gritty
None of these terms help to define any discussion they're used in and invariably derail them into a discussion of what those terms mean.

Talakeal

2011-03-01, 04:37 PM

Oracle_Hunter

2011-03-01, 04:40 PM

Don't forget Mary Sue!
I was speaking within the game design context, specifically.

I mean, trying to list general terms that don't help discussions would probably exceed the character limit on forum posts :smalltongue:

Totally Guy

2011-03-01, 04:59 PM

None of these terms help to define any discussion they're used in and invariably derail them into a discussion of what those terms mean.

Stick "Fun" on that list. I get cranky every time that comes up.

The Rose Dragon

2011-03-01, 05:08 PM

Stick "Fun" on that list. I get cranky every time that comes up.

Hear hear! You can have fun with games that are objectively bad. The term "guilty pleasure" exists for a reason. As such, the number of people that play a game gauges its popularity, and how much fun you have gauges how much you like and are compatible with your playing group. Neither of them makes a game good.

((People have been playing Vampire: the Masquerade for years, and having fun. I was one of those people. I wouldn't call it a good game.))

kyoryu

2011-03-01, 06:20 PM

In 4e, PCs start with between 20-30 HP, and get plenty more as they level. (High level 4e combat is sometimes known as padded sumo wrestling.) In addition, 4e has few options that bypass HP, and none that insta-kill.

While this is true, to be fair, most enemies in 4e do a *lot* more damage than 3.x or earlier equivalents. There are level 1 critters that get to do attacks dealing 2d10+3 damage, and that's just with a quick glance. Two average hits from that attack would drop just about any non-defender character.

Heck, there are 1st level kobolds (non solo or elite) that can dish out d6+9 damage per turn, not even on a recharge. d6+11 if they really want.

hamishspence

2011-03-01, 06:25 PM

And while MMI high level monsters tend to do low damage, proportionately, I think they beefed damage up in MM2 and MM3.

So, it's less "padded sumo".

MeeposFire

2011-03-01, 06:31 PM

And while MMI high level monsters tend to do low damage, proportionately, I think they beefed damage up in MM2 and MM3.

So, it's less "padded sumo".

Indeed I have seen level one brutes that had encounter powers (that recharge when bloodied and the like) that deal 4d6+mods damage. Even defenders get scared when they are hit that hard.

Newer monsters help a lot and if you are really interested in making combats more dangerous you can do that by increasing encounter levels. Just figure out what your groups needs are.

CycloneJoker

2011-03-01, 07:54 PM

D&D is essentially the same game, regardless of edition. The only thing I can categorically say about the editions is "Each new edition gets more balanced, more heroic, less gritty and less dependent on DM skill." So if you want to play a dark gritty game that requires a great DM to be a great game? Play AD&D. Want to play a heroic game that can get by with a mediocre DM? Play 4e.
Absurd. The mechanics are so different, it's absurd to call them even similar, really. There's not as much custom-ability in 4e, and only mechanically works for dungeon-crawling hack'n'smash. There is NO mechanical difference between a fighter and a sorcerer. There is no mechanical difference between a Warlock and a Ranger, IIRC. Really, Psionics got a tiny difference, but it still hardly qualifies.

Agreed on the last part, though.

But the more important factors are: "Which edition am I familiar with?" "Which ruleset do I like best?" "Which edition did I start with, or have the best groups with?" "Which is the current edition, and therefore the easiest to find groups for?" Few gamers play D&D based on its ability to be tailored to a particular type of campaign, because D&D is essentially vanilla fantasy. Its strength, like the strength of the Bible, is that it appeals to a wide audience. It can be tailored to certain stories, but that's not what D&D is best at.
I beg to differ. 3.5 can be anything. Want to do some thievery/gang war/etc? Okay, a couple of skill checks, just add some penalties for failing, a little stabbing or shooting here and there, and presto-change-o you've got a thievery game. Political? Just the same, with a little less stabbing.

I think we're missing an important part of the equation here. Yes, the DM's style and the kind of game they want to run needs to be well matched with the system they're playing. A no-combat, skill heavy campaign will not go over well in 4e and will need a lot of work in 3.5.
It will work, see above

But just because the DM wants to run a game of intrigue doesn't mean that the players want to as well. I do like campaigns where I get to sneak around, mess with politics and all that stuff. But some days I just want to bash/stab/explode something in the face.
Then play an Illumian, or make a situation with its type of politics.

Absolutely. This is not limited to 3.5 and 4, either. Every system has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Some get more weaknesses than anyone really wants to deal with. *cough* FATAL *cough* However, pretty much any somewhat popular system has something it does rather well.

I would replace the word stories with games. Not everything run with RPG systems counts as a story(thinking of hack and slash campaigns without even character names).

However, yes. Call of Cthulu runs an investigative horror game well. I would not use the system for a game with the feel of Bunnies and Burrows.

4e and 3.5 are rather less different, but still have specializations. 4e is what I would run if I were interested in a tactical combat game at the individual level. Im not...I prefer squad or army level in my combat games...but it's an excellent choice for those who are.
3.5 is just as, if not more than as tactical as 4e. I do not understand where this "argument" keeps on coming from.

valadil

2011-03-01, 09:40 PM

I beg to differ. 3.5 can be anything. Want to do some thievery/gang war/etc? Okay, a couple of skill checks, just add some penalties for failing, a little stabbing or shooting here and there, and presto-change-o you've got a thievery game. Political? Just the same, with a little less stabbing.

What part of the doesn't apply to 4e?

3.5 is just as, if not more than as tactical as 4e. I do not understand where this "argument" keeps on coming from.

That argument comes from the emphasis on movement. 4e has tons of abilities that reposition people on the battlefield. Proper positioning provides an advantage in combat. These abilities are available to almost every class and don't require specific builds to be effective.

In 3.5 you have Bull Rush, a couple transposition spells, Melf's Unicorn Arrow, Telekinesis, and that's all I can think of. Positioning isn't as available and it isn't as important.

Or did you have something besides battlefield maneuvering in mind when you referred to tactics?

Sine

2011-03-01, 09:59 PM

While this is true, to be fair, most enemies in 4e do a *lot* more damage than 3.x or earlier equivalents. There are level 1 critters that get to do attacks dealing 2d10+3 damage, and that's just with a quick glance. Two average hits from that attack would drop just about any non-defender character.

Heck, there are 1st level kobolds (non solo or elite) that can dish out d6+9 damage per turn, not even on a recharge. d6+11 if they really want.
Fair enough.

I think we can agree though that 4e isn't as gritty* because the damage:HP ratio is lower than in previous editions overall, and there're much fewer "gotchas" like save-or-lose effects and outright death traps.

(Yes, a 4e DM can force the PCs through a lot of encounters per day to make the game gritty, but that's not quite the same as "Roll a save as you try to unlock the dungeon door. Oh you rolled a 1? The door's death trap killed you! Time to roll up a new PC.")

*Or whatever politically correct term we want to use.

CycloneJoker

2011-03-01, 10:00 PM

What part of the doesn't apply to 4e?

Skill Challenges, among others, including how all of the mechanics are based on combat.

That argument comes from the emphasis on movement. 4e has tons of abilities that reposition people on the battlefield. Proper positioning provides an advantage in combat. These abilities are available to almost every class and don't require specific builds to be effective.

In 3.5 you have Bull Rush, a couple transposition spells, Melf's Unicorn Arrow, Telekinesis, and that's all I can think of. Positioning isn't as available and it isn't as important.
Duskblade? Beguiler? Charbarians? Solid Fog/Everards Tentacles of Groping? Dantalion's "Speed of Thought?" Totemist's Blink Shirt or Manticore's Belt. Swordsages in general? I can go on.
Or did you have something besides battlefield maneuvering in mind when you referred to tactics?

Also, yes. Ability rationing, anticipation, organization, order, action usage, enemy priority, or who is killed first, and what my group calls "priority of squishiness." The squishier you are, the more likely you are to be targeted, the more likely you are to die from the attacks, if they are successful, and the like.

And no, encounter powers do not qualify as "Ability rationing."

true_shinken

2011-03-01, 10:03 PM

In 3.5 you have Bull Rush, a couple transposition spells, Melf's Unicorn Arrow, Telekinesis, and that's all I can think of. Positioning isn't as available and it isn't as important.

Or did you have something besides battlefield maneuvering in mind when you referred to tactics?
Very very wrong. Maneuvering is key in 3.5. Charge, the favored melee tactic to deal damage, is very dependant on positioning - you can't shift then charge like you can in 4e. Also, attacks of opportunity are a lot more deadly in 3.5. Just check the good lockdown builds and you'll see how important movement is in 3.5.
Also, you have lots of different ways to move in 3.5 - flight (AFAIK, actual flight is very hard to get in 4e), burrowing, climbimg, swimming...
Tactical positioning is very very important in any 3.5 game that uses a grid.

valadil

2011-03-01, 10:35 PM

Very very wrong. Maneuvering is key in 3.5. Charge, the favored melee tactic to deal damage, is very dependant on positioning

That wasn't my experience. In all the groups I played with, melees did damage by shifting then full attacking. This meant that all the melee characters in a fight bunched up together and never left the area. There just wasn't much movement going on. That hasn't been the case with 4e. And I played with a wide enough variety of players that I don't think my 3.5 experience was unique or an edge case.

Erom

2011-03-01, 10:40 PM

Having played and DMed 2nd, 3.5, and 4th, I'm willing to declare that 4th edition has the best "combat minigame" of any edition of DnD I've tried. It's a much richer tactical game, with less of 2nd/3rd editions "Do you have a counter to THIS? Yes, you're ok. No, you're DOOMED." To me, earlier edition combats are 90% either trivially easy or impossibly hard. More combat in 4th edition falls into the tasty middle range.

You can design good combats in any edition of course, but this is generalizing from my experiences over the last couple of decades.

A summary of my views on the different editions strengths and weaknesses:

4th Edition
+ Rich, fun battle minigame
+ Balanced! I care about this. Some don't.
- Characters all follow the same power progression: kind of boring char-op minigame.
- Lots of rules that add complexity without adding fun

3rd Edition
+ By far the richest character creation suite.
- Combat is varied but rocket-taggy: better than 2nd edition but a distant second to 4th edition
- Almost every class has new mechanics to learn: system can feel a little duct-taped together, TONS of rules ambiguities

2nd Edition
+ Very few rules that add nothing to the game - simple
- Almost too simple - hard to really play the "character optimizer" minigame
- Combat minigame is also too simple

CycloneJoker

2011-03-01, 10:55 PM

KingFlameHawk

2011-03-02, 12:03 AM

Zaydos

2011-03-02, 12:21 AM

From my experiences:

4e
Mechanical Highpoint: Excellent tactical combat.
Lends itself to: Superheroic Fantasy*, games where you are Heroes and not just heroes or adventurers. High power feel, but not really high powered options.

*I'd say heroic fantasy but that's a different genre.

3.X
Mechanical Highpoint: Options, wondrous options.
Lends itself to: High magic, all myths are true. Eberron could only have come about during this edition. Sandboxes where the protagonists can do anything that anyone in the world can do.

2e (and earlier)
Mechanical Highpoint: Simplicity; I could figure out the Red Box as a 6 year old and I hadn't put Proficiency Slots in Literacy yet. Only difficulties at 8 switching to 2e were some with the Proficiency Optional Rules and figuring out one chart of weapons vs armor type because it wasn't clear whether + or - was good for the attacker.
Lends itself to: Swords and sorcery/heroic fantasy. Still a little high powered/high magic for Conan and similar but low enough that you can emulate it without stretching hard. Grittier than the others.

Leolo

2011-03-02, 03:52 AM

Fair enough.

I think we can agree though that 4e isn't as gritty* because the damage:HP ratio is lower than in previous editions overall, and there're much fewer "gotchas" like save-or-lose effects and outright death traps.

(Yes, a 4e DM can force the PCs through a lot of encounters per day to make the game gritty, but that's not quite the same as "Roll a save as you try to unlock the dungeon door. Oh you rolled a 1? The door's death trap killed you! Time to roll up a new PC.")

*Or whatever politically correct term we want to use.

The question is: Can you call this gritty? Or isn't "swingy" a better term?

If i think about the term gritty, i have films like die hard in mind. Your outnumbered, running on glass and getting hurt all the time. That would be something i could call gritty.

But of course, i never felt the unexpected "something happens - you die" things all that scary or even atmospheric. It simple does not build up tension.

MeeposFire

2011-03-02, 05:16 AM

Also, in 4e, every character FEELS the same. If I want to play a fighter, I want to hit things with a stick, or a chain, or smash them into a wall, but I still want to be hitting them, not basically casting. A Wizard should cast spells, a fighter should hit stuff. They should both not use the same mechanic.

Hey all chess pieces are the same right? They all look very similar. They all move in a similar fashion. The game must be terrible and boring since the pieces are so similar.

4e classes look similar since they all use a similar format. They actually play very differently. For instance a shielding swordmage plays very differently than a brawling fighter (or really any fighter for that matter). The swordmage will be using burst powers, mark an enemy, and then attacking different enemies hopefully in mass. A brawling fighter picks a target and for the most part shuts it down by grabbing the target preventing it from attacking your allies. If the marked target does something that violates the mark the swordmage can reduce the damage dealt at range. The fighter will attack the target in melee. Despite both being defenders they both defend in different ways and with different tactics. Trying to use the other class's tactics will lead to less effective results.

Each class has power that do different things. Fighters do not have area powers while wizards do. Rangers tend to multiple attacks. Rogues and warlocks tend to have low target control powers while monks tend to have multiple target control powers and they are all strikers. Saying that all classes play the same is ignorant of reality or you are confusing similar format to similar play. Heck the wizard making an attack role is just the inverse of the saving throw system. That is what SAGA edition Star Wars uses and it is still basically a variant of 3.5. Further even with the use of a power block a fighter is still hitting things with his sword but what is nice about having access to daily type powers (since encounter and at will martial powers exist in 3.5 I assume you have no problems with these) is that you can use them as your martial characters narrative card. For instance if you are in battle against the BBEG and your character is on his last legs and needs a big bold move to end the fight like in the movies or books you can use your daily power and it will change the encounter just like in the stories (different people use them differently but this is just one way to look at daily martial powers). If you do not want a martial character with a daily power go with an essentials build with the slayer or knight. In this case you will have no daily powers so literally nothing to complain about.

ken-do-nim

2011-03-02, 05:47 AM

MeeposFire

2011-03-02, 05:58 AM

Very very wrong. Maneuvering is key in 3.5. Charge, the favored melee tactic to deal damage, is very dependant on positioning - you can't shift then charge like you can in 4e. Also, attacks of opportunity are a lot more deadly in 3.5. Just check the good lockdown builds and you'll see how important movement is in 3.5.
Also, you have lots of different ways to move in 3.5 - flight (AFAIK, actual flight is very hard to get in 4e), burrowing, climbimg, swimming...
Tactical positioning is very very important in any 3.5 game that uses a grid.

Maneuvering is key in any game. 3.5 has a problem for melee classes since they are very much weakened if they cannot get a full attack and for the most part they don't if they move. Charging is generally more difficult in 3.5 (for one charging is just a standard action in 4e). Moving is harder to accomplish and tends to weaken your options unless you are TOB. I am not sure I would call attacks of opportunity for movement as being more dangerous in 3.5 since a fighter can do that better in 4e (and the extra opportunity attacks that a lockdown build will make will be for non-moving violations which do not apply in this discussion further 4e characters get 1 opportunity attack per turn rather than round so most character are more dangerous off their turn in 4e than in 3.5). Non standard movement is easier to be had in 3.5 but it tends to benefit the non melee classes more since melee classes are still limited by full attack actions. That is the point the other poster is making. Positioning is key in 3.5 but it is to make full attack actions which means you are moving to a spot so you will not have to move again. 4e characters do not care for the most part if they are to move every round since they do not lose anything for doing so. 3.5 characters that rely on full attacks lose a lot by moving and so they will try to limit moving as much as possible unless they can alleviate this problem (getting pounce for instance or maneuvers).

In 3.5 tactical position is very important but mobility for the standard melee classes is far more limited if they are worried about being effective.

EDIT: Just so you know this is more of a "you are right but..." sort of post.

true_shinken

2011-03-02, 08:33 AM

Maneuvering is key in any game.
No, it isn't. Most games in the storyteller system, old and new, care nothing about maneuvering (with the exception of Street Fighter). Dragonball RPG cares nothing about maneuvering. BESM cares nothing about maneuvering. Mutants & Masterminds cares nothing about maneuvering. I could go on and on.

I am not sure I would call attacks of opportunity for movement as being more dangerous in 3.5 since a fighter can do that better in 4e
Except he can't, of course. The damage of an attack of opportunity dealt by a 4e Fighter is ridiculous, only weapon damage+Str. Power Attack alone makes attacks of opportunity a lot stronger in 3.5

and the extra opportunity attacks that a lockdown build will make will be for non-moving violations which do not apply in this discussion further 4e characters get 1 opportunity attack per turn rather than round so most character are more dangerous off their turn in 4e than in 3.5
Less things provoke in 4e. That alone makes opportunity attacks less powerful. Also, 1/turn is actually a nerf. You could get multiple attacks of opportunity in someone else's turn in 3.5 and that's exactly a lockdown build goes for - you move you provoke, you cast you provoke, you attack you provoke...

Non standard movement is easier to be had in 3.5 but it tends to benefit the non melee classes more since melee classes are still limited by full attack actions. That is the point the other poster is making.
I never saw anyone even mentioning the whole melee vs casters thing until you posted, really. Also, there are plenty of ways to get free movement. If you don't have any of those until level 11, yes, you're pretty much screwed in any decently powered game. The fact there are many ways to get free movement, though, makes this pretty much a nonissue in my book, though.

Positioning is key in 3.5 but it is to make full attack actions which means you are moving to a spot so you will not have to move again.
Again, free movement.

4e characters do not care for the most part if they are to move every round since they do not lose anything for doing so. 3.5 characters that rely on full attacks lose a lot by moving and so they will try to limit moving as much as possible unless they can alleviate this problem (getting pounce for instance or maneuvers).
How is that a problem? Just get free movement.

In 3.5 tactical position is very important but mobility for the standard melee classes is far more limited if they are worried about being effective.

It's the other way around completely. You have to spend resources on mobility, else you're hurting your efficiency.

Except they do, of course. :smallamused: Hello, Rain of Steel.

[QUOTE=CycloneJoker;10475622]Also, in 4e, every character FEELS the same. If I want to play a fighter, I want to hit things with a stick, or a chain, or smash them into a wall, but I still want to be hitting them, not basically casting. A Wizard should cast spells, a fighter should hit stuff. They should both not use the same mechanic.
Dude, while I somewhat agree with you, this gets old. People have been talking about this forever but 4e won't change because of this and no one will stop playing it because everything feels the same. I like a feel things about 4e and I'm in a 4e game right now, but my favorite edition is 3.5 all the way. Sometimes you just have to accept the other side has their points and move on, bro.

Kurald Galain

2011-03-02, 09:03 AM

Except he can't, of course. The damage of an attack of opportunity dealt by a 4e Fighter is ridiculous, only weapon damage+Str. Power Attack alone makes attacks of opportunity a lot stronger in 3.5
In my experience, opportunity attacks in 4E simply aren't all that relevant, and that's because there's only two things that provoke them: standard movement, and ranged/area attacks.

Any PC that cares about movement has access to a wide array of shifting or teleportation powers; any PC that cares about ranged or area attacks can use a single low-level feat or item to make them stop provoking. Conversely, for the monster side, the OAs from the vast majority of PCs simply aren't a credible threat due to low accuracy, low damage, or both; the obvious exception being Fighters.

My point is that 4E would be a more tactical game if opportunity attacks were a bigger threat - for example, by ruling that they are provoked by drinking a potion, making a heal or thievery check, or possibly by getting up from prone; and by banning the easy feats and items that stop all your attacks from provoking.

Sine

2011-03-02, 09:08 AM

The question is: Can you call this gritty? Or isn't "swingy" a better term?
If you like. "Gritty" makes me think of stuff like Conan, where it's a dark and dangerous world full of ways to die horribly and without warning.

Erom

2011-03-02, 09:18 AM

My point is that 4E would be a more tactical game if opportunity attacks were a bigger threat -
You guys have probably picked up on the fact that I like 4e by now, but I have to respond to this and say it's a great example of my biggest PROBLEM with 4e - rules that add nothing but complexity to the game. Why have rules for OA's at all if they are going to be trivial and ignorable past low levels? Either make them dangerous enough to mean something or get them out of the system cause as it is they're just unnecessary rules bloat.

Reverent-One

2011-03-02, 10:06 AM

Any PC that cares about movement has access to a wide array of shifting or teleportation powers; any PC that cares about ranged or area attacks can use a single low-level feat or item to make them stop provoking. Conversely, for the monster side, the OAs from the vast majority of PCs simply aren't a credible threat due to low accuracy, low damage, or both; the obvious exception being Fighters any class that use any of their powers as a basic melee attack.

Fixed that for you.

My point is that 4E would be a more tactical game if opportunity attacks were a bigger threat - for example, by ruling that they are provoked by drinking a potion, making a heal or thievery check, or possibly by getting up from prone; and by banning the easy feats and items that stop all your attacks from provoking.

I would personally have AoOs trigger from getting up from prone, though thats more to boost the penalty from prone than to strengthen AoOs.

You guys have probably picked up on the fact that I like 4e by now, but I have to respond to this and say it's a great example of my biggest PROBLEM with 4e - rules that add nothing but complexity to the game. Why have rules for OA's at all if they are going to be trivial and ignorable past low levels? Either make them dangerous enough to mean something or get them out of the system cause as it is they're just unnecessary rules bloat.

I think you're underestimating AoOs a bit, at the very least they're useful for (most? all?) defenders as another penalty to prevent monsters from gunning from a squishy ally.

Kurald Galain

2011-03-02, 10:16 AM

Fixed that for you.
You know, I find it rather rude to change somebody's words in a quote and then claim you've improved it.

Regardless of that, you're incorrect: just being able to use an at-will on an OA is not sufficient to make that OA a credible threat, because of how many hit points monsters have. The fighter's OA is a threat because it aborts movement, not because it does the same damage as an ordinary hit. By comparison, a paladin's Virtuous Strike is an insufficient deterrent.

true_shinken

2011-03-02, 10:21 AM

Regardless of that, you're incorrect: just being able to use an at-will on an OA is not sufficient to make that OA a credible threat, because of how many hit points monsters have. The fighter's OA is a threat because it aborts movement, not because it does the same damage as an ordinary hit. By comparison, a paladin's Virtuous Strike is an insufficient deterrent.

Well, he has a point. There are a few builds out there that deal so much damage on an at-will attack that it's an actual threat. I can only think of the old Student of Caiphon gish, though (and that's a very complicated build that was errata'd not to work anymore). I'm sure there are others (especially if you find a way to use Twin Strike as an opportunity attack - doesn't Heavy Blade Opportunist work like that?).
Even then, I'm still on Kurald's side here. OAs are really weak in 4e and meaningless for everyone but the Fighter.

Reverent-One

2011-03-02, 10:35 AM

Regardless of that, you're incorrect: just being able to use an at-will on an OA is not sufficient to make that OA a credible threat, because of how many hit points monsters have. The fighter's OA is a threat because it aborts movement, not because it does the same damage as an ordinary hit. By comparison, a paladin's Virtuous Strike is an insufficient deterrent.

Even then, I'm still on Kurald's side here. OAs are really weak in 4e and meaningless for everyone but the Fighter.

I disagree, as does pretty much every 4e optimization guide for a Defender, not just fighters. Melee training is a Gold feat for Battleminds and Charisma Paladins without Virtuous Strike, Intelligent blademaster is sky blue for Swordmages.

CycloneJoker

2011-03-02, 10:35 AM

Hey all chess pieces are the same right? They all look very similar. They all move in a similar fashion. The game must be terrible and boring since the pieces are so similar.
No, they all move differently. A pawn is VERY different from a Knight, or a Queen is hugely different from a King, etc. They're all different.

4e classes look similar since they all use a similar format. They actually play very differently. For instance a shielding swordmage plays very differently than a brawling fighter (or really any fighter for that matter). The swordmage will be using burst powers, mark an enemy, and then attacking different enemies hopefully in mass. A brawling fighter picks a target and for the most part shuts it down by grabbing the target preventing it from attacking your allies. If the marked target does something that violates the mark the swordmage can reduce the damage dealt at range. The fighter will attack the target in melee. Despite both being defenders they both defend in different ways and with different tactics. Trying to use the other class's tactics will lead to less effective results.
So? You're still going "Mark, limited control on one or two dudes while being huge." I'm not seeing much of a difference. And they are all mechanically almost identical. A wizard AoEs, a fighter uses Rain of Steel, or just one of those powers that hits everything around it. The Avenger marks then never misses, the ranger has, IIRC, volume of attacks. I can go on, but it would be pointless.

Each class has power that do different things. Fighters do not have area powers while wizards do. Rangers tend to multiple attacks. Rogues and warlocks tend to have low target control powers while monks tend to have multiple target control powers and they are all strikers. Saying that all classes play the same is ignorant of reality or you are confusing similar format to similar play. Heck the wizard making an attack role is just the inverse of the saving throw system. That is what SAGA edition Star Wars uses and it is still basically a variant of 3.5. Further even with the use of a power block a fighter is still hitting things with his sword but what is nice about having access to daily type powers (since encounter and at will martial powers exist in 3.5 I assume you have no problems with these) is that you can use them as your martial characters narrative card. For instance if you are in battle against the BBEG and your character is on his last legs and needs a big bold move to end the fight like in the movies or books you can use your daily power and it will change the encounter just like in the stories (different people use them differently but this is just one way to look at daily martial powers). If you do not want a martial character with a daily power go with an essentials build with the slayer or knight. In this case you will have no daily powers so literally nothing to complain about.
Um, no. What encounter powers are there? The only one I can think of is Factotum, 'cause yanno, ToB recharges when it runs out. I'm not seeing much. And the at-wills are Warlock, DFA, Melee, and Binder, and melee hardly counts as "powers," so no.

Fighters have at least one AoE. Saying the defense system is one of the only differences is bizarre. It's one of the okay things, but not that different, and there are much worse things, like, for some reason, you can go both your full speed AND swing in the same time it would take to swing the sword. And D&D is hardly a movie, and it's bizarre to think of it as suck. And criticals are better for that, anyways.

Dude, while I somewhat agree with you, this gets old. People have been talking about this forever but 4e won't change because of this and no one will stop playing it because everything feels the same. I like a feel things about 4e and I'm in a 4e game right now, but my favorite edition is 3.5 all the way. Sometimes you just have to accept the other side has their points and move on, bro.
Fine. All classes are mechanically identical, or nearly so. There, happy?

Also, for the record, people seem to be forgetting that you can 5' step with a full-attack, and no good melee uses full attacks, really, except trippers. Grapplers will have you grappled already, chargers will be pouncing, and ToB will be using standard actions for maneuvers.

Kurald Galain

2011-03-02, 10:44 AM

I disagree, as does pretty much every 4e optimization guide for a Defender, not just fighters. Melee training is a Gold feat for Battleminds and Charisma Paladins without Virtuous Strike, Intelligent blademaster is sky blue for Swordmages.
This is funny because it's a literal straw man. I'm talking about Opportunity Attacks and you point towards a feat that boosts Melee Basic Attacks. That's clearly not the same thing; there's plenty of use for MBAs even though OAs are mostly irrelevant, the most obvious being charging.

Earthwalker

2011-03-02, 10:53 AM

I don't know DnD 4 I have a copy but I suspect I will never play it. As far as DnD 3.5 I have the core books and pathfinder base book and do play it.

From reading conversations here I have a few (mis)conceptions of both systems I would like to hear about.

3.5 has tactical combat but for alot of classes (I think most) you have to build a character that can effectivy use the options presented. So you build a charger, this then makes your tactical choice in all combats (or most) I charge them. You don't go in and think oh better start locking things down for this, as you don't have that option.

So it has a wide array of tactics just you generally only get a few that you can do effectivly.

I am unsure if this is the same in DnD4 ?

Getting back to the original post, I have to agree. I always try to use a system that best reflects what story is being played out.

Reverent-One

2011-03-02, 11:02 AM

This is funny because it's a literal straw man. I'm talking about Opportunity Attacks and you point towards a feat that boosts Melee Basic Attacks. That's clearly not the same thing; there's plenty of use for MBAs even though OAs are mostly irrelevant, the most obvious being charging.

Which is a last ditch manuver, only used if you absolutely can't reach with a normal power, especially if we follow your logic. If a free opportunity to make a simple at-will level attack isn't worth much, it's even worse to use it as your standard action. Such a last ditch move shouldn't make a feat Gold or Sky Blue.

Also, to quote the guides:

Intelligent Blademaster (FRPG) - This feat means that your opportunity attacks are now effective, making enemies much less likely to simply move away from you.

Melee Training (Con): (PHB2) You need this, the sooner the better. A defender without threatening OAs is not much of a defender. Being able to charge never hurts, and your leader will probably thank you, too.

Paladin guide doesn't clarify why MBAs are good in the guide itself, whether it's for OAs, charges, or something else. Discussion in the thread does show more of the "A defender needs a decent OA" mentality though.

Still, they're listing OAs as the main reason for these feats, with other uses of MBAs being merely an added benefit. So yeah, not a strawman here.

Sipex

2011-03-02, 11:04 AM

I think this thread may have failed it's mission.

CycloneJoker

2011-03-02, 11:04 AM

Kurald Galain

2011-03-02, 11:15 AM

I apologize, and agree with you, but a LITERAL straw man would be a dude, you know, a human with his Angus McDanglys, made out of straw. How they'd make Angus out of straw is beyond me.

If you can tell the difference between Angus and a straw, then you should be able to tell the difference between a 4E fighter and a 4E wizard :smallbiggrin:

CycloneJoker

2011-03-02, 11:21 AM

If you can tell the difference between Angus and a straw, then you should be able to tell the difference between a 4E fighter and a 4E wizard :smallbiggrin:

{Scrubbed}

Sipex

2011-03-02, 11:28 AM

{Scrubbed the post, scrub the quote.}

I can't help but think that under this logic a 3.5 Wizard and a 3.5 fighter are the same because the base underlying system is 'make an attack and roll a dice to determine the result'.

Tvtyrant

2011-03-02, 11:29 AM

I can't help but think that under this logic a 3.5 Wizard and a 3.5 fighter are the same because the base underlying system is 'make an attack and roll a dice to determine the result'.

Or that ToB was in fact the book of Weabo Fightan Magic?

Leolo

2011-03-02, 11:34 AM

If you like. "Gritty" makes me think of stuff like Conan, where it's a dark and dangerous world full of ways to die horribly and without warning.

I do not really know if Conan is a good example (maybe the rules system better than the novells / movies). Because i would find it hard to imagine a Conan who dies by opening the wrong door without a chance to react.

And of course settings like the hyperboreal age already have the term low fantasy.

But the description dark and dangerous sounds good to me for a gritty setting. I would also add the position of the main characters as important point. Stories that i would call gritty include characters with low social status. For example the john mclain in die hard as a guy who drinks and smokes and is divorced from his wife and is as a summary described as a looser. Or Conan in your example - a released slave. Characters in gritty stories are not heroes by definition, they evolve to heroes during the story (and are not even after this more or less vulnerable). They would be even beyond normal people if they aren't part of a heroic story.

I do not really know how this description would match to D&D. 3.5 maybe is too much high magic to match. And (same as in 4E) the characters are supposed to be heroes at the beginning of the game. To the contrary there are much stronger opponents, and the characters can die very fast.

In fact i had have more character deaths in 4E than in any other game i lead as a DM, average every one and a half combat someone is lying at the ground and still often enough those guys does not stand up.

And i wouldn't call 3.5 characters invulnarable, too. But maybe resurrection is a more critical factor.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-02, 11:47 AM

3.5 is not particularly gritty by default. Gritty tends to apply to low fantasy, Heroic to high, and 3.5 definitely tends toward high fantasy.

After all, any system in which you can have a contingent true rez so that death no longer is even a speed bump really can't be described as gritty.

CycloneJoker

2011-03-02, 11:49 AM

I can't help but think that under this logic a 3.5 Wizard and a 3.5 fighter are the same because the base underlying system is 'make an attack and roll a dice to determine the result'.

Nope. Good spells require the fewest rolls. Everard's groping tentacles, solid fog, Hold X, Slay Living, is, IIRC, you die of you take some nice damage, etc. The fewer rolls in a spell, the better.

Also, Vancian casting laughs at that. Spells are better and (sort of almost) limited.

Sipex

2011-03-02, 11:51 AM

Nope. Good spells require the fewest rolls. Everard's groping tentacles, solid fog, Hold X, Slay Living, is, IIRC, you die of you take some nice damage, etc. The fewer rolls in a spell, the better.

Also, Vancian casting laughs at that. Spells are better and (sort of almost) limited.

So the fighter is entirely different because more rolls = better then? Is this what I'm getting?

Tyndmyr

2011-03-02, 12:00 PM

So the fighter is entirely different because more rolls = better then? Is this what I'm getting?

They're different because they use entirely different mechanical systems. Fighter, as a class, does not have vancian casting in any way(yes, warblade is somewhat closer to a wizard...but even so, the system is not the same). The fact that a fighter typically rolls 1 or more d20s, and a wizard has some options that roll a d20 is not the critical difference.

They manage resources in entirely different ways, progress in different ways(though still within the level system), and even approach roles in different ways. The fighter fills a role(tank/melee damage) well, but has little flexibility. The wizard can be built to fill any individual role(I'm currently playing a melee wizard fluffed as a paladin. He beats things down with a greatsword, and is tied for kills with the party fighter.), and can even span roles within a single build.

They even have different complexities. Running a fighter typically requires less decisions and tracking of resources than does running a wizard.

No, I think it's safe to say that a 3.5 wizard and fighter are not very similar at all.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-03-02, 12:02 PM

I think this thread may have failed it's mission.
True :smallamused:

Are we really having an Edition War here? This late in the game? :smallconfused:

I doubt there's anyone out here who still hasn't chosen a position vis-a-vis 4e & 3e but if so: the mechanical arguments forwarded here are by no means clear cut. We're not talking about 3.X Diplomacy being broken; things like "grit" and the actual effectiveness of OAs are not mechanics-based arguments. There is simply too much interplay between mechanics, Player/DM behavior, and situational variables to answer these issues cleanly. You need to actually play the game to see how these sorts of issues shake out for you.

I will say that if you are having trouble making a "gritty" 4e game or making your OAs in 4e sufficiently scary I can give advice. They're not hard problems to solve and the don't require any houseruling either.

Sipex

2011-03-02, 12:04 PM

CycloneJoker

2011-03-02, 12:16 PM

Thank you Tynd, but my point is that the 4e classes aren't as similar as they're made out to be either, not that I actually believe the 3.5 Wizard and Fighter are the same.

Cyclone doesn't seem to believe this and so I'm trying to do a comparison. His whole "They both use spell-like abilities hence they're the same" is what I'm showing off in paralell (ie: Both fighters and wizards use d20s so they must be the same).

Now, that, my friend, is a strawman. My argument is they both use a VERY SPECIFIC mechanic. You take that and say "These are both based on the core idea of a game for several decades, and so must be the same."

By your logic, I could say that Warhammer 40k=D&D, 'cause they both use dice, or "people=diamonds, 'cause both are carbon-based," "people=Andromeda Galaxy, 'cause they're both in the same universe."

Tyndmyr

2011-03-02, 12:17 PM

Thank you Tynd, but my point is that the 4e classes aren't as similar as they're made out to be either, not that I actually believe the 3.5 Wizard and Fighter are the same.

Cyclone doesn't seem to believe this and so I'm trying to do a comparison. His whole "They both use spell-like abilities hence they're the same" is what I'm showing off in paralell (ie: Both fighters and wizards use d20s so they must be the same).

What he's getting at is that they both use the same basic system of abilities.

This is not comparable to them both using d20s. Both systems are d20 systems, that's a different level. At the level of your analogy, all classes from all d20 systems are the same. Clearly, this is not an equivalence with his claim, so your argument rapidly breaks down.

Leolo

2011-03-02, 01:13 PM

Sipex

2011-03-02, 01:14 PM

And his doesn't work out either, he goes too far the other way, assuming that because they're based on the same structure they're the same.

Analogies are hard to convey but maybe you've played an MMORPG? The comparison is a lot closer.

Often many classes are built under the same structure (similar to how 4e all original classes use powers) but this, in no way, means the classes are the same beyond the surface. The structure is simply there so you can easily start any class without having to learn the game over again but once you actually play the classes the differences are very clear.

However you don't have people whining "OMG, they're the same!" (although there is a lot of whining about other things, don't get me wrong) because they get to see their fighter, Stabby Mc Stab, stabbing things even if his powers could be interpreted as a spell simply because it's not "Run up and hit it".

edit: Leolo makes essentially the same point without analogies which is probably better

Tyndmyr

2011-03-02, 01:45 PM

The problem is that 4e fighter and wizard actually does use different mechanics for their powers. At least if "maybe rolls hit and/or damage and/or creates an effect" does not count. (and if it would count than every class in every D&D edition would be "equal")

The powers may in fact differ. The structure of the power system is pretty invariant. So, a fighter and a wizard in 4e are roughly as similar as a beguiler and a warmage in 3.5. Different power list entirely, which may have variety and very different effects, but you get them via the same structure.

In fact every single power in 4E can have a different mechanic than previous published powers, so you could not even say two wizards use always the same mechanics.

Two wizards are not always "the same", no. Depending on what you mean by the same. However, every single power does not have a different structure. You get some variety, yes...but a great many of them tend to follow fairly standard structures and themes.

This is not unique to 4e. There's a lot of spells in 3.5 that use fairly common standards like the d6/hd damage for blasty things...but there's still a great deal less standardization in 3.5 than in 4 in spells, and there is no real delination of combat/non combat abilities in 3.5 at all. Fabricate is not really treated differently than Baleful Polymorph.

The only things that are nearly equal are the format of the powers - and to a certain degree the amount of them. (4E characters of the same level can have a different amount of powers, but this depends not only on the class)

That's a fairly major difference from 3.5. In 3.5, the number, potential, and source of powers available vary wildly, and can be affected in a great number of ways. You might consider this good or bad, but it's a difference.

Sipex

2011-03-02, 01:48 PM

Tyndmyr

2011-03-02, 01:51 PM

I think it might be mistaken that you're arguing the same thing as Cyclone seems to be arguing. That a 4e fighter is essentially a martial wizard with different spells.

This should be clarified before we move on.

Not specifically. I'm arguing that classes in 4e use a common metastructure, as was not the case in 3.5.

Some might claim this makes them similar enough to be "the same". Meh. That's too subjective for me to get into.

Edit: To bring this back around to the OP, let me point out that adding classes that are entirely outside the power structure could in fact make 4e feel more like 3.5. It would also probably break 4e horribly and be a really bad idea.

kyoryu

2011-03-02, 01:52 PM

True :smallamused:

Are we really having an Edition War here? This late in the game? :smallconfused:

Yes. What I do find interesting is that nobody on the 'pro-4e' side is making the argument that 3.x sucks, but I see very few arguments from the 3.x side that don't boil down to '4e sucks'.

A large number of 4e threads degenerate into flamewars. And it's not the people that like 4e that do that. It's people that hate 4e, and feel the need to insult it at every opportunity. It's trolling, and I really hope the mods start treating it as such.

--------------------------------
edit: Corrected 'hate 3.x' to 'hate 4e'

Tyndmyr

2011-03-02, 01:53 PM

Yes. What I do find interesting is that nobody on the 'pro-4e' side is making the argument that 3.x sucks, but I see very few arguments from the 3.x side that don't boil down to '4e sucks'.

A large number of 4e threads degenerate into flamewars. And it's not the people that like 4e that do that. It's people that hate 3.x, and feel the need to insult it at every opportunity. It's trolling, and I really hope the mods start treating it as such.

Dude, this is pretty much ad-hominem slamming of the "3.x side", whoever they are.

If you want to avoid an edition war, this is not the way to do so. It's perfectly plausible to discuss differences and even preferences without making claims of universal superiority.

Leolo

2011-03-02, 02:09 PM

The powers may in fact differ. The structure of the power system is pretty invariant. So, a fighter and a wizard in 4e are roughly as similar as a beguiler and a warmage in 3.5. Different power list entirely, which may have variety and very different effects, but you get them via the same structure.

My problem with this is that power is just a word. It is a description for a category of actions you can do in combat that are special for your class (and sometimes other sources)

If you say the classes are equal because they all have powers this can be rephrased to: "because they all have special actions during combat".

But the types of actions could be everything. From "hit someone" to "polymorph yourself" to "create some light" or "summon something" or whatever.

They could need some rolls, create some effects...or whatever. The mechanic of them is entire up to the power. For example there are powers that does not fit into the "at will / encounter / daily" categories, simple because the power itself brings in a new rule mechanic.

kyoryu

2011-03-02, 02:10 PM

Dude, this is pretty much ad-hominem slamming of the "3.x side", whoever they are.

If you want to avoid an edition war, this is not the way to do so. It's perfectly plausible to discuss differences and even preferences without making claims of universal superiority.

I'm not. And I'm not saying all, or even most, 3.x fans are doing this. There's a small sub-section that do.

3.x is a good game for some things. 4e is a good game for some things. So are GURPS, WFRP, Hero, Storyteller, and a ton of other games. There are certain games and playstyles I would absolutely recommend 3.x over 4e for.

Look at this thread. It was supposed to be a discussion of exactly that. How many posts do you see that universally pan 3.x? How many do you see that exist solely to insult 4e, often based on incorrect, incomplete, or very vague statements?

How many 4e threads get posts in them saying "why not play 3.x?" How many 3.x threads get posts saying "play 4e?"

No system gets the hate on this board that 4e does. It creates a chilling effect on conversation about the system, and should be treated as flaming. Reasonable discussion and criticism is one thing, and should be encouraged. But trolling should be treated as trolling.

The powers may in fact differ. The structure of the power system is pretty invariant. So, a fighter and a wizard in 4e are roughly as similar as a beguiler and a warmage in 3.5. Different power list entirely, which may have variety and very different effects, but you get them via the same structure.

It's a fair statement to say that the "build game" in 4e is far more homogeneous than the "build game" of 3.x. I'm not sure that I'd agree that the actual play mechanics suffer the same problem. If a big part of the enjoyment you get from the game is system mastery - especially at the character building level - 4e is probably not a good fit.

Reverent-One

2011-03-02, 02:14 PM

No system gets the hate on this board that 4e does.

*cough*FATAL*cough*

Or were you speaking of games that are thought of as legitmate in at least some circles outside those of their creators?

kyoryu

2011-03-02, 02:14 PM

*cough*FATAL*cough*

Or were you speaking of games that are at least thought of as legitmate in some circles outside those of their creators?

Game, set, match.

Sine

2011-03-02, 02:21 PM

I disagree, as does pretty much every 4e optimization guide for a Defender, not just fighters. Melee training is a Gold feat for Battleminds and Charisma Paladins without Virtuous Strike, Intelligent blademaster is sky blue for Swordmages.
Melee training might even be called a feat tax for defenders, if one believes in such things.

In fact i had have more character deaths in 4E than in any other game i lead as a DM, average every one and a half combat someone is lying at the ground and still often enough those guys does not stand up.
Can I play in your campaign? I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually felt threatened in 4e combat.

Though that might change as we get our Dark Sun game into full swing.

Leolo

2011-03-02, 02:29 PM

Can I play in your campaign? I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually felt threatened in 4e combat.

Though that might change as we get our Dark Sun game into full swing.

I wouldn't say no, but my english is maybe not good enough to create (for example) a play by post campaign here, or a online campaign via skype and maptool.

If you would feel threatened depends on you, of course. It is not as if i would visit you at home with a huge flail and my sword and the introduction "no man can kill me". ^^

And i do not create challenges with the intention to make something that is to strong for my players.

But what i could say is that there are monsters in my campaigns that are dangerous for the player characters, and will kill at least some of them if their players does not use the characters strenghts. It is not even this difficult.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-02, 02:33 PM

My problem with this is that power is just a word. It is a description for a category of actions you can do in combat that are special for your class (and sometimes other sources)

If you say the classes are equal because they all have powers this can be rephrased to: "because they all have special actions during combat".

It's not merely the existance of powers, it's the class structure. The classes are all structured around powers in the way that most 3.5 casters are structured around the vancian casting system.

If 3.5 consisted solely of vancian casters, it would be a similar design choice.

Powers that break the at healing surge/will/encounter/daily model are...rare at best. I don't recall any such powers in core. Im aware of rituals and things, but they are not part of the class design.

Kyoryu, you claimed a majority of posters on side 3.5 were basically trolling, and nobody on the 4e side was doing so. That strikes me as extremely side-biased, and exactly the sort of thing that promotes flame wars. Side x is good, side y is bad is all about division and arguing. I wouldn't even be able to seperate all the posters thus far into distinct sides. Hell, plenty of people play both.

I would agree that 3.5 is probably the most popular system on this board. This is unsurprising, as it's about a 3.5 webcomic. I would not categorize most of the posts on this thread as 4e hate at all. Rev is correct in that other systems get hated on more. Fatal is pretty much a joke. You can expect death in character creation to be chuckled at in pretty much any Traveller discussion. I have a pretty fair hatred against GURPS and the HERO system, and I doubt Im alone in either of them. People have opinions, and it's not some anti-4e conspiricy.

Leolo

2011-03-02, 02:41 PM

It's not merely the existance of powers, it's the class structure. The classes are all structured around powers in the way that most 3.5 casters are structured around the vancian casting system.

Maybe - but powers are a higher category. It includes not only "magic things in combat" but "everything in combat" for a class.

To point this out: If you have a unknown class and should say what it does, how often and how this is resolved mechanically: What could you say in 4E?

In fact you couldn't say anything for certain. Not without knowing the class - and even the specific build. Power is such a wide category that it can't be used to judge if two characters are equal. The only thing all of those options have in common is a format restriction. All (ok, nearly all) powers are written down in the same format.

That's the power category. Nothing inherent mechanically.

Yukitsu

2011-03-02, 02:58 PM

4e is great when I'm dealing with a bunch of new players who are happy to sit firmly in a specific role category, like a band of chess pieces. 3.5 is too vague and intricate to barely interested nubs who don't want to learn why an evards black tentacles is better than a fireball.

3.5 I prefer for its greater depth in builds and tactics. Especially on that last point, I find the vancian system, magic item system and flexibility of the system in general lets me plot out encounters that can be beaten with forethought and choices rather than ham-fisted brute force. 4e could have had this, but they botched rituals and flexibility.

For the actual campaign itself, I'd usually rather run 3.5, all else being equal. I'm not certain what story could be better told with 4e, and 3.5 has a larger list of toys I like.

EccentricCircle

2011-03-02, 03:01 PM

I think that some of this is getting a bit off topic as this is prehaps not the place for such an in depth discussion of the similarities and differences of classes within a version of the game.

to restate the opening post:

as a DM what kinds of game would you use different game systems for?
with a focus on how you should decide whether to run a game using 3.5 or 4e D&D, or indeed whether they are different enough for such a decision to matter.

on balance I like the 4e mele system quite a lot. I think it was prehaps a mistake on the part of the designers to call them all powers as that immediately sugests magic, when in many if not most cases it is not.
I think that the existance of powers can potentially encourage role playing by justifying how to use such a power, what it does and how it works etc.

for example last night I used the rogue sand in the eye ability to blind a Zombie by shooting it with an arrow. at first glance (and possibly by rules as written, i'm not sure) this doesn't make much sense. until I declare that my arrow sticks in its eye, making the scene more vivid and the action more sensible. I wasn't shooting it to do some hit point damage and using a magical power to blind it for a moment. I was putting an arrow through its head in true martial fashion.

one thing i've not tried with 4th edition is a wilderness based game. I find it works well in the tight confines of a dungeon where movement is restricted and which square you occupy is vitaly important. but how well does it hold up over wider areas. for example trying to do a game where the party are on the run from the traditional tribe of spear wielding lizardmen? would the manouvering focus of 4e comnbat be a benefit in a situation like that or a hinderance?

Oracle_Hunter

2011-03-02, 03:12 PM

one thing i've not tried with 4th edition is a wilderness based game. I find it works well in the tight confines of a dungeon where movement is restricted and which square you occupy is vitaly important. but how well does it hold up over wider areas. for example trying to do a game where the party are on the run from the traditional tribe of spear wielding lizardmen? would the manouvering focus of 4e comnbat be a benefit in a situation like that or a hinderance?
It works well. For one thing, remember that creatures can act like "terrain" - they block and channel movement. Minions with rider powers (e.g. "damage + knock prone") do a good job of being living terrain. In areas that aren't simply Final Destination (http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Final_Destination_%28disambiguation%29) you still have trees, lakes, exotic flora and so on.

One nice thing about 4e is that it easily integrates battlefield terrain into the system. The prevalence of Forced Movement powers means that battlefield hazards are more likely to be used by the PCs than simply something that needed to be avoided.

kyoryu

2011-03-02, 03:30 PM

Kyoryu, you claimed a majority of posters on side 3.5 were basically trolling, and nobody on the 4e side was doing so. That strikes me as extremely side-biased, and exactly the sort of thing that promotes flame wars. Side x is good, side y is bad is all about division and arguing. I wouldn't even be able to seperate all the posters thus far into distinct sides. Hell, plenty of people play both.

You are absolutely correct, and characterizing *most* people defending 3.5 as flaming was inappropriate, and I apologize for that. Most 3.5 players do *not* engage in the type of behavior I was describing, and I was absolutely wrong to state that.

I'll follow up in PM to avoid this thread degenerating further.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-02, 03:38 PM

No worries...I do agree that it's terribly easy for threads to go down that path in general.

On the original topic...D20M is a pretty solid framework for a lot of things. With the right sourcebooks, it covers a number of different historical settings decently well. I still wouldn't place it on the top of the pile for horror, though I've played through essentially horror campaigns with it.

stainboy

2011-03-02, 04:13 PM

one thing i've not tried with 4th edition is a wilderness based game. I find it works well in the tight confines of a dungeon where movement is restricted and which square you occupy is vitaly important. but how well does it hold up over wider areas. for example trying to do a game where the party are on the run from the traditional tribe of spear wielding lizardmen? would the manouvering focus of 4e comnbat be a benefit in a situation like that or a hinderance?

No better than 3e.

In 4e the party S-keys every round while attacking at range because the lizardmen can no more fire a bow than they can fire a tuna sandwich. If the monster has no ranged attack in its stat block it is a violation of the spirit of 4e for the monster to attack at range by any means.

In 3e the fight doesn't work either because the party has a wizard or druid who wins the fight on round 1 and then you have to play through 10 rounds of plinking arrows at Entangled lizardmen. The lizardmen may chuck spears at the party but thrown weapons are awful so it won't matter.

Basically pick your poison. Either way you can't run a wilderness encounter against melee enemies.

Morrandir

2011-03-02, 04:18 PM

To also try and help the OP, just about any edition can run any kind of game with enough tweaking/hunting for rulesets.

Frankly, the most important thing, as a DM, is to run what you personally want to run. If you don't like (insert disliked system here), you're not going to be running a very fun campaign for anyone involved if that's what you use. However, you need to be willing to do a bit more than you might be used to, which includes statting up non-existent items or enemies, if you're going way out there in terms of what the system already supports versus what you want.

Could you run a modern-time campaign in D&D? Yes. Would it be a whole lot easier to just go get a D20 Modern book? Also yes.

The absolute most important thing is that, whatever you use, everyone involved should be having fun.

Kurald Galain

2011-03-02, 04:20 PM

Melee training might even be called a feat tax for defenders, if one believes in such things.
Lots of things are called feat taxes, but almost universally such statements are incorrect: as long as you can make an effective character without said feat, then it's by definition not a feat tax. Most defenders simply don't make MBAs all that often.

Even Expertise isn't a feat tax in heroic tier, because a 5% increase in hit rate is nice but hardly vital. There are a handful of feats, no more, that are actually stronger than Expertise; one could make a case for those, perhaps.

And that's a good thing, too, because if every character just had to take Expertise and Imp Initiative and Superior Implement and some Defense Feats, then there wouldn't be any much difference left between heroic characters.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-02, 04:21 PM

To also try and help the OP, just about any edition can run any kind of game with enough tweaking/hunting for rulesets.

While this is true, I don't think this is generally desirable. As you said, running a modern campaign in D&D isn't generally the best system, with the exception of if you're actually curious about the interactions of the ruleset and the modern world(they are mostly hilarious).

I think one of the best things any aspiring designer or GM can do is go out and try a wide variety of systems. Not only will this help you find the best systems for your group and different games, it'll help you a great deal when it comes time to actually modify them.

valadil

2011-03-02, 04:31 PM

There are certain games and playstyles I would absolutely recommend 3.x over 4e for.

Care to enumerate them?

I stand by my earlier statement that 3.x is better prepared for PvP. As far as I can tell the rest of the posts talk about how 3.x is better for advanced players and 4e is for newbs, which sounds a lot like trolling when you're on the 4e side of things :-\

kyoryu

2011-03-02, 04:33 PM

In 4e the party S-keys every round while attacking at range because the lizardmen can no more fire a bow than they can fire a tuna sandwich. If the monster has no ranged attack in its stat block it is a violation of the spirit of 4e for the monster to attack at range by any means.

Not including any ranged enemies in a wilderness encounter would be very, very poor encounter design. Many soldier enemies have both melee and ranged attacks.

Additionally, even if you *did* do a melee-only encounter in the wilderness, the backpedal strategy is pretty easily countered. Double-move+run and you're catching up quickly, and any terrain is likely to be more of a hindrance to the backpedalers than the pursuers. Plus, most lizardfolk get swampwalk, and so if the combat is in a swamp, they will likely outpace their attackers due to difficult terrain, even without ranged attackers.

The lizardfolk I see online in the Compendium tend to have speed 6. Double-move+run puts them at 16 squares per turn, unless I'm mistaken. Compared to a "typical" movement speed of 6, or even 8 with run (can you run and attack? I'm not sure), and the lizardfolks are covering 8-10 squares of distance every round. Not counting swamp walk.

Care to enumerate them?

Sure. 3.x is far better for people who are greatly engaged in the character-building aspect of the game. It's also far better for people who get a lot of enjoyment out of trying to find neat synergies between powers to "out-clever" the DM.

4e does not have enough "meat" in those areas (by design, I believe) to satisfy people who get a large part of their enjoyment from that style of play.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-02, 05:01 PM

Care to enumerate them?

I stand by my earlier statement that 3.x is better prepared for PvP. As far as I can tell the rest of the posts talk about how 3.x is better for advanced players and 4e is for newbs, which sounds a lot like trolling when you're on the 4e side of things :-\

I'm not 100% sure that's the case. Certain levels in 3.x are fairly rocket taggy, and probably not ideal for PvP. At high optimization levels, I think it works out fairly good...but I'm not sure that can be assumed for all. 4e actually might be easier for the majority of players to do PvP with, as there seems to be less power spread between characters.

4e probably is more newbie friendly. I think a lot of this is due to unfortunate phrasing. Saying x is "for noobs" sounds a lot worse than saying x is "easy to pick up and play". I'd hold that, again, this probably intentional. WoTC no doubt wants to attract new players by the bucketload, and that's not really a bad thing.

stainboy

2011-03-02, 05:10 PM

I'd also add: 3e is better for a game where the players enjoy affecting the world via the game rules outside of combat.

Anyway, I agree about a bunch of melee-only lizardmen being poor encounter design in 4e. I'm just trying to demonstrate that no edition of D&D handles melee enemies on open ground well. 3.5 and earlier suck at it for completely different reasons than 4e, but the root problem is the same: D&D means dungeon crawls, and if the rules don't work outside of a dungeon it's a secondary concern at best.

Reverent-One

2011-03-02, 05:19 PM

Sure. 3.x is far better for people who are greatly engaged in the character-building aspect of the game. It's also far better for people who get a lot of enjoyment out of trying to find neat synergies between powers to "out-clever" the DM.

4e does not have enough "meat" in those areas (by design, I believe) to satisfy people who get a large part of their enjoyment from that style of play.

Though I've been avoiding edition comparisons in this thread for the most part, since I believe I am one of those people, I just want to say that don't think that this view is accurate, at least not all the time. In fact, it's partly because I'm one of those people that I prefer 4e.

In 3.5, there's certainly many, many options in character creation and one can tweak the character extensively...but a number of times I would find a concept that I thought was cool (whether mechanically, fluffwise, or both) that required a whole lot of effort on my part to make work mechanically, if it did at all, and that annoyed me to no end. I like playing with character creations options, but if the end result isn't fun to also play in-game, it's not worth it in the end. With 4e, the general balance means that as long as I take into account certain considerations (prime stat, weapon vs implement use), things generally work out much more easily. The options 4e provides are fewer overall, but between multiclassing, Hybirdizing, and combining the two, there's enough "meat" to keep me fed.

Obviously, this is all IMO.

Anyway, I agree about a bunch of melee-only lizardmen being poor encounter design in 4e. I'm just trying to demonstrate that no edition of D&D handles melee enemies on open ground well. 3.5 and earlier suck at it for completely different reasons than 4e, but the root problem is the same: D&D means dungeon crawls, and if the rules don't work outside of a dungeon it's a secondary concern at best.

Exempt as kyoryu pointed out, your senario wouldn't work out that way in 4e, since the Lizardmen would overtake the heroes in short order.

Erom

2011-03-02, 06:49 PM

Having run fair bit of both, I'll say from experience that 4e is far, far better for PvP. Instead of it coming down to "which player has a gotcha ability the other doesn't?" you tend to actually get exciting matches.

With 3e it's often very much like open-format Magic the Gathering - if I have a couple of beefy Flying or Spirit or something like that creatures in my deck, and you don't have access to the edition (splatbook) that included that special ability, you are pretty much screwed. Unless, say, you have a faster gotcha I didn't plan for - maybe you show up with Poison counters and I didn't plan on those existing? Etc, etc. It's not even rocket tag. It's "IWIN Button tag". 4e both has less of that effect, and a cleaner in-combat ruleset that requires less DM adjudication.

Not to mention, PvP is one of the few times where inter-party balance REALLY matters, something 4e shines at.

If I were running a PvP Arena campaign, that is actually one of those extremely rare instances where I would say "Yeah, 4e is just plain better than 3e for telling this kind of story."

And now that you have got me thinking about it, a 4e gladiatorial combat game would be really great... sort of like the 4e dark sun preview game I guess...

Kurald Galain

2011-03-02, 07:31 PM

Having run fair bit of both, I'll say from experience that 4e is far, far better for PvP.
Really? Because if the player who wins initiative just uses two damaging dailies with an action point, that should be an instakill.

navar100

2011-03-02, 07:52 PM

Spoken like someone who has played only two or three games. Not saying that is the fact with you, but there are many games where the system is the campaign, and it is difficult if not impossible to separate the two. See, for example, Mountain Witch, or Summerland.

We're talking about the different D&D systems, not every RPG out there.

3.5 is just as, if not more than as tactical as 4e. I do not understand where this "argument" keeps on coming from.

{Scrubbed}

kyoryu

2011-03-02, 07:57 PM

The options 4e provides are fewer overall, but between multiclassing, Hybirdizing, and combining the two, there's enough "meat" to keep me fed.

I totally get what you're saying. I think there's enough options in 4e as well - but I also get most of my enjoyment out of playing the characters, not building them - and system mastery is not something I value highly.

For people who value system mastery, the fact that anyone can come up with a character that's nearly as powerful as an "optimized" character is not a benefit.

navar100

2011-03-02, 08:03 PM

What part of the doesn't apply to 4e?

That argument comes from the emphasis on movement. 4e has tons of abilities that reposition people on the battlefield. Proper positioning provides an advantage in combat. These abilities are available to almost every class and don't require specific builds to be effective.

In 3.5 you have Bull Rush, a couple transposition spells, Melf's Unicorn Arrow, Telekinesis, and that's all I can think of. Positioning isn't as available and it isn't as important.

Or did you have something besides battlefield maneuvering in mind when you referred to tactics?

Tripping, sundering, disarming, flanking, stealth, talking, buffing, 5ft step, charging, moving, choosing a particular spell, utilizing a feat chain, aid another, feinting, weapon and shield, two-handed weapon, two weapons, unarmed strike, planning ahead, improvising, retreating, one class's ability synergizing with a different class's ability or even another player of the same class, ...

Thank you Tynd, but my point is that the 4e classes aren't as similar as they're made out to be either, not that I actually believe the 3.5 Wizard and Fighter are the same.

Cyclone doesn't seem to believe this and so I'm trying to do a comparison. His whole "They both use spell-like abilities hence they're the same" is what I'm showing off in paralell (ie: Both fighters and wizards use d20s so they must be the same).

I can narrow 4E classes down: Do X dice of damage and bad guy is incovenienced for a round or someone moves. X and severity of inconvenience increases as the level increases. The only difference between the damage of the classes is the color - martial, necrotic, radiant, etc.

Exception: Wizards do have a bit of something interesting that's not X dice of damage powers.

I think it might be mistaken that you're arguing the same thing as Cyclone seems to be arguing. That a 4e fighter is essentially a martial wizard with different spells.

This should be clarified before we move on.

Actually, a wizard is really a fighter who wields a weapon that he happens to use the word "magic" for instead of "sword".
:/

I'm not. And I'm not saying all, or even most, 3.x fans are doing this. There's a small sub-section that do.

3.x is a good game for some things. 4e is a good game for some things. So are GURPS, WFRP, Hero, Storyteller, and a ton of other games. There are certain games and playstyles I would absolutely recommend 3.x over 4e for.

Look at this thread. It was supposed to be a discussion of exactly that. How many posts do you see that universally pan 3.x? How many do you see that exist solely to insult 4e, often based on incorrect, incomplete, or very vague statements?

How many 4e threads get posts in them saying "why not play 3.x?" How many 3.x threads get posts saying "play 4e?"

No system gets the hate on this board that 4e does. It creates a chilling effect on conversation about the system, and should be treated as flaming. Reasonable discussion and criticism is one thing, and should be encouraged. But trolling should be treated as trolling.

It's a fair statement to say that the "build game" in 4e is far more homogeneous than the "build game" of 3.x. I'm not sure that I'd agree that the actual play mechanics suffer the same problem. If a big part of the enjoyment you get from the game is system mastery - especially at the character building level - 4e is probably not a good fit.

I do not deny I slam 4E, but I always do it once my tolerance of the 3E bashing has reached its limit. My tolerance level fluctuates. Its currently low today.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-03-02, 08:36 PM

I do not deny I slam 4E, but I always do it once my tolerance of the 3E bashing has reached its limit. My tolerance level fluctuates. Its currently low today.
That's healthy :smallsigh:

Seriously, is it worth anyone's time to do "retaliatory bashing?"

WitchSlayer

2011-03-02, 08:45 PM

Is it Edition War Wednesday already? How time flies...

I play 4e for one EXTREMELY GOOD REASON

One time we were fighting a succubus, my ally was dominated and it was starting to piss me off. Her minions bloodied me so I was like...

Well first, let me tell you. I was a Longtooth Shifter (Werewolf) Warden.

So, on my turn, after she bloodied me. I couldn't take it anymore:

I turned into a werewolf, and then to stone. I was a mountain werewolf.

I then spurred my mount into a charge and mordenkrad'd the succubus in her smug face with my STONE WEREWOLF ABILITIES.

WOOOOOOOO-

MeeposFire

2011-03-02, 08:52 PM

No, it isn't. Most games in the storyteller system, old and new, care nothing about maneuvering (with the exception of Street Fighter). Dragonball RPG cares nothing about maneuvering. BESM cares nothing about maneuvering. Mutants & Masterminds cares nothing about maneuvering. I could go on and on.

Except he can't, of course. The damage of an attack of opportunity dealt by a 4e Fighter is ridiculous, only weapon damage+Str. Power Attack alone makes attacks of opportunity a lot stronger in 3.5

Less things provoke in 4e. That alone makes opportunity attacks less powerful. Also, 1/turn is actually a nerf. You could get multiple attacks of opportunity in someone else's turn in 3.5 and that's exactly a lockdown build goes for - you move you provoke, you cast you provoke, you attack you provoke...

I never saw anyone even mentioning the whole melee vs casters thing until you posted, really. Also, there are plenty of ways to get free movement. If you don't have any of those until level 11, yes, you're pretty much screwed in any decently powered game. The fact there are many ways to get free movement, though, makes this pretty much a nonissue in my book, though.

Again, free movement.

How is that a problem? Just get free movement.

It's the other way around completely. You have to spend resources on mobility, else you're hurting your efficiency.

Except they do, of course. :smallamused: Hello, Rain of Steel.

Dude, while I somewhat agree with you, this gets old. People have been talking about this forever but 4e won't change because of this and no one will stop playing it because everything feels the same. I like a feel things about 4e and I'm in a 4e game right now, but my favorite edition is 3.5 all the way. Sometimes you just have to accept the other side has their points and move on, bro.

1) Well there are many ways to boost opportunity attacks but even so the fact that opportunity attacks dealing less damage allows for movement to be easier which was part of my point. Movement is harder in 3.5 which makes it less likely that they will move. So what is it easier to maneuver in 3.5 leading to more tactical movement or is it more restricted by nastier opportunity attacks (not counting in 4e when you can get opportunity attacks that fully stop movement, prone, or daze enemies and the like).

2) Less powerful opportunity attacks allow for more tactical movement not less so this is a funny argument to make when the question was what has more/better tactical movement. Further you could have more opportunity attacks in a round due to combat reflexes but you could only get one per trigger which is why I was talking about movement (assuming they only moved once so that they only trigger that AoO once). Lastly not everything has combat reflexes so many monsters are stuck with just one AoO per round. Lockdown builds are designed to take a 3.5 mechanic and run with it though you can do a very similar style build using a knight with eldritch strike. Further lockdown is designed to stop tactical movement so once again you are putting out evidence that suggests more ways that 3.5 limits tactical movement.

3) Free movement does not all allow melee to get full attacks on the move (on its own anyway). This is why pounce is so coveted since it one of only a few ways to get full attacks on far away targets. It will not matter if you can get to a target if you are not able to damage it effectively. If you are forced to move to attack and you do not have an ability that gives you a full attack (or near equivalent) then you are losing out. I only mentioned spell casters as they ignore this problem since they have good standard actions. If standard actions were better for most melee classes it would be easier for them to move around since they would not be penalized so much for doing so, and they would not be stuck in straight lines like many are due to their need to charge (and most have to charge in a straight line or close to it).

4) You are right you have to spend resources on mobility to make yourself more efficient but that is the issue. In 4e you are naturally able to use tactical movement from day one with no investment as movement was a design priority. In 3.5 those in the know realized that tactical movement is important and build in things that help them move tactically in a fight on a consistent basis (such as adding in pounce so they can charge far away targets) but if you did not know that and built a character using the majority of the options it is easy to make characters that can only be effective if they limit their movement to 5 foot steps. Anything farther than that hurt them. I am sure that is not a problem with your characters but it does happen. I am using the game at its natural state with no specific builds in mind as I will agree with you that you can make 3.5 full of tactical movement if you are careful to build your characters to be able to take advantage to it, I just do not think the state of the game supports tactical movement as much as it does in 4e. Tactical movement emphasis is not needed to make a good game (you are correct there are games that do not keep track of your movement much) but I do think there is a greater emphasis on it in 4e.

5) Rain of steel is not an area attack is is more similar to a close burst:smallwink:. That is a power that insinuates that you are slashing around you similar to whirlwind attack in 3.5. I would think that hitting adjacent targets is well within established fluff for a warrior class. I was speaking about the 4e term "area power" you know like fireballs.

Some things I like about 3e.

1) Lots of build choices and subsystems. Makes building characters fun (often I enjoy building them in 3.5 more than playing them sadly) sort of like a puzzle.

2) Lots of mechanics to pull from.

Biggest problem with it was DMing. I DMed 3.5 for years and it so completely drained me that I still have no desire to go back no matter how much my players beg me (they want to get off Atropis). I have DMed 4e games and this is much nicer for a casual DM such as myself (I do not want to spend that much time preparing ever again). Playing 3.5 can be fun as long as the group stays within certain limits (which is true in any game really though I find that we need to limit it more in 3.5 than the other editions we played).

Funny 3.5 biggest plus for me ends up being its biggest minus as well (large number of mechanics which makes games fun but also more difficult).

Kurald Galain

2011-03-03, 06:59 AM

Is it Edition War Wednesday already? How time flies...

Yeah, we need to wrap this up quickly for our weekly debate on how powerful monks are :smalltongue:

I then spurred my mount into a charge and mordenkrad'd the succubus in her smug face with my STONE WEREWOLF ABILITIES.
http://pestilencedragon.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=118&g2_serialNumber=1

EccentricCircle

2011-03-03, 07:43 AM

the thread seems to be winding down a bit so I just wanted to say thankyou to everyone who's contributed, this has given me a lot of useful ideas and has led to some good comparisons, thankyou for all being responsible with what could potentially have been a controversial subject.

EC

Tyndmyr

2011-03-03, 10:06 AM

Not to mention, PvP is one of the few times where inter-party balance REALLY matters, something 4e shines at.

If I were running a PvP Arena campaign, that is actually one of those extremely rare instances where I would say "Yeah, 4e is just plain better than 3e for telling this kind of story."

That's pretty much my reasoning. Don't get me wrong, I *love* high tier, high optimization pvp in 3.5, and some of my most memorial games have included that. It's a blast. Thing is, there's not a lot of gamers at that level. A random group of players often has a pretty solid gap in experience and optimization levels. So...most of the time, a 3.5 group'll have someone with a pretty solid advantage for one reason or another. The same difference exists in 4e, but it's a lot smaller.

Leolo

2011-03-03, 11:20 AM

PVP is not really a 4E strength. The effectivness of a 4E character comes with its group synergies. You do have to play together more than in former editions.

Fox Box Socks

2011-03-03, 11:31 AM

There are a couple of assumptions that 4e makes that other editions don't make. 4e assumes that the PCs will be adventurers. Not just heroes, but adventurers; that most of their time will be spent fighting monsters, protecting caravans, unraveling intrigue, raiding tombs, delving into dungeons, and eventually saving the world. A 4e PC is assumed to be someone that does these things for a living. Maybe you used to be a farmer, or maybe you used to be an innkeeper, or maybe you used to be a sailor, but now you're an adventurer, and all of your time will be devoted to adventuring.

Conversely, since the game assumes that you will be an adventurer rather than a sailor or farmer or innkeeper, there are not any meaningful rules for sailing or farming or innkeeping (outside of Skill Challenges, but that's a topic for another thread). If it doesn't directly effect adventuring, there aren't rules for it in the DMG. This is why NPCs don't have class levels, or why monsters only have a few rechargable tricks rather than power progressions mimicking the PCs.

Is it better? No. It's different. If you want balls-to-the-wall action from level 1 where every PC is fully capable of carrying their own weight, then 4e is the game you're looking for. If you're into more flat, universal system where you can tear the rules in half via combing through obscure sourcebooks, then 3.5 is more up your alley.

Personally, I like the change. The game is called "Dungeons and Dragons", not "Medieval Fantasy Roleplay plus Elves". If I wanted a universal system with brutal combat I'd be playing GURPS.

Sipex

2011-03-03, 01:01 PM

I will agree with Fox here, 4e works best under the assumption that everyone is playing adventurers from the get go. I've run a few campaigns and the ones which start off with the PCs as adventurers get going a lot easier.

kyoryu

2011-03-03, 01:34 PM

Is it better? No. It's different. If you want balls-to-the-wall action from level 1 where every PC is fully capable of carrying their own weight, then 4e is the game you're looking for. If you're into more flat, universal system where you can tear the rules in half via combing through obscure sourcebooks, then 3.5 is more up your alley.

This is an interesting point, and I think I agree with it. I ran GURPS exclusively for about a decade, and went back to D&D for a reason - most players can understand classes, the high levels of customizability weren't that important to me, and I was sick of having to figure out what garbage my players were trying to pull with their characters in order to keep things basically working. I wanted a game that was relatively easy for people to play, have a good time, and get to the good stuff - the actual roleplaying, tactical combat, and the stuff you do at the table.

I think this is why I, personally, prefer 4e. It maintains the basic class system of earlier editions. All characters get to do interesting stuff. There's customizability, without requiring extensive system mastery. And the actual *combat* is great. While you can argue all day about healing surges, daily abilities, and whatnot, the feel that they give to combat is pretty good in my opinion. Maybe it's gamist vs. simulationist (and I'd argue there are ways to explain away dailies), but I don't care. At the end of the day, the people sitting around the table are having fun and enjoying what they're doing, and that's what matters to me.

I came back to D&D to get away from systems that try to do everything. For that reason, 4e is a better fit. If you want a more 'universal' system (even if just in the fantasy genre) while staying with the general D&D ruleset, yeah, 3.x is a better choice.

stainboy

2011-03-03, 03:40 PM

I stand by my earlier statement that 3.x is better prepared for PvP.

I actually disagree with this, and I vastly prefer 3.5. 4e is a better PvP game just because both sides are more likely to agree on how the rules work. I've never seen PvP in an earlier edition that didn't end in someone trying to rules-lawyer his way out of dying in a surprise round.

I've heard several people say "I don't like 4e as an RPG, but I'd like to play a PvP league skirmish game in it" or something to that effect. I could definitely see 4e as a step up from D&D Minis. (Although you'd need to come up with rules to let each player control more than one unit, which probably means monsters, which would get messy because so few of the monsters from MM1 would be worth using. For those of you playing 4e, do you just homebrew all your monsters past level 5, or what?)

The_Jackal

2011-03-03, 03:44 PM

4th edition basically exploded the complexity and depth of the combat system, and failed to include anything else. IMO, if you just want to maul monsters on dungeon tiles and nothing else, you're far better served by playing Warhammer Quest (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1634/warhammer-quest). It's good, clean monster bashing fun without all that tedious roleplaying and non-combat interaction removed, and a heck of a lot more fun than 4e.

Reverent-One

2011-03-03, 03:47 PM

Sipex

2011-03-03, 03:56 PM

I actually disagree with this, and I vastly prefer 3.5. 4e is a better PvP game just because both sides are more likely to agree on how the rules work. I've never seen PvP in an earlier edition that didn't end in someone trying to rules-lawyer his way out of dying in a surprise round.

I've heard several people say "I don't like 4e as an RPG, but I'd like to play a PvP league skirmish game in it" or something to that effect. I could definitely see 4e as a step up from D&D Minis. (Although you'd need to come up with rules to let each player control more than one unit, which probably means monsters, which would get messy because so few of the monsters from MM1 would be worth using. For those of you playing 4e, do you just homebrew all your monsters past level 5, or what?)

If using MM1 monsters I tend to reduce their HP by 33% and then increase their damage by 33%. For solos I'll either give them minions or homebrew them along the 3 Part Rule (http://angrydm.com/2010/04/the-dd-boss-fight-part-1/).

I haven't used many MM2 or MM3 monsters to comment.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-03-03, 03:57 PM

For those of you playing 4e, do you just homebrew all your monsters past level 5, or what?)
I actually "homebrew" most of the monsters I use in my campaigns - but I use the Adventure Tools program available from DDI to do so. In the same way that I prefer self-written campaigns to modules, this lets me create monsters best suited to the situation at hand. I do use MM monsters (mostly MM2+) as guidelines for making monsters though and re-skin when possible.

IMHO, Adventure Tools is one of the greatest assets a DM can have. I've always liked tinkering with monster design; this streamlines the process tremendously and means I don't have to spend time figuring out what all the "baselines" should be.

Leolo

2011-03-03, 04:06 PM

I do homebrew monsters, but most of the time i use simple those in the books.

And in fact i count myself a defender of the mm1 - never had that many problems with the monsters within it. But i also have other monster books and a DDI Account, so it is already very easy for me to find a matching monster without homebrewing it.

Sipex

2011-03-03, 04:08 PM

I will add that I don't have DDI and monsters are still homebrewable.

Although DDI reduces the time from 1 hour to 10 minutes admittedly.

MeeposFire

2011-03-03, 04:14 PM

If using MM1 monsters I tend to reduce their HP by 33% and then increase their damage by 33%. For solos I'll either give them minions or homebrew them along the 3 Part Rule (http://angrydm.com/2010/04/the-dd-boss-fight-part-1/).

I haven't used many MM2 or MM3 monsters to comment.

I usually see increase static damage by x2. I am sure yours would work fine as well. I can vouch that at least in my games the monster vault and other newer monster books (like dark sun) have much nastier monsters with lower HP but much higher damage. It makes for more exciting fights especially with solos.

Fox Box Socks

2011-03-03, 05:01 PM

More than anything else, the 3e vs 4e edition war reminds me of the Vampire: The Masquerade vs Vampire: The Requiem edition war.

See, Requiem shook up the status quo for Vampire games by doing two major things. First, it got rid of alternate Morality meters; if you're a vampire, killing is always going to be a sin, no matter how old or debased your are. Second, with the addition of Blood Potency (which strongly limits what you can and can't drink from) and the changes to the Frenzy rules (making all vampires have a hair trigger temper), it is extraordinarily difficult, if not downright impossible, to play a vampire that does not occasionally kill people. It's going to happen; either you sometimes drink too much blood from someone who can't take it, or one night you'll come out of Frenzy covered in someone's blood. No more Sabbat sociopathic anti-heroes, no more Camarilla Friendly Neighborhood Vampires (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FriendlyNeighborhoodVampire). You have to walk a line between the two extremes, and you have to occasionally throw your dark side a bone (or, at least, a couple of bodies).

Personally, I prefer this change. I think it's a much more adult and morally ambiguous take of the vampiric condition, where most of the conflict comes from you struggling with your own instincts rather than you struggling with other vampires. Other people hate this change, mostly because they greatly enjoyed the metaplot in oWoD.

So I have this conversation a lot.

Them: "Requiem sucks, because I can't play my special snowflake"
Me: "No, Requiem is awesome because you can't play your special snowflake"

Point is, the reasons people hate systems are the precise reasons other people love them. On the first page, CycloneJoker mentioned that one of the reasons he likes 3e is because a Samurai needs to work that much harder to compete with a Wizard. I hated that about 3e. I hated it so much I swore of D&D for some time. The books were lying to me; they said that the classes were balanced, and they weren't, and it pissed me off something fierce.

To each their own, I guess is what I'm saying here.

One last point: on martial Daily powers. Does it make sense that the Fighter can only swing his sword a certain way once per day? No. Of course it doesn't. But it doesn't have to; the theme of 4e is over-the-top, cinematic combat. And cinematic combat isn't very practical.

Imagine how the Karate Kid would have gone if, during that big tournament, Daniel-san just crane kicked everyone in the face during the first two seconds of every match.

Imagine how much fun Kill Bil would have been to watch if The Bride just used the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique against everybody

Imagine how pissed off you would have been, as a child, if the Power Rangers combined all of their weapons into that crossbow thing to blast the living hell out of the monster at the start of every fight rather than the end of it.

Imagine how boring Conan would have been if he just cut everybody in half (rather than, like, every 5th mook).

Sometimes it isn't about it making literal or narrative sense. Sometimes it's about it being interesting.

true_shinken

2011-03-03, 05:55 PM

The books were lying to me; they said that the classes were balanced, and they weren't, and it pissed me off something fierce.

Except, of course, the books never said that. :smallamused:

Yukitsu

2011-03-03, 06:29 PM

I actually disagree with this, and I vastly prefer 3.5. 4e is a better PvP game just because both sides are more likely to agree on how the rules work. I've never seen PvP in an earlier edition that didn't end in someone trying to rules-lawyer his way out of dying in a surprise round.

I've heard several people say "I don't like 4e as an RPG, but I'd like to play a PvP league skirmish game in it" or something to that effect. I could definitely see 4e as a step up from D&D Minis. (Although you'd need to come up with rules to let each player control more than one unit, which probably means monsters, which would get messy because so few of the monsters from MM1 would be worth using. For those of you playing 4e, do you just homebrew all your monsters past level 5, or what?)

Eh. Having actually tried out 4e as a PvP system, I can say it was dull. Balanced, sure, but a coinflip is balanced.

MeeposFire

2011-03-03, 06:36 PM

Eh. Having actually tried out 4e as a PvP system, I can say it was dull. Balanced, sure, but a coinflip is balanced.

Well so is chess and that is not dull to most people.

Are we talking player versus player because I would agree that is not a 4e strong point? The game was designed to foster players working together not fighting each other. Heck defenders make no sense in a player v player game. The 4e rules do not even use the full classes when you make NPCs of a particular class partly for this reason. PCs tend to have too few standard HP (and too many ways to replenish it) and too much offensive power to make for interesting encounters. It starts to turn 4e into rocket launcher tag which is not what the designers wanted.

Fox Box Socks

2011-03-03, 06:43 PM

Except, of course, the books never said that. :smallamused:
Let's not go down that rabbit hole. If I had to list off every time the books said a class or prestige class was good at X while they were actually terrible at X, we'd be here all night

Erom

2011-03-03, 06:53 PM

4e Team Battles are so much fun it is ridiculous. If you are just speaking from 1v1 experience, give a team format a try. It's a blast, seriously. I find the sweet spot to be 3v3, so no team can possible have one of all the roles.

Of course, Go Team Striker works for nearly any team size. Half the fun is coming up with what other team compositions can stand up to and beat Team Striker.

Sine

2011-03-03, 07:04 PM

I've never done PvP in any edition, so I can't really comment on it. But I'm guessing that casters tend to come out ahead in 3e and leaders tend to have the edge in 4e. No idea if I'm right though.

For those of you playing 4e, do you just homebrew all your monsters past level 5, or what?)
I homebrew most of my monsters, period. Sometimes it's just a damage boost, or knocking off a few HP, or adjusting level. Other times I write a new one from the ground up.

And I don't even have DDI; I just like tinkering with rules.

Lord Raziere

2011-03-03, 07:18 PM

Melee training might even be called a feat tax for defenders, if one believes in such things.

hmmm..... note to self: make house rules involving feat taxes to cut down on people having to take them and leave room for more customization.

such as "Defenders get free Melee Training if they don't have Strength as a primary or secondary attribute."

Fox Box Socks

2011-03-03, 07:25 PM

hmmm..... note to self: make house rules involving feat taxes to cut down on people having to take them and leave room for more customization.

such as "Defenders get free Melee Training if they don't have Strength as a primary or secondary attribute."
It's only a feat tax for Battleminds and Swordmages not using Aegis of Assault. Every other defender in the game (Fighters, Paladins, Wardens, Knights, and Cavaliers) either prioritize Strength or have an at-will that doubles as a melee basic.

It isn't quite as necessary as you'd think, especially since Swordmages can take Intelligent Blademaster (which is generally more useful) and Battleminds can drop into stances that let them use Con for their opportunity attacks.

The Big Dice

2011-03-03, 07:26 PM

Sometimes it isn't about it making literal or narrative sense. Sometimes it's about it being interesting.
I don't find pushing miniatures round a map to be that interesting. That's purely my opinion, but having a game where half the PHB is classes and half of what's left is combat. Leaving everything else an RPG does in the 25% of the book that's not classes or combat doesn't do it for me.

BUt then, I've come to have issues with all of the WotC versions of D&D. And I never particularly liked AD&D. Give me the colourful boxes or the original Rules Compendium any day.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-03, 07:33 PM

I've never done PvP in any edition, so I can't really comment on it. But I'm guessing that casters tend to come out ahead in 3e and leaders tend to have the edge in 4e. No idea if I'm right though.

Honestly not that familiar with it in 4e. In 3.5, there's a fairly big bias toward whoever wins init, particularly if pvp is unexpected. At higher levels, there's a caster bias. This is not true very early on. Still, a caster dies pretty quick in his sleep if a trusted party member decides to CdG him.

Them: "Requiem sucks, because I can't play my special snowflake"
Me: "No, Requiem is awesome because you can't play your special snowflake"

I have had conversations not unlike this when discussing many system preferences. For what it's worth, I'd probably come down on your side on this one. For some reason, Vampire games in my limited experience tend to attract a pretty fair number of people that have special snowflake syndrome.

Big Dice...I find pushing minis around interesting for larger scale combat games. Squad vs squad and up. At that level, you get more intense tactics. I find it mostly boring at the single player per person level. Yes, tactics are possible at that level too, but something about a party of people spending five minutes discussing the tactics taken by their characters over the course of six seconds is terribly distracting. I honestly don't even use maps for combat in many games. I still use maps, sure...but more as a general guideline.

stainboy

2011-03-03, 07:59 PM

Honestly not that familiar with it in 4e. In 3.5, there's a fairly big bias toward whoever wins init, particularly if pvp is unexpected. At higher levels, there's a caster bias. This is not true very early on. Still, a caster dies pretty quick in his sleep if a trusted party member decides to CdG him.

3.5 also devolves into really stupid rules abuses when players get competitive.

Let's take rogues. If the rules for stealth and surprise don't make you want to curl up on your shower floor and cry, you're not playing it by RAW. This is absolutely fine as long as the rogue is killing NPCs. But if a rogue PC is trying to ambush me, I'm going to "enter combat" with a nearby desk so I can't be surprised or caught flat-footed, remind the DM there's no facing in D&D, and keep all of this secret until he's already jumped out at me and tried to roll sneak attack damage. Then I'm going 5' step out of his threatened area and Suggest that that he take no actions except those I explicitly instruct. Naturally we're going to argue about this for at least an hour.

Sine

2011-03-03, 08:43 PM

such as "Defenders get free Melee Training if they don't have Strength as a primary or secondary attribute."
Not a bad idea!

My own solution is "If your class has weapon attacks, use whatever stat applies to those for your melee basics." 'Cause aside from the defender-feat-tax thing, I find it pretty stupid that any character, like a rogue can be good at eviscerating bad guys on her turn but then suddenly becomes a putz when a bad guy runs away.

Yukitsu

2011-03-03, 09:17 PM

{Scrubbed}

Lord Raziere

2011-03-03, 09:21 PM

Not a bad idea!

My own solution is "If your class has weapon attacks, use whatever stat applies to those for your melee basics." 'Cause aside from the defender-feat-tax thing, I find it pretty stupid that any character, like a rogue can be good at eviscerating bad guys on her turn but then suddenly becomes a putz when a bad guy runs away.

you have a better idea, I'm taking that. :smallbiggrin:

DontEatRawHagis

2011-03-03, 11:39 PM

so the basic question for debate is this:
are different editions more tailored to different types of games?
are there certain stories that can be run more effectively using one edition rather than another?

EC

I used to feel that the difference between 3.5 and 4e was just that 3.5 was more of a skills game. But then I played 3.5 the other day.

Differences that I noticed right away:
*4e has consolidated skills, 3.5 has so many different skills its unfunny. Especially when in the core there are skills that can only be used by one class
*3.5 is more heavy on the Feats, but they seem less defined to a specific class like in 4e. For example, I couldn't pick an extra feat geared towards Monk class. I however got to choose one of two monk class feats every few levels.
*Flatfooted is no longer in 4e. Which I like because keeping track of it could be a pain
*Alignment requirements on classes in 3.5. I would love to play a chaotic neutral monk, or whatever, but I am fearful of falling out of the lawful category.
*Everyone is squishy in 3.5, 14hp at lvl 2. I have almost died 5 times, though I have to say the new scars I have are awesome.
*I roll reflex, fort, and will instead of having them as flat defenses.

Things that didn't change:
*The GM spoon feeding information through slight hints.
*Sadistic GM-ness
*Maps
*My AC sucks

What types of games would I play with 3.5 verus 4e:
*4e I would definitely do as a primer for 3.5, just because 4e carries the basics over without overloading the new player with information.

Aside from that I don't see that much of a difference. If I was to create a new homebrew system I would probably use something similar to 4e just so I don't have to worry about a party missing Decipher script or Knowledge Religion.

Certain stories that could run effectively in 3.5 or 4e:
3.5 definitely has the craziness/epicness factor to it. If you want to run a horror game or a obstacle course of a campaign I think this is it. Also save versus death is in 3.5(not at all in 4e if memory serves) so keep that in mind.

With 4e it depends how far you keep to the DMG because you could follow the XP Budget and come out with normal difficulty monsters or you could throw out that table and come up with something else.

I never DMed 3.5 and I usually don't have a competitive streak when it comes to DnD so I never really make encounters that are supposed to TPK. I do however get into situations where I pick on one player.

Final Judgment:
Based on Difficulty. Nothing more. Hardcore for 3.5, Casual for 4e.

MeeposFire

2011-03-04, 04:37 AM

It's only a feat tax for Battleminds and Swordmages not using Aegis of Assault. Every other defender in the game (Fighters, Paladins, Wardens, Knights, and Cavaliers) either prioritize Strength or have an at-will that doubles as a melee basic.

It isn't quite as necessary as you'd think, especially since Swordmages can take Intelligent Blademaster (which is generally more useful) and Battleminds can drop into stances that let them use Con for their opportunity attacks.

Every swordmage trying to be a defender should have intelligent blademaster no doubt since otherwise enemies can just ignore you as they walk past. Now battleminds are interesting as melee basic attacks become a big part of their punishment (their actual mark punishment sucks). Without a good basic attack your blurred step is not so useful, with it you can be a real threat. Melee training or a power like eldritch strike are gold choices from what I have seen/read.

FelixG

2011-03-04, 04:58 AM

(didnt bother reading all the pages, just the ifrst one and last one)

For me, I prefer 3.5/PF for my RPGs, they can do everything nicely.

I have played in a few 4E games, but for me, the easiet way to play it after coming from PF and 3.5 is to not even think of it as Dungeons and Dragons. Because to me its not, its a completely new system that happens to have a few monsters that go by the same names.

This helped me remove a number of my dislikes about it.

MeeposFire

2011-03-04, 05:03 AM

Nero24200

2011-03-04, 06:03 AM

I personally am not a big fan of 4th Edition at all. Though if I were to say it has any strengths, it's the game's simplicity.

I tried introducing a new player to D'n'D a while back and well...I looked at 3.5 and remembered how daunting the rules where when I was new, so I experimented a little and tried 4th Edition. Despite never playing it before then I was able to understand the game very easily. In fact, after the game I double checked the rule books to see if I actually made any rules mistakes and I made only one (which was using a Minor Action Power as a Standard Action for one NPC).

On the other hand, my standard Pen'n'Paper group has been playing 3.5 for about 7 years now and we still regularly have to double check certain rules.

So I'd say if the games had a particular niche, it would go like this.

3.5: Complex, but alot more room for variety. It's harder to balance and grasp all the rules but allow for a far larger variety of characters and encounters (using an example from above, being able to give monsters alternative weapons or strategies without too much work).

4: Simple, but far less variety. Use this if you want to just jump in without too much worry about the rules since they are alot easier to grasp or if you want to try playing with newbies and are looking for a simple game. However, get used to monsters using the same tactics and characters having a similer feel.

Leolo

2011-03-04, 07:08 AM

A little question: Is 3.5 really good for epic stories from your point of view? This seems to be a point most of the posters above does agree.

Nevertheless also the missing balancing on higher levels seems to be undisputed and i am asking myself if this isn't a discrepancy.

Is 3.5 a rule system where players does have the tools to do epic actions - but can not use it appropriate because the system is to much unbalanced for epic stories?

Eldan

2011-03-04, 07:17 AM

It entirely depends on how you define "epic".

If you use the modern definition often used in the internet which basically amounts to "throwing around absurdly powerful effects", then yes.

A level 20 wizard or other caster can create new worlds, summon any monster in the books, stomp buildings out of the ground, shapeshift into dragons or project his mind into the afterlife (or from there), blow up a small country...

4E characters can't really keep up with that in the "big" department.

At the same time, a 3E level 20 fighter can hit things with his sword, either several times in a round, after running at them or really hard and, if he specialized in it, trip them, if they aren't too strong.

The Big Dice

2011-03-04, 07:45 AM

DontEatRawHagis

2011-03-04, 08:07 AM

People keep talking about the simplicity of 4e. I don't think it's simple in the slightest. When it came out, I got the three core books to see what the fuss was all about. And after carefully going over the section on character creation, I decided it was a nightmare. And if making a character is a complex task, sifting through pages and pages and pages, like 14 or 15 pages of abilities per class, and all that without getting into Feats, was just information overload.

If you make a level 1 character you have to use:

*1st race page
*2nd Class pages 1-3(sometimes just 1-2)
*3rd The Class abilities 1-3
*4th feats which has a table

As far as character creation goes the only additional thing is selecting class abilities, which I actually like.

Best thing in my opinion for my monk character in 4e was the ability to choose unarmored agility feat to attach onto my unarmored monk class feat, raising my AC by a lot.

In 4e I have a bunch of choices for my character while in 3.5 I don't have that many at all. Then again I usually play low level campaigns.

In 4e at level 1, I have Unarmed monk strike(Upped to 1d8), Dragon's Tail(causes target to be prone), Five Storms(close burst attack), Drunken Monkey(Use enemy to attack another enemy), and an encounter power as well as a racial encounter power.

In 3.5 I have at level 2, Unarmed Monk strike(1d6), Flurry of Blows(2d6), and stunning fist.

Sidenote: I don't see any munchkin problems from either version, mainly because I still feel like there are designated encounters I am fighting in my 3.5 campaign. When I fight in 3.5 it feels like I'm saying Slash, slash, Is it dead yet? Slash slash. In 4e it seems more tactical. Again at the lower level perspective.

Erom

2011-03-04, 08:29 AM

People keep talking about the simplicity of 4e. I don't think it's simple in the slightest. When it came out, I got the three core books to see what the fuss was all about. And after carefully going over the section on character creation, I decided it was a nightmare. And if making a character is a complex task, sifting through pages and pages and pages, like 14 or 15 pages of abilities per class, and all that without getting into Feats, was just information overload.

I'm sorry, but if someone like me, a fairly experienced gamer, can't pick up a new system and be making characters within a reasonable amount of time, there's a problem. How am I supposed to explain the process to the less experienced people in my group if I can't figure out the entire process myself?

Maybe it's simpler in play. I can't say about that. And I'm not saying 3.X is a simple game system in the slightest. It's not. But at least it walks you through making a character without getting cluttered and overloaded with information.

And again, another reason for me to prefer my Rules Compendium. You can literally make a character in seven dice rolls and picking some stuff off a list with that. Be ready to play in less than ten minutes.

Beat that, WotC!
99.9% of the complexity of 4e is in character creation. I can't imagine trying to make a character your first time without the char builder - like you said, total information overload. Once you get used to it you can do it in your sleep, but that's generally true of any system.

We've heard a lot about what 3e and 4e are good + bad for, but as someone with a bit of experience in it but not too much, I would love to hear someone who has played a lot of FATE based systems describe their strengths and weaknesses?

Kurald Galain

2011-03-04, 08:38 AM

People keep talking about the simplicity of 4e. I don't think it's simple in the slightest.
That's a good point. It's relatively easy to pick up for an experienced gamer, but it is still one of the most complicated RPG systems ever published.

In gameplay, your character has a dozen or so powers that look pretty similar overall, and you're supposed to pick one of them every round. Can you imagine how confusing this is to a non-gamer? There's a reason why WOTC needed to publish classes that are easier to play.

Eldan

2011-03-04, 08:53 AM

Which is why I'd use (slightly simplified) FATE now for first timers. Everyone gets that after a short explanation.

Nero24200

2011-03-04, 09:47 AM

That's a good point. It's relatively easy to pick up for an experienced gamer, but it is still one of the most complicated RPG systems ever published.

YMMV. The newbie I was playing with seemed to pick it up rather easily.

Remember that when making a 1st level character you're only going to be looking at a small list, not 2-3 pages with of powers. I don't see how it's any more complicated than making a spellcasting character in 3.5. In fact, even low-level spellcasters in 3.5 have a vast number of options over 4E characters.

Eldan

2011-03-04, 10:06 AM

That's not really the point, though. The point is that all editions of D&D I saw so far are pretty complicated games. Sure, I think most people over-exaggerate just how complicated (grapple checks aren't that bad, folks), but there's systems out there that are just tons and tons simpler.

Kurald Galain

2011-03-04, 10:15 AM

Remember that when making a 1st level character you're only going to be looking at a small list, not 2-3 pages with of powers.
The standard charbuilder print out, however, is precisely 2-3 pages worth of powers.

It all depends on how game-savvy the new player is. People who do a lot of boardgames or computer games will probably pick it up. People who won't, tend to be really confused by how many powers even a first-level character needs to keep track of during game play.

I don't see how it's any more complicated than making a spellcasting character in 3.5.
But that's not the point. Just because some classes in 3E are hard to learn, doesn't mean 4E is suddenly easy to learn. There are literally hundreds of RPGs that have easier rules than 4E, and just pointing out one that's more complicated doesn't change that.

I think the point is that many players simply don't know any RPGs except for D&D and its direct variants, and this rather limits the meaningful comparisons on the forum. It's easy to say that 4E does X better than 3E (or vice versa) but this isn't saying much if there's a dozen other RPGs that are still much better at X.

Britter

2011-03-04, 10:37 AM

I think the point is that many players simply don't know any RPGs except for D&D and its direct variants, and this rather limits the meaningful comparisons on the forum. It's easy to say that 4E does X better than 3E (or vice versa) but this isn't saying much if there's a dozen other RPGs that are still much better at X.

This is an incredibly relevant point.

Exposure to a very wide variety of games with varying design intents really opened my eyes to the strengths and weaknesses of different systems. It also allowed me to look more critically at the strengths and weakness of DnD in all it's sundry incarnations.

Personally, I think 3.5 is complex in character build, and rules interpretation and use. I think 4e is simpler in character build, and the rules are much clearer, but in actual play, the need to track 3-4 floating bonuses/penalties that last for varying lengths of time (sustain minors, till end of your next turn, till end of my next turn, till end of enemies next turn...sheesh) and the sheer number of pedantic picayune details makes actual 4e play very complex.

That said, I would use 4e for a rollicking dungeon crawl or adventure game with a heavy focus on dynamic combat encounters. For serious fantasy, be it epic, gritty, or whatever, I prefer Burning Wheel, because it focuses on the development of characters and how adversity changes them. For beer-and-pretzels fantasy gaming, RISUS, because you can easily play it even while very drunk. With respect to the 3.5 crowd, I honestly don't feel it does anything well enough to be worth playing. That is primarily because I dislike a lot of the underlying assumptions inherent in optimized 3.5 play, and I don't see the point in using the system if you aren't planning on optimizing, because it is out performed by other systems for everything, as far as my interests and needs go.

However, as always, if it works for you and you are having fun, that is all that matters.

Erom

2011-03-04, 11:48 AM

...but in actual play, the need to track 3-4 floating bonuses/penalties that last for varying lengths of time (sustain minors, till end of your next turn, till end of my next turn, till end of enemies next turn...sheesh)...
A thousand, a million times this. If I had to pick one SINGLE thing to change in 4e, it would be this. It's maddeningly stupid, especially since 90% of the time you don't really NEED the different durations - it's just lazy! They could have unified and simplified the duration mechanics. Why didn't they?

Another question I thought of this morning in the original vein of this thread (What system is good for what kind of story?) - I really like crafting systems. They're why I enjoy Dwarf Fortress and Minecraft, they're what I like best in MMOs, they're just a ton of fun. But they are either nearly-entirely-absent (like 4e) or poorly balanced and overly complex (like 3e) in most RPG systems. Can anyone recommend a system that does crafting well, such that it's fun and interesting but not unbalanced?

Reverent-One

2011-03-04, 11:52 AM

A thousand, a million times this. If I had to pick one SINGLE thing to change in 4e, it would be this. It's maddeningly stupid, especially since 90% of the time you don't really NEED the different durations - it's just lazy! They could have unified and simplified the duration mechanics. Why didn't they?

They pretty much did. Nearly all durations are Save Ends, Sustain X, or end of your next turn. That's pretty unified and simplified right there, and the distiction they do have are all rather neccesary.

Britter

2011-03-04, 11:59 AM

Even if the durations are all uniform, there are still a lot of incredibly situational bonsues and penalties to track. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to be trying to keep it all straight as the DM when you have to run multiple enemeies. I have enough issues with tracking a single characters penalties, bonsues, conditions and status effects.

Also, Erom. As regards crafting, I must once again state that I am a real fan of how Burning Wheel does pretty much everything non-combat. You could run a very interesting game about artisans, smiths, or "insert craftsperson here".

valadil

2011-03-04, 12:07 PM

Yukitsu

2011-03-04, 02:52 PM

Bah, not sure what the problem with this is. One of 4e's main selling points is that it's accessible. Saying it's not a lot simpler, and saying it does require just as much effort as 3.5 is saying they failed at their design goals. Simple is not bad, I don't know why saying people who play 4e don't want to put in hours of effort in picking a feat is flaming when that's the explicit advantage that they claim the system freaking has.

The Big Dice

2011-03-04, 03:34 PM

Bah, not sure what the problem with this is.
What do you mean by accessible?

D&D has a brand name advantage, but from what I've seen on book shop shelves, the big names seem to be the current edition D&D, Warhammer, Dark Heresy and World of Darkness.

You don't really get more accessible than being able to walk into Games Workshop or Waterstones (or Barnes and Noble if you're in the US) and pick up a copy of the core rules to one of those games.

Eldan

2011-03-04, 03:36 PM

Oh, it is an advantage alright, I'm not claiming otherwise. I'm just saying that there are far simpler systems out there. I know I've mentioned it before, but: I'm reading a lot of FATE currently. Character creation is basically done via writing a backstory and then picking four or five skills.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-04, 05:52 PM

This is an incredibly relevant point.

Exposure to a very wide variety of games with varying design intents really opened my eyes to the strengths and weaknesses of different systems. It also allowed me to look more critically at the strengths and weakness of DnD in all it's sundry incarnations.

Personally, I think 3.5 is complex in character build, and rules interpretation and use. I think 4e is simpler in character build, and the rules are much clearer, but in actual play, the need to track 3-4 floating bonuses/penalties that last for varying lengths of time (sustain minors, till end of your next turn, till end of my next turn, till end of enemies next turn...sheesh) and the sheer number of pedantic picayune details makes actual 4e play very complex.

Agreed. That said, pretty much all flavors of D&D tend toward the rules-heavy, IMO. I really don't play anything more rules heavy than D&D, at any rate.

Epic stories at very high power levels...yeah, I'd pick 3.5. That said, I'd peg those stories as rather a minority in general popularity. Things like low level and/or low magic campaigns seem to be among the most popular adaptations of D&D. Honestly, it kind of frustrates me when DMs act like doing a low-magic campaign is something special and unique because of that...but Im getting off track. Point is, epic play of the time high level 3.5 and/or exalted offer seems to be the minority desire.

stainboy

2011-03-04, 06:15 PM

That's a good point. It's relatively easy to pick up for an experienced gamer, but it is still one of the most complicated RPG systems ever published.

In gameplay, your character has a dozen or so powers that look pretty similar overall, and you're supposed to pick one of them every round. Can you imagine how confusing this is to a non-gamer? There's a reason why WOTC needed to publish classes that are easier to play.

Part of this is about the super narrow design space for 4e powers. Every power is basically lots of damage + rider. You're comparing two very similar things and neither helps you define your character as a person. Does my stabby rogue want to roll Dex vs Reflex or Dex +2 vs Armor? It's pure char op.

As a campaign progresses you get the opposite problem though. The 4e designers said repeatedly that they wanted roughly the same game experience at all levels, which means little room for characters to become more complex. That newbie who made the level 1 wizard isn't a newbie anymore by the time he's playing a level 10 wizard, but there's very little to do with what he's learned. Picking six powers might feel right to a WotC playtester making a level 10 wizard from scratch, but when they trickle in over six months of gameplay the character feels static and boring.

The 4e designers drew a lot of inspiration from MMOs. (Seriously, they did, they said so. Don't hit Reply yet.) It takes about the same number of hours to hit max level in WoW as it does to play a campaign 1-30. In that time a 4e character gains I think 13 powers and a WoW character gains 40-60.

Blizzard is to level grinding what the Escobars are to cocaine. If they say 50 spells is what Joe Everyman can handle in 400 hours, they're right. Why can 4e only do a quarter of that? Because WoW hands out situational spells, and combat spells that don't do damage, and spells that do meaningful things outside of combat. In 4e every power has to be relevant in every combat and no power can matter outside of an encounter. There's just no space for more than a few of them.

Yukitsu

2011-03-04, 07:06 PM

What do you mean by accessible?

D&D has a brand name advantage, but from what I've seen on book shop shelves, the big names seem to be the current edition D&D, Warhammer, Dark Heresy and World of Darkness.

You don't really get more accessible than being able to walk into Games Workshop or Waterstones (or Barnes and Noble if you're in the US) and pick up a copy of the core rules to one of those games.

Back when it was first coming out, the game stores round my local were all hyping it up to the gamers who weren't into role play. Not to people who were used to playing 3.5. Especially the casual warhammer and MtG players. When I asked why they hadn't done the same for 3.5, one of the reasons was they didn't think they could sell it to people that easily, since it was a fair shake more irritating to learn. People popping into a bookstore and picking up a core rule book means they probably were already into the game or at least the genre anyway.

Sine

2011-03-04, 07:59 PM

People keep talking about the simplicity of 4e. I don't think it's simple in the slightest. When it came out, I got the three core books to see what the fuss was all about. And after carefully going over the section on character creation, I decided it was a nightmare. And if making a character is a complex task, sifting through pages and pages and pages, like 14 or 15 pages of abilities per class, and all that without getting into Feats, was just information overload.
I've noticed that players who want to fully grok class mechanics, before they stat out their character, have this complaint. Whereas in previous editions you can essentially understand how a [non-caster] class operates with a couple pages and a few minutes, 4e classes have many pages of powers. And for players who feel like they have to fully understand all of a class' possibilities, I can imagine that being frustrating.

That said, I suspect that most 4e fans find its classes more accessible than 3e classes because they don't try to fully grok them. Most just pick whichever powers match their prime stat and sound cool. (Similarly for feats, most 4e players simply pick the feats that match their race and class. And the feat taxes; those are obvious 'choices' too.)

That's not really the point, though. The point is that all editions of D&D I saw so far are pretty complicated games. Sure, I think most people over-exaggerate just how complicated (grapple checks aren't that bad, folks), but there's systems out there that are just tons and tons simpler.
QFT.

Even TSR editions, which can potentially produce characters within 10 minutes, fail at simplicity due to all the weird rules. "Is high good for this roll, or bad?" "Do I roll my d20, or percentile?" "I add my Thac0 to AC, or subtract it? Or is it the other way around?"

MeeposFire

2011-03-04, 11:36 PM

I have found it is easier when you do not have previous edition knowledge at times. For instance I was confused about how to figure out what my class bonuses for saves and BAB and the like were in 4e since I could not find every classes chart since that was how it was handled in 3.5. Once a brand spanking new person showed it to me I realized I missed it precisely because I was trying to think in a 3.5 mindset. Sometimes rules are harder/easier if you already know previous rules (such as opportunity attack rules).

EccentricCircle

2011-03-05, 06:57 AM

I agree completely that you have to avoid thinking about 4e in terms of 3.5
when I first tried to stat out a character I did exactly the same thing with trying to find the BAB. I also tried to find an equivalent to weapon finesse not realising that most of my attacks would automatically be dex based on account of my being a rogue.

once I took a step back and looked at it as a different game it was a lot easier to get the hang of. some people in the group still like to gripe about how things differ from 3.5, or say things like "how it used to work" which I don't think helps. thats one of the reasons for starting this thread. the two really aren't comparable enough to try to adapt your style of play, you need to make a new style of play in the same way you would when picking up a game which isn't called D&D.

huttj509

2011-03-05, 07:30 AM

That said, I suspect that most 4e fans find its classes more accessible than 3e classes because they don't try to fully grok them. Most just pick whichever powers match their prime stat and sound cool. (Similarly for feats, most 4e players simply pick the feats that match their race and class. And the feat taxes; those are obvious 'choices' too.)

Or because they're used to playing things like casters, or ToB meleers, where you can still know how everything works, you just have more things to filter. Instead of "oh, he hits things using this one page that describes attack rolls", it's "oh, he uses powers, let's look at those and see what sort of things they do, then choose", which is much more analogous to building a character with spells or maneuvers. And that's IF they're coming at it from 3.5e.

Seriously, most 4e fans don't try to understand the game? Really?

I agree completely that you have to avoid thinking about 4e in terms of 3.5

Heck, I found it useful to do something similar when introducing some 2e friends to 3.5. I presented mechanics as they were, without trying to say "it's like 2e, but..." Sure, there were some things, like "turn THAC0 into a bonus to your roll instead, and that's the idea behind BAB" (they could follow the math involved), but for the most part ADnD 2e was not referenced in the description.

I find this holds for many version changes. If it's a major rules update, it's easier to just go at what it is now rather than try to find every difference. If in doubt? Assume it's new until you find otherwise. I think 3.0-3.5 was the exception, as it was less of a major edition change. Also can't speak much on other systems (only played one edition of shadowrun, for example).

ken-do-nim

2011-03-05, 07:56 AM

Even TSR editions, which can potentially produce characters within 10 minutes, fail at simplicity due to all the weird rules. "Is high good for this roll, or bad?" "Do I roll my d20, or percentile?" "I add my Thac0 to AC, or subtract it? Or is it the other way around?"

The difference I think is that the arcane rules in the TSR editions are understood by everybody by the end of the first session. After that, it all plays pretty easy. Whereas you have the "elegant design" systems like 3.5 that just always remain complicated in play because of the exception-based design. I find that when DMing 3.5, I have to juggle so many things in my head, like who has combat reflexes, who has improved grapple, and then there's the whole buff spell thing. Gosh do I dread dispel magic on a fully buffed cleric.

And then of the TSR editions, you just can't beat Classic (B/X, BECMI, RC) for its pure simplicity. I've never seen descending armor class be a stumbling block for anybody. Relying on THAC0, yes, but using a chart to look up what armor class was hit, no. I think 2E got everybody confused because it did away with the attack charts.

Anyway, back to the original purpose of this thread, I believe there is still a healthy place at the gaming table for TSR editions. For one thing, I maintain that they do intrigue-based adventures better than 3E or 4E. For another, I think that they allow for exploration-based adventures better too, because combats don't take as long and there aren't spells like 'detect secret doors' that trivialize searching.

The Big Dice

2011-03-05, 09:35 AM

Anyway, back to the original purpose of this thread, I believe there is still a healthy place at the gaming table for TSR editions. For one thing, I maintain that they do intrigue-based adventures better than 3E or 4E. For another, I think that they allow for exploration-based adventures better too, because combats don't take as long and there aren't spells like 'detect secret doors' that trivialize searching.
I agree. And, it seems, so does a small but vocal section of the gaming community. Go check out places like the Dragonsfoot forums. And there's around half a dozen retro clones that you can download for free or pay to get a print on demand hardcopy. And that's without hitting up the likes of Noble Knight or Ebay to track down your out of print RPG of choice.

Older games are played in a very different style from newer ones, and this primer (http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/3159558) written by the guy behind Swords and Wizardry is a good starting point to begin exploring the differences.

Lord Raziere

2011-03-05, 10:47 AM

Or because they're used to playing things like casters, or ToB meleers, where you can still know how everything works, you just have more things to filter. Instead of "oh, he hits things using this one page that describes attack rolls", it's "oh, he uses powers, let's look at those and see what sort of things they do, then choose", which is much more analogous to building a character with spells or maneuvers. And that's IF they're coming at it from 3.5e.

Seriously, most 4e fans don't try to understand the game? Really?

oh I think I (I can't really speak for others) understand it. I understand that its a system where you are meant to actually play because no matter what you choose you'll be effective at it. I could play a race with +2 to Int and Cha as a fighter which are the only two stats that the class doesn't use in 4E, and I would still be effective and send my points wisely to get a +3 in both strength and con, and could even train myself in Intimidate. The only difference if I say like played a race that did give me the racial bonuses to primary stats would be a +1, my attacks would instead get a +4 bonus instead of a +3, and I would have +9 in my athletics skill instead of +8.

and then I could I have a bunch of powers that the first players handbook says I'm free to refluff however I want. the damage does not matter- everyone does it so the secondary effects matter more, but overall it does not matter if you choose A or B, you are probably dealing damage and therefore being effective.
adventurers according to this forum smash everything as a solution anyways, 4E just recognizes this and takes it to its logical conclusion.
this way, if you want to play what you want to play, there is nothing stopping you and still killing all those orcs, it is basically the embodiment of refuting the stormwind fallacy- everyone is naturally effective, therefore everyone can play what they want to play.

that is how I understand 4E, just my two cents.

Sine

2011-03-05, 10:50 AM

Seriously, most 4e fans don't try to understand the game? Really?
Most D&D players don't try to grok the game the way many of us forum-goers do. Remember, we're probably a minority in the overall D&D population. Of the dozens of D&Ders I've gamed with, only two of those frequented the WotC forums. Many of them know nothing of GitP or this forum.

So yeah, really. Gamers like us might spend hours combing rule books before making a character, but most players I've known just think "I'll pick Footwork Lure because it sounds cool" or "I'll play a samurai because I like anime." Seriously. But hey, maybe your experiences have been different.

The difference I think is that the arcane rules in the TSR editions are understood by everybody by the end of the first session.
That may be true for some or even most gamers, but I'm sure you'll agree that those weird rules are more complicated than if TSR had used a simple unified mechanic for everything.

Fox Box Socks

2011-03-05, 11:18 AM

As far as combat goes (and forgive me if I've said this before), I've largely found that 3e combat is strategic, while 4e combat is tactical.

In 3e, information gathering and smart tactics win the day. Scrying, scouting, teleportation, Gather Information checks, and sneaking around are all monumentally important. Knowing what buffs to cast before the fight actually begins matters more than the minutia of the fight itself; a well-placed Fire Shield or Bear's Endurance or Righteous Might can sometimes end fights before they even begin. A typical fight in 3e involves a healthy degree of scouting, followed by 20 minutes of busywork as everyone decides what buff they want to cast and adjusting their sheets accordingly, followed by another 20 minutes of mopping up the bad guys. Since at high levels characters can only take one or two hits (or one failed save) before they eat it, prioritizing targets is also important; in general, spellcasters die first, then everyone else.

4e throws most of that out the window. Proper scouting and scrying can net you a surprise round and combat advantage, and monster knowledge checks can help you know which weaknesses to exploit and what defenses to target, but that can only take you so far. Whether the Fighter shifts out of the damaging zone to second wind or sucks up the damage to get another hit in on the dragon, whether or not the Wizard flubs his Visions of Avarice roll, whether or not the Rogue crits when he spends his action point, which of the two wounded targets the Cleric burns his last Healing Word on...these things matter more in 4e than they did in 3e. Pre-fight planning and strategy can only get you so far; because everyone can take 3-4 hits before they go down, drinking a potion before the fight to give you energy resistance (while still helpful) just isn't as important as what happens during the fight.

Saying that one of them is smarter than the other one is almost entirely disingenuous. 4e requires you to think in an entirely different way that people thought in 3.5. It's like saying that people that are really good at Jeopardy are stupid because they don't like Go; it's an entirely different skill set.

huttj509

2011-03-05, 12:40 PM

Most D&D players don't try to grok the game the way many of us forum-goers do. Remember, we're probably a minority in the overall D&D population. Of the dozens of D&Ders I've gamed with, only two of those frequented the WotC forums. Many of them know nothing of GitP or this forum.

So yeah, really. Gamers like us might spend hours combing rule books before making a character, but most players I've known just think "I'll pick Footwork Lure because it sounds cool" or "I'll play a samurai because I like anime." Seriously. But hey, maybe your experiences have been different.

If the statement I was referring to had been that most RPG players don't try to grok the rules completely when making a character, fine. It was the 4e specificity that I took umbrage at.

The implication was that if you find character building in 4e more straightforward than in 3.5e, it must be because you're just taking what sounds neat and not thinking about how things actually work.

stainboy

2011-03-05, 01:05 PM

If the statement I was referring to had been that most RPG players don't try to grok the rules completely when making a character, fine. It was the 4e specificity that I took umbrage at.

The implication was that if you find character building in 4e more straightforward than in 3.5e, it must be because you're just taking what sounds neat and not thinking about how things actually work.

That conversation actually started with the opposite point, that 4e more or less expects you to understand the game and make informed optimization choices, and if you just take what sounds neat the game doesn't offer many meaningful choices.

I don't think anyone's trying to say 4e is for people who aren't smart enough to learn a game system. Because that's really, really not true. WotC couldn't make a game for that market if they tried.

Yukitsu

2011-03-05, 01:38 PM

4e throws most of that out the window. Proper scouting and scrying can net you a surprise round and combat advantage, and monster knowledge checks can help you know which weaknesses to exploit and what defenses to target, but that can only take you so far. Whether the Fighter shifts out of the damaging zone to second wind or sucks up the damage to get another hit in on the dragon, whether or not the Wizard flubs his Visions of Avarice roll, whether or not the Rogue crits when he spends his action point, which of the two wounded targets the Cleric burns his last Healing Word on...these things matter more in 4e than they did in 3e. Pre-fight planning and strategy can only get you so far; because everyone can take 3-4 hits before they go down, drinking a potion before the fight to give you energy resistance (while still helpful) just isn't as important as what happens during the fight.

Saying that one of them is smarter than the other one is almost entirely disingenuous. 4e requires you to think in an entirely different way that people thought in 3.5. It's like saying that people that are really good at Jeopardy are stupid because they don't like Go; it's an entirely different skill set.

Half of your examples there aren't about smarts, but are rather about lucky rolls... And the ones that are tactical, when to retreat, when to do in combat healing (or rather, how one does in combat healing) is a matter of debate for 3.5 as well, and the latter to a very large degree.

Not going to argue that it's not tactical, as I do view 4e as chess, but I don't believe a truly succesful 3.5 party can succeed without those same considerations. Especially since scouting and preperation can be thrown out the window if someone rolls exceptionally well or poorly at which point it comes down to the same sort of improvisation.

ken-do-nim

2011-03-05, 07:13 PM

That may be true for some or even most gamers, but I'm sure you'll agree that those weird rules are more complicated than if TSR had used a simple unified mechanic for everything.

I agree that unified systems are more simple, however that does not make them better. 3E's unified system oversimplifies things. Strength checks were the first thing that jumped out at me. A guy with 18 strength only has a 20% better chance to lift something than a guy with 10 strength. Or you get the weirdness of wisdom aiding how well you can spot something, leading to people of old age making the best guards. Or background skills intermixed with actual useful adventuring skills so that no one will ever put points into the skills represented by their backstory without voluntarily nerfing their character.

So I consider it a virtue of TSR editions that they use the right system for the right job. That said, I can't defend descending armor class, though seeing AC: -7 on a stat block is cool for reasons I can't explain.

I agree. And, it seems, so does a small but vocal section of the gaming community. Go check out places like the Dragonsfoot forums.

Of course you might not realize you are talking to a guy who is in the top 10 of most posts on Dragonsfoot. :smallbiggrin:

Fox Box Socks

2011-03-05, 07:24 PM

Yukitsu

2011-03-05, 08:07 PM

It's not that tactics and round-by-round minutia aren't important in 3.5, it's that pre-fight preparations are much, much more important. Whether or not the Ogre flubs is Fort save against Flesh to Stone is much less important than whether or not the Wizard prepares Flesh to Stone that morning.

Yes, but when someone has to know both preperation, as well as turn by turn ability use, he does have to use more effort than the guy who just has to know turn by turn abilities. Which was my point. 3.5 takes more thinking than 4e, and that's a good thing for both, assuming there are people who vary in effort.

Besides, having to think about strategy rather than tactics is considered more cerebral. Tactics is mostly a matter of rote memorization, such as memorizing counters, while strategy requires abstract judgement calls, including what is tactically feasible. It's why good treatises on strategy are considered rare, with only "on war" "the book of 5 rings" and "the art of war" really sticking out at the strategic level, and why tactical documents are a dime a dozen.

jseah

2011-03-05, 08:54 PM

I remember doing an ability analysis, ranking 3.5 abilities in how they applied between four areas going from tactical towards strategic abilities.
(Statistics -> Positioning -> Information -> Strategic)

If I could perform the same analysis on 4E, virtually every attack power will be statistics with a positioning rider (or a statistic rider). Utility powers are almost always Positioning with a few information (eg. Invis.).
Information and Strategic are solely in the realm of rituals.

What I had thought to be the balance problems of 3.5 is the way the more broken 3.5 stuff spanned too many things. Summon Monster has applications from raw statistics (HP) damage to information (scouting), throw in planar binding and you get Strategic abilities.

The difference in play from 3.5 and 4 that Fox Box Socks mentions, is IMO, due to what the game design revolves around.
3.5's character optimization is virtually all about force multipliers. Even a small difference in advantage is multiplied, making close fights very very rare. A tiny advantage can be exploited to make a curbstomp (or complete TPK)
4e's force multipliers are much smaller and shorter. Scouting might give a surprise round, which doesn't hurt as much as in 3.5, hence this amplifies differences less. In 4E, you could take a bunch of monsters a few levels below the players and roughly estimate how damage they will do before dying. In 3.5, you might be able to say "the players will win", and winning means with little expenditure of resources. Or they die, barely taking down even one monster.

Fox Box Socks

2011-03-05, 11:22 PM

3.5's character optimization is virtually all about force multipliers. Even a small difference in advantage is multiplied, making close fights very very rare. A tiny advantage can be exploited to make a curbstomp (or complete TPK)
Maybe it was the groups I played with. Maybe I was just exposed to a rather pervasive playstyle and I simply never got exposed to people playing the game "correctly" (or perhaps just "differently"). And it's been a few years, so maybe it's just my memory being fuzzy.

But in all my time during 3e, I think I can count on one hand the number of times that a fight lasted more than two rounds above level 7. There was no strategy beyond "try to one-shot them the fastest". There were no tactics beyond "try to kill that one first because he looks dangerous". I remember character creation being so rewarding and open, and yet combat was so...derivative. At the time, I remember thinking that it was suspiciously similar to rocket tag; just a wild chaotic mess where everyone was made of paper.

I don't remember anything about 3.5 being cerebral. I remember it being arcane and complex on paper, but then almost mind-numbingly simple in play once you knew the basics of which things did what.

I dunno. Maybe it was just me.

Yukitsu

2011-03-05, 11:34 PM

Maybe it was the groups I played with. Maybe I was just exposed to a rather pervasive playstyle and I simply never got exposed to people playing the game "correctly" (or perhaps just "differently"). And it's been a few years, so maybe it's just my memory being fuzzy.

But in all my time during 3e, I think I can count on one hand the number of times that a fight lasted more than two rounds above level 7. There was no strategy beyond "try to one-shot them the fastest". There were no tactics beyond "try to kill that one first because he looks dangerous". I remember character creation being so rewarding and open, and yet combat was so...derivative. At the time, I remember thinking that it was suspiciously similar to rocket tag; just a wild chaotic mess where everyone was made of paper.

I don't remember anything about 3.5 being cerebral. I remember it being arcane and complex on paper, but then almost mind-numbingly simple in play once you knew the basics of which things did what.

I dunno. Maybe it was just me.

Try to get an optimizing DM. If linear things like an SoD work on something, someone is doing something wrong.

Save or dies are great, but if you can just blindly spam them, then the encounters are all falling into a fairly broad category, that being encounters that rely almost exclusively on AC and HP as their defense, instead of frankly, tactics. Most groups I've seen falter when they over rely on SoDs compared to parties that rely on battle field control.

Edit: Good examples are dragons. A lot of people think they're pretty easy to beat with their supposedly optimized characters, but in any form of practical optimization, the dragon probably has a likely counter. Uber chargers, melee in general and archer builds all fail pretty hard vs. a standard well played dragon. Also could be partly because a lot of DMs forget to give them their HD feats.

MeeposFire

2011-03-06, 02:22 AM

Try to get an optimizing DM. If linear things like an SoD work on something, someone is doing something wrong.

Save or dies are great, but if you can just blindly spam them, then the encounters are all falling into a fairly broad category, that being encounters that rely almost exclusively on AC and HP as their defense, instead of frankly, tactics. Most groups I've seen falter when they over rely on SoDs compared to parties that rely on battle field control.

Edit: Good examples are dragons. A lot of people think they're pretty easy to beat with their supposedly optimized characters, but in any form of practical optimization, the dragon probably has a likely counter. Uber chargers, melee in general and archer builds all fail pretty hard vs. a standard well played dragon. Also could be partly because a lot of DMs forget to give them their HD feats.

Actually your idea taken to its eventual conclusion leads to rocket tag for everybody. Fox Box Socks had a game where the party had the advantage. In your game the DM may have boosted things to compensate. Eventually you get to a point where it is all about initiative or similar. High OP 3.5 is rocket launcher tag. Fortunately most people I played with don't play it that way so I did not have to deal with it though I have seen it. Heck that was a common topic in character OP since they would make a build and after a long discussion almost every build could be countered by another one but it came a matter of initiative or similar for many (which is one reason celerity was so coveted). You may not decide to use it but there are very many ways to trivialize encounters in 3.5.

jseah

2011-03-06, 05:10 AM

But at the same time, like Fox Box Socks says, 3.5's rocket launcher tag-ness results from how combat is structured.

There are many force multipliers to be gotten through preparation before combat (sometimes even at character creation), much more than in 4E. This results in rocket launcher tag because the side with the advantage has enough multipliers to overwhelm the opposition.

RebelRogue

2011-03-06, 11:38 AM

Try to get an optimizing DM. If linear things like an SoD work on something, someone is doing something wrong.
While I know this no doubt appeals to some people, this kind of arms race stuff is one of the things that I don't enjoy when DMing. I'm ok at the 3.5 rules, but I'd positively fear DMing for some of the posters here when it comes to this kind of stuff. I like occasionally tweaking the nuts and bolts, but I want to tell a story first and foremost. Spending too much time being prepared for semi-broken stuff is simply not my idea of having fun DMing. As mentioned above, obviously YMMV.

ken-do-nim

2011-03-06, 12:11 PM

While I know this no doubt appeals to some people, this kind of arms race stuff is one of the things that I don't enjoy when DMing. I'm ok at the 3.5 rules, but I'd positively fear DMing for some of the posters here when it comes to this kind of stuff. I like occasionally tweaking the nuts and bolts, but I want to tell a story first and foremost. Spending too much time being prepared for semi-broken stuff is simply not my idea of having fun DMing. As mentioned above, obviously YMMV.

Agreed. The system mastery factor, particularly for some of the people on this site, is off the charts. Restricting access to many of the books will help somewhat, as will simply playing at lower levels before the builds can really get going. I was just talking to someone yesterday about how 2 of the characters in her party are very optimized whereas hers and another are not, and they do what they can to not get pasted. Naturally the DM must challenge the optimized characters.

Yukitsu

2011-03-06, 01:23 PM

Actually your idea taken to its eventual conclusion leads to rocket tag for everybody. Fox Box Socks had a game where the party had the advantage. In your game the DM may have boosted things to compensate. Eventually you get to a point where it is all about initiative or similar. High OP 3.5 is rocket launcher tag. Fortunately most people I played with don't play it that way so I did not have to deal with it though I have seen it. Heck that was a common topic in character OP since they would make a build and after a long discussion almost every build could be countered by another one but it came a matter of initiative or similar for many (which is one reason celerity was so coveted). You may not decide to use it but there are very many ways to trivialize encounters in 3.5.

There are, but similarly there are counters to render oneself immune to most forms of instant death. Most of my arena builds assume I'm going to spend at least 3 rounds target dispeling the guy I'm against, and this tends to happen in a lot of my encounters in games. In most practical forms, an optimized anything should first look for ways to not die horribly, then figure out likely ways to kill something without in turn being blocked. At lower levels, this means larger numbers of weaker enemies, and at higher levels it means carefully selected immunities. I've seen plenty of celerity abusing, high end first strikers utterly fail in practice because they flubbed their spell due to immunities, and didn't really have enough versatility to fall back on.

So basically, sure, the DM can make the game a 50/50 rocket tag session, or he can make encounters of the appropriate CR that are virtually unbeatable if the party is trying to play rocket tag.

While I know this no doubt appeals to some people, this kind of arms race stuff is one of the things that I don't enjoy when DMing. I'm ok at the 3.5 rules, but I'd positively fear DMing for some of the posters here when it comes to this kind of stuff. I like occasionally tweaking the nuts and bolts, but I want to tell a story first and foremost. Spending too much time being prepared for semi-broken stuff is simply not my idea of having fun DMing. As mentioned above, obviously YMMV.

Exactly, hence why if you like this stuff, 3.5 is great, and if you don't, 4e is your likely cup o' tea. (assuming you're sticking to D&D.)

shaddy_24

2011-03-06, 08:49 PM

Half of your examples there aren't about smarts, but are rather about lucky rolls... And the ones that are tactical, when to retreat, when to do in combat healing (or rather, how one does in combat healing) is a matter of debate for 3.5 as well, and the latter to a very large degree.

I agree those examples weren't very good for 4e. Better ones might be trying to decide which enemy the paladin should mark, the one with sneak attack that's flanking the rogue or the one with reach moving towards the wizard? Or, which direction should the wizard slide the opponant: try to push them off the cliff, away from all the other combatants, into the wall or towards the other PCs? Action point this round and try to take out the enemy before they get another chance to act, or wait until next round when the fighter will be able to flank them with you?

Onto this conversation in general, I've DMed both for 3.5 and 4e, for pretty equal amounts of time actually. I've run very similar games in both systems (story wise and importance of encounters at least). Heck, in all games, we've gone through multiple sessions in a row with no encounters or sessions with nothing but. Personally, I much prefer DMing 4e. I have much less to worry about. Way too much of my time during my 3.5 run was trying to balance the opponants, since half the monsters were either way too powerful or way too weak for their level. For bosses, I had to make sure they had some way of avoiding a lot of the save-or-die effects common in the system, or the fight would be over in a single round. I simply don't have the time to do that anymore.

The other thing is that I tend to wander into my 4e games with a list of NPCs the party is likely to interact with, their goals, and a bunch of monster stats that might come in handy for this session. It's a lot easier for me to do that in 4e, since I can grab stats out of the book without worrying about them being horribly unbalanced for this exact party composition (beguilar against all low will save party), and it's much easier to re-skin a lot of 4e monsters.

Now, this doesn't mean I dislike 3.5. I prefer to play 3.5 as a player, due to the much wider character creation abilities. Also, rituals in 4e are pretty weak to use, at least until you're in mid paragon tier. Magic items are much harder to work with, and we completely ignore the "you can only use one daily magic item per milestone" rule. Characters can get a little cookie cutter in 4e, especially with Wizards pumping out so much new stuff. We've seen powers in one class that were carbon copies of another classes power, just with a different name and different flavour text, or a feat that's just a better version of another feat. They seem to be having a bit of a problem keeping up the diversity with this system.

The major thing to what I'm saying though, is that I don't really decide what type of game I'm playing based on the difference between these systems. While they are very different, it's not enough that I can say "you can't play this type of game in X." I'm currently running a game involving a lot of political maneuvering and careful espionage in 4e, and it's working well for us. Occasionally they go off for some big battle, but the majority of the game is plotting against other parties that they can't fight directly yet.

Both systems have their ups and downs, and both work well for multiple types of games.

Yukitsu

2011-03-06, 08:52 PM

DMing will take a ton of time and effort no matter the system. 3.5, the custom one I made, d20 modern, 4e, world of darkness, it takes me like, 5 hours to prep a session for all of them. I'm referring more to the amount of thought and effort the players have to put into surviving depending on how well the encounters are being run. (If it's "The kobolds attack with a javalin" then they don't have to think much, but if you're running Tucker's kobolds, the players have to turn on their brains for example)

The Big Dice

2011-03-07, 09:47 AM

DMing will take a ton of time and effort no matter the system. 3.5, the custom one I made, d20 modern, 4e, world of darkness, it takes me like, 5 hours to prep a session for all of them.
A rule of thumb I've seen in a few places for how much prep time a session takes is, about an hour for every hour you'll end up playing for, plus busy work. The busy work being writing up stat blocks, drawing maps and so on.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-07, 10:22 AM

While I know this no doubt appeals to some people, this kind of arms race stuff is one of the things that I don't enjoy when DMing. I'm ok at the 3.5 rules, but I'd positively fear DMing for some of the posters here when it comes to this kind of stuff. I like occasionally tweaking the nuts and bolts, but I want to tell a story first and foremost. Spending too much time being prepared for semi-broken stuff is simply not my idea of having fun DMing. As mentioned above, obviously YMMV.

IMO, if you primarily want to tell a story, write a book. That is the medium most appropriate to telling stories.

When people sit down at the gaming table, it's because they expect to play a game. You can enrich a game by good backstory, yes...but it's still a game first. Consider, if you invited your friends over for you with the line "I'll read you a story" instead of "we'll play D&D", would they be ok with that? If not...they're there to play.

Now, this doesn't really speak to optimization as such...that can still be bad for the game if you have extremely differing amounts of it, but it isn't *always* bad for the game. As long as everyone is at about the same level of optimization, the game works pretty well. Where this plays into systems is that some systems make it easier for this to happen.

ken-do-nim

2011-03-07, 11:14 AM

IMO, if you primarily want to tell a story, write a book. That is the medium most appropriate to telling stories.

When people sit down at the gaming table, it's because they expect to play a game. You can enrich a game by good backstory, yes...but it's still a game first. Consider, if you invited your friends over for you with the line "I'll read you a story" instead of "we'll play D&D", would they be ok with that? If not...they're there to play.

Oh, I know what he is trying to say. What excites him about DMing is coming up with a cool plot, backstory, planning sneaky things to happen from the badguys, etc. He doesn't want to have to spend his time worrying about encounters being trivialized because of optimized PCs.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-07, 12:11 PM

That's fair...I can certainly see balance being easier to manage in 4th. I just don't see 4th as being inherently better to tell a story with.

Sipex

2011-03-07, 12:50 PM

They're both different mediums, 4th will provide you with a story where the battles and action scenes can be cinematic. You can have people jumping between rooves, the party cutting through a crowd of mooks and a big boss battle to top it off.

3.5, from my experience, provides more of a realistic gripping story. Battles are always incredibly risky and characters can die at any time. This sometimes leads to things being anticlimactic but sometimes things can turn out so much better than you had planned though.

kyoryu

2011-03-07, 02:11 PM

IMO, if you primarily want to tell a story, write a book. That is the medium most appropriate to telling stories.

When people sit down at the gaming table, it's because they expect to play a game. You can enrich a game by good backstory, yes...but it's still a game first. Consider, if you invited your friends over for you with the line "I'll read you a story" instead of "we'll play D&D", would they be ok with that? If not...they're there to play.

It's rare that I 100% agree with Tyndmyr. This is one of those times.

ken-do-nim

2011-03-07, 02:35 PM

It's rare that I 100% agree with Tyndmyr. This is one of those times.

You're both taking him too literally!

Of course he wants a story to develop from play; what he's saying is that what excites him about prepping for the game is this exotic tale of say mad fish-men taking over a sleepy village and abducting its inhabitants for bizarre undersea rituals, and he can't wait for the pcs to come in and untangle the mystery of this secret cult. He wants to spend his prep time coming up with how the cult operates, who is in on it, how the fish-men can manage to look normal enough to mingle with society, etc., not the fact that one of the pcs has that chain of tripping feats that allows him to mop the floor with any two-legged medium-sized opponent so that the entire adventure will be anticlimactic once combat begins.

stainboy

2011-03-07, 04:11 PM

They're both different mediums, 4th will provide you with a story where the battles and action scenes can be cinematic. You can have people jumping between rooves, the party cutting through a crowd of mooks and a big boss battle to top it off.

Mind elaborating on this? My experience was exactly the opposite, and interested in how you handle it.

My problem: Whenever a player performs a special action, you have to make an on-the-fly balance decision about how it works. In 3e, this is fine. You have a short list of things to compare it to (standard attack, tripping, tanglefoot bags, normal movement). In 4e you also have to check it against every power to make sure the character isn't getting a power for free or stepping on some other class's toes.

To put it another way, in 3.5 a lot of people are comfortable with players using Tumble for things other than avoiding AoOs or throwing sand in an enemy's eyes even though there's no maneuver for that. But almost no one is comfortable with players making up spells on the spot. In 4e everything that matters in combat is a "spell."

Reverent-One

2011-03-07, 04:36 PM

Mind elaborating on this? My experience was exactly the opposite, and interested in how you handle it.

Probably through use of the table of the DMG on pg 42. Want to do some creative stunt? DM picks a DC from the table (and damage, if appropriate to the stunt), tells you exactly what sort of check to make, and there you go. There's no need to compare it every other power in existence.

kyoryu

2011-03-07, 04:46 PM

You're both taking him too literally!

Of course he wants a story to develop from play; what he's saying is that what excites him about prepping for the game is this exotic tale of say mad fish-men taking over a sleepy village and abducting its inhabitants for bizarre undersea rituals, and he can't wait for the pcs to come in and untangle the mystery of this secret cult. He wants to spend his prep time coming up with how the cult operates, who is in on it, how the fish-men can manage to look normal enough to mingle with society, etc., not the fact that one of the pcs has that chain of tripping feats that allows him to mop the floor with any two-legged medium-sized opponent so that the entire adventure will be anticlimactic once combat begins.

Um, no, you're not understanding me (understandable, since you wrote a long paragraph based on a simple affirmation of agreement). The story develops from a combination of the backstory, the actions of the characters, and how the world reacts and evolves as a consequence. It is ultimately about the players discovering the story of their characters, not being told a story by the DM.

Sipex

2011-03-07, 04:47 PM

Mind elaborating on this? My experience was exactly the opposite, and interested in how you handle it.

My problem: Whenever a player performs a special action, you have to make an on-the-fly balance decision about how it works. In 3e, this is fine. You have a short list of things to compare it to (standard attack, tripping, tanglefoot bags, normal movement). In 4e you also have to check it against every power to make sure the character isn't getting a power for free or stepping on some other class's toes.

To put it another way, in 3.5 a lot of people are comfortable with players using Tumble for things other than avoiding AoOs or throwing sand in an enemy's eyes even though there's no maneuver for that. But almost no one is comfortable with players making up spells on the spot. In 4e everything that matters in combat is a "spell."

This is all dependant on DM but jumping from rooftops is easy, there are acrobatics and athletics which can both be used for that (and rules for it) but for things which aren't defined I wing it, I use the table from page 42 of the DMG and choose an appropriate DC (if applicable) and the proper skill. I don't worry about players getting powers for free because it makes sense and is fun.

"What" you might say "Why do you have powers at all then?"

I make it weaker for one, my rogue throws sand in his opponents eyes? It blinds them but it doesn't do any damage. It also functions like an encounter power because the rest of the enemies see this tactic and know to expect it (meaning I'll let him use it but he knows it won't work unless he makes a good case).

Sometimes you just gotta wing things to make the game fun for your players, 4e encourages this with the 'Yes, but..." approach and the table on page 42 of the DMG. In TLDR; terms, pg 42 is basically "Wing it".

stainboy

2011-03-07, 05:08 PM

Probably through use of the table of the DMG on pg 42. Want to do some creative stunt? DM picks a DC from the table (and damage, if appropriate to the stunt), tells you exactly what sort of check to make, and there you go. There's no need to compare it every other power in existence.

Well, yes, there is. Page 42 tells you you can make up rules. It doesn't do the work of making them good or balanced rules. YMMV of course, but I believe the rest of the system makes it very hard to make up good or balanced rules on the spot.

There's a reason every 4e player on the internet knows the page number for Rule 0. Page 42 comes up constantly in 4e discussions because it's antithetical to the rest of the system. Nobody knows what page says you can make stuff up in 3.5 or White Wolf or whatever. It's just assumed and it's implicit in the entire rest of the text. 4e is the only RPG system I can think of where players have to constantly remind each other that they can do things not defined in the rules.

Reverent-One

2011-03-07, 05:17 PM

Well, yes, there is. Page 42 tells you you can make up rules. It doesn't do the work of making them good or balanced rules. YMMV of course, but I believe the rest of the system makes it very hard to make up good or balanced rules on the spot.

What are you talking about? There's a table giving appropriate DCs and damage ratings for custom stunts, which is exactly the work required to make good and balanced rules. Which page 42 are you looking at?

There's a reason every 4e player on the internet knows the page number for Rule 0. Page 42 comes up constantly in 4e discussions because it's antithetical to the rest of the system. Nobody knows what page says you can make stuff up in 3.5 or White Wolf or whatever. It's just assumed and it's implicit in the entire rest of the text. 4e is the only RPG system I can think of where players have to constantly remind each other that they can do things not defined in the rules.

The point of pg 42 is not that it simply tells you that you can do things not defined in the rules, but it tells the DM how to do so.

stainboy

2011-03-07, 05:59 PM

It gives DCs for skill checks and damage figures for environmental damage. Nothing about status effects, and no guidelines about competing with movement powers.

The example of use is poorly written and shows that the writer is trying to play it safe. The character swings from a chandelier and kicks an ogre into a brazier. Here's what happened mechanically:

-The character made an Acrobatics check and swung from a chandelier. No indication is given that the character ignored difficult terrain or moved further than her normal speed or evaded attacks of opportunity.

-The character kicked the ogre, rolled Strength vs Fortitude, and forced the ogre to move 5'.

-The ogre entered the brazier's space and took damage.

So the character single moves (as far as we know), performs a Bull Rush using the exact written rules for a bull rush, and then the target suffers damage from a terrain hazard that was already placed on the field with the amount of damage pulled off a table. The only way in which this differs from by-the-book 4e combat is that the character has to make a skill check to move instead of moving for free.

valadil

2011-03-07, 06:11 PM

My problem: Whenever a player performs a special action, you have to make an on-the-fly balance decision about how it works. In 3e, this is fine. You have a short list of things to compare it to (standard attack, tripping, tanglefoot bags, normal movement). In 4e you also have to check it against every power to make sure the character isn't getting a power for free or stepping on some other class's toes.

The range of power in 4e is quite a bit tighter than in 3.5. It's usually obvious what powers fall into at-will, encounter, and daily levels of effectiveness. Once you've played a few characters in 4e you won't have to check against everything. You can just make something up and go with it.

Most of the time I've had to do something like this, the new ability of a player is essentially a charge with a move check in the middle. It's not going to break the game. If it's a little more powerful than at at-will, fine. That's the player's reward for thinking of something outside of the book. If it's powerful enough that players do it every round, then I'll errata my own rule. Most of these rulings get used once anyway. And even if "jump over one roof into a flying tackle to knock someone else off the other roof" is overpowered, how often will the player's get to use it?