Ewen Cluney thinks 4th Edition was your fault

[Vanitas]

This is a blog post (http://yarukizerogames.com/2013/04/01/dd-4es-influences-and-problems/) by Ewen Cluney, a translator and RPG designer (unless you only play D&D, you have probably heard of him). In this article he approaches 4th Edition and its influences and he mentions something I had never ever considered -4E's streamlined and linear gameplay owes its existence to the CharOp scene. In fact, once he mentioned it, I could see so many other signs - whenever the designers would talk about 3.5 in interviews, they would make it so very clear that they thought it was a horrible game, very flawed, very bad. They thought this would gain them track with their audience. They thought theorethical optimization meant people didn't really like 3.5, since everyone was poking holes in it (nevermind that the same thing happened with 4E before it was even released, but oh they couldn't know that).
Isn't that, I don't know, interesting? Just sharing the blog post, since it's pretty good and something I had never noticed myself.

[The Insanity]

To me it was obvious.

[The Mormegil]

I think the rest of the article is a lot more interesting. What you highlighted is not really news.

Also I will note that while CharOp was flagrant, unbalanced parties existed even with no internet access. Optimizing is more of a state of mind than a practical choice.

[Sam K]

They thought theorethical optimization meant people didn't really like 3.5, since everyone was poking holes in it

This just shows that wizards HasClue flag is set to 0.

[Eldariel]

Some old 339 Char Ops people were involved in the making of 4E, so yes, this isn't only a theory. Of course, that doesn't really mean anything; if I had been making 4E I would've driven a very different vision based specifically on the separate systems 3E used with a wider skill system (and more heavily geared towards non-magical classes), maintaining the free multiclassing but rewriting it into a functional system (the ½ level rule from ToB is fine). Then completely reimagine monstrous PCs (probably introduced a separate racial growth adjacent to the class growth to enable the abilities to be acquired without imbalancing them vs. the traditional races or use terrible systems like LA), throw CR down the trash bin, rewrite spells ground up, etc.

My point being, people have different ideas of what's important and what isn't. My vision would probably be met with a lot of opposition on the designer-side of things for instance, but much less from the fandom (mostly because I'd keep the aspects usually cited as the reasons to play 3E). And I'm sure a hundred other visions exist.

[Kurald Galain]

It's a nice summary, but it says nothing that we didn't already know several years earlier :smallbiggrin: Yes, one of the mistakes WOTC made was assuming that a vocal minority on message boards spoke for all 3E players as a whole; but that can hardly account for all the criticism of 4E.

[Darrin]

4E's streamlined and linear gameplay owes its existence to the CharOp scene.

This is why I like to think of 3.x as a "brilliant hot mess". PrCs, feats, all the little fiddly options that drive people nuts are both the system's greatest weakness and it's greatest triumph. Yes, it's riddled with broken loopholes but the flexibility and room for imagination can be extremely satisfying.

But all design is a series of intertangled trade-offs. Put the class choices on rails, streamline chargen, make all the daily/encounter powers functionally the same, linear class feature progression... you make a game that's easier to teach, easier for new/casual players to jump in, more balanced quicker smoother gameplay... but you also get a more boring, sterile, predictable experience.

So whenever any designer makes claims about something ruining the game, you've got to look deeper. One person's bug is another person's feature. If you're going to change or remove something, you've got to make sure you know everything that it adds to the game, and everything that will get worse if you take it out.

I'm curious to see if 5E can bridge the gap between 3E and 4E. Haven't really been following it, but from what I understand it keeps lurching in and out of a Grand Compromise: meets most of the major design objectives, but nobody is happy with it.

[Eldariel]

This is why I like to think of 3.x as a "brilliant hot mess". PrCs, feats, all the little fiddly options that drive people nuts are both the system's greatest weakness and it's greatest triumph. Yes, it's riddled with broken loopholes but the flexibility and room for imagination can be extremely satisfying.

Those two are hardly in a causal relationship tho. The biggest loopholes in 3E hardly even influence the varied, rich character building options it offers. Mostly I'd say the only trade-off in having as many options as 3E is that it takes longer to properly design it all (so that Shining Blades of Heironeous don't happen), and that there'll inevitably be bad combinations (but those can be avoided).

[Togo]

Didn't realise this was a controvertial opinion. Yes, many of what I see as the flaws of 4e are the result of people of forums like this, claiming that the game is broken because they can delibrerately misinterpret the rules to bizzarre effect.

To be fair though, the stronger influence is the desire on the part of WoTC to create a rival to WoW for on-line gaming. That would also require an exploit-resistant system, since there would be less of a role for DM judgement in the implementation of a computer game.

[Eldariel]

...claiming that the game is broken because they can delibrerately misinterpret the rules to bizzarre effect.

...so every problem in the system is a misinterpretation? Seems like a pretty bold claim, one I'm certain you cannot back up if we get down to details.

[Tommy2255]

Yes, many of what I see as the flaws of 4e are the result of people of forums like this, claiming that the game is broken because they can delibrerately misinterpret the rules to bizzarre effect.

I don't think that's what anybody on forums like this is claiming, though. It's not broken because you can create bizarre effects with the rules, it has an additional layer of entertainment, even away from the table, because the rules interact in interesting ways. Even things that no sane person would allow at the table, like the tainted scholar necropolitan exploit, it was fun to discover independently. And even setting aside the clearly broken stuff, character design in 3.5 takes effort. Finding the right synergies, qualifying for the right prestige classes, finding out about some feat you didn't read properly and realizing that it's actually perfect, it takes work, and that's a way to reward the player for being good at something while still playing a game that's entirely focused on what the character is good at. Anyone can make a character in 4e that's (more or less) about as good as any other character in 4e.

There are some things I like about 4e. I love marking people. I like rituals, even if they aren't anywhere near a substitute for an actual spell list with a variety of spells that do things other than kill stuff. There are other things I dislike. The alignment system isn't perfect in 3.5, but I can't imagine the person who looked at it and thought "You know what would help to represent the intricacies of ethics and philosophy? Cutting out half the chart". And the skills just being trained or untrained instead of skill points is literally the worst thing that has ever happened. But really, it's cutting out all the complexity in character building that I really dislike.

[Darrin]

To be fair though, the stronger influence is the desire on the part of WoTC to create a rival to WoW for on-line gaming. That would also require an exploit-resistant system, since there would be less of a role for DM judgement in the implementation of a computer game.

I'm with Ewen on this, I don't think this objective was as strong as you claim. The objective was to attract MMORPG players, not completely replace or model WoW. If they really wanted to port a MMORPG into tabletop form, it would have been a completely different game.

[Gemini476]

claiming that the game is broken because they can delibrerately misinterpret the rules to bizzarre effect.

You don't even need to misinterpret it, half of the time. It works somewhat fine at lower levels, but past 6ish? Nah. I mean, really, just look at something like Animate Dead - they clearly knew something about the Action Economy, seeing as some of the books talk about it, so why on earth do all the ways to work your minionmancy exist? Not to mention the skill system, which is broken to hell and back by virtue of the sheer size of the modifiers (two level 20 characters could have a -5 and a +36 to the check, respectively).

And then you get things like the Druid, where the playtester didn't even use the class features.

It's a fun game, sure, and the potential for optimization is sky-high, but it's fundamentally broken. 4E suffers from different problems (which is appropriate, since it's a different game), but it also has issues. Like temporary powers (usable items, rituals) taking permanent wealth, or some of the Essentials content (looking at you, Pixie and Vampire), or even some infinite loops of it's own (there's something where two Warlocks can teleport to adjacent spaces for an arbitrary amount of time, triggering of the other one teleporting, IIRC).

Neither of them are perfect systems (no system is! I like Eclipse Phase, for instance, but it's a mess), but it doesn't exactly take imagination to break 3.5's precarious balance in half.

[Chronos]

Personally, I think it's one of D&D's greatest strengths that it's complicated enough that interactions arose that couldn't have been anticipated by the designers. Now, some of those specific interactions are overpowered and need to be banned on a case-by-case basis, but that's why we have DMs. It's still a tribute to the system, though, that things like the d2 crusader can exist.

[Gemini476]

Personally, I think it's one of D&D's greatest strengths that it's complicated enough that interactions arose that couldn't have been anticipated by the designers. Now, some of those specific interactions are overpowered and need to be banned on a case-by-case basis, but that's why we have DMs. It's still a tribute to the system, though, that things like the d2 crusader can exist.

What, that someone made a thing that gave you exploding damage dice, someone else made a thing that turned a one on a damage die into a two, and both of them didn't think of it interacting with weapons that deal d2 damage?

The greatest strength of the d20 system was its size. The greatest weakness of it was also its size. It's basically a perfect example of having too many cooks, really. Like there being what, three different rules for falling?

The worst offenders are the ones that are in the same book, like Cancer Mages with Festering Anger. I guess sometimes the devs just don't look at each others work.

[Tommy2255]

The worst offenders are the ones that are in the same book, like Cancer Mages with Festering Anger. I guess sometimes the devs just don't look at each others work.

No, the worst offenders are the things that couldn't have ever seemed like a good idea. Like Festering Anger. It doesn't need Cancer Mage. Just any way to get rid of the Con damage. You don't need to know anything about optimization to be like "hold on a tick, that actually sounds like a good thing". Or thought bottles. You don't need an exploit to make them broken. Their actual, written functionality is fundamentally broken. Any additional optimization is just gravy. But those sorts of things are really easy to either get rid of entirely or know exactly when the PC has crossed the line and needs to be smacked upside the head with any or all of the core rulebooks, so they don't really create a huge problem in actual play.

[Invader]

The simple solution to fix most of the truly broken stuff in 3.5 was to just release more errata. It's no one's fault that the writer of a particular ability wasn't able to predict how it would coexist with every other single ability in the game. Lack of support is what caused 3.5 to be so unbalanced.

[HaikenEdge]

I think the reason 4th Edition came out the way it did, wasn't because Char Op in 3.5; Theoretical CharOp was always for fun and was full of affection for the system, because you weren't actually supposed to use those builds in games, so saying it was the reason 4E turned out the way it was is kind of missing the forest for the pieces of bark on a tree.

The reason why 3.5 was considered bad by the designers is because they didn't seem to be playing the same game as the players, and when this was pointed out, they didn't care enough to fix the problem within the system, but cared enough to have their feelings hurt, so they decided to build a system that seemed more difficult to abuse, without changing the way they played the game. It's a problem of theory versus execution; your theory can be great and all, but if you don't playtest the game the way players, who will always try to exploit the rules, play the game, you'll never actually know how broken something can be.

[Vanitas]

The reason why 3.5 was considered bad by the designers is because they didn't seem to be playing the same game as the players, and when this was pointed out, they didn't care enough to fix the problem within the system, but cared enough to have their feelings hurt, so they decided to build a system that seemed more difficult to abuse, without changing the way they played the game. It's a problem of theory versus execution; your theory can be great and all, but if you don't playtest the game the way players, who will always try to exploit the rules, play the game, you'll never actually know how broken something can be.

4e designers =/= 3rd edition designers

[Darrin]

The simple solution to fix most of the truly broken stuff in 3.5 was to just release more errata. It's no one's fault that the writer of a particular ability wasn't able to predict how it would coexist with every other single ability in the game. Lack of support is what caused 3.5 to be so unbalanced.

But the designers were really bad at errata. Well, ok maybe this is anecdotal rather than general, but look at the Leap Attack errata. Or the Chuck/Footsteps errata.


4e designers =/= 3rd edition designers

This is true, but misleading. The 4E designers had to be familiar enough with 3E that they knew what the design goals were, and knew enough about 3E that they wanted to "fix" it.

There were two problems with character design/optmization. 3E was so choked with options, you had high-end optimizers breaking planets in half at level 1, and you had casual players making simple choices that made unplayably horrible characters that sucked the fun out of the game (I'm looking at you, Mr. Monk). While I certainly see the advantage to streamlining that, I can also boggle at the failures and missed opportunities.

[Karnith]

But the designers were really bad at errata. Well, ok maybe this is anecdotal rather than general, but look at the Leap Attack errata. Or the Chuck/Footsteps errata.
Or the Tome of Battle errata, for that matter. Yes, I know it's not the same

[Invader]

Or the Tome of Battle errata, for that matter. I know it's not the same

I see what you did there :smallbiggrin:

[Darrin]

Or the Tome of Battle errata, for that matter. I know it's not the same

That is the Highlander II of errata. WE DO NOT DISCUSS SUCH THINGS.

Now if I could only convince Sinfire Titan that the unofficial ToB errata (www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=335.0) isn't complete... *sigh*

[Big Fau]

That is the Highlander II of errata. WE DO NOT DISCUSS SUCH THINGS.

Now if I could only convince Sinfire Titan that the unofficial ToB errata (www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=335.0) isn't complete... *sigh*

You know he's a moderator over there, right? You can probably just email him.

On-topic: I really wish they would have looked more at the handbooks than at the TO section of 339. Much more relevant information.

[Zirconia]

The worst offenders are the ones that are in the same book, like Cancer Mages with Festering Anger. I guess sometimes the devs just don't look at each others work.

I had a friend hired to write half of a World of Darkness supplement book, he didn't get to look at the other half being written by the other person until the whole book was published. It is not always the fault of the writer. . .

[StreamOfTheSky]

If there's anything I blame the customers for, it's 4E's insane addiction to patching errata-ing the hell out of the rules. To the point where waves of changes were coming down for the core books even before they were released.

Because all throughout 3E, people complained so freaking much about them not fixing mistakes enough. So they overreacted way too hard the other way, nerfing anything that got complained about even if it really wasn't that bad.

Look, I know they really did drop the ball on 3E errata and didn't even do some books at all. But seriously, give people a microphone, and someone will surely whine about *anything.* There comes a point where listening to your own customers goes way too freaking far, and 4E crossed home plate and kept on running right out of the stadium.

The hard truth is...blatantly broken things are blatantly broken. Some might not realize it when they read it, but if not they will once it's used in game very fast. DMs have never ever had a problem with banning or nerfing things they think are too much, IME. Never. While pun pun may be a blotch to your cred as a designer...no one's actually going to get to use that in a game.
On the other hand, it's a very difficult and touchy subject to get a DM to *boost* something that's underpowered; I'm dreaded too many times wanting to play a monk or whatever and trying to think of how to delicately and politely ask the DM to throw me a bone.

When you errata based on fan outrage and whoever shouts the loudest, guess which of the two situations gets addressed way more often?

[Snowbluff]

This is why I like to think of 3.x as a "brilliant hot mess". PrCs, feats, all the little fiddly options that drive people nuts are both the system's greatest weakness and it's greatest triumph. Yes, it's riddled with broken loopholes but the flexibility and room for imagination can be extremely satisfying.

But all design is a series of intertangled trade-offs. Put the class choices on rails, streamline chargen, make all the daily/encounter powers functionally the same, linear class feature progression... you make a game that's easier to teach, easier for new/casual players to jump in, more balanced quicker smoother gameplay... but you also get a more boring, sterile, predictable experience.

So whenever any designer makes claims about something ruining the game, you've got to look deeper. One person's bug is another person's feature. If you're going to change or remove something, you've got to make sure you know everything that it adds to the game, and everything that will get worse if you take it out.

I'm curious to see if 5E can bridge the gap between 3E and 4E. Haven't really been following it, but from what I understand it keeps lurching in and out of a Grand Compromise: meets most of the major design objectives, but nobody is happy with it.
I empathize strongly with this. While I dislike PF for not changing enough, I find 4e too different to enjoy as much as 3.5. I do play some 4e with a couple of savvy players and quite a few really dumb ones (our psion keeps moving baddies to awkward positions), so we can't really pull off the teamwork aspect as much as I would like...

I'm going to say this now. All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players. Figuring out how to deal with these differences in a party (like the Tier System) and effectively communicating this is ideal for the people who like a party of fighters and healers. Stream is right, DMs should have no problem nerfing or changing something that doesn't work in the game they are playing.

No one should ever want to play a monk, though. It's all about friars. :smalltongue:

[Deophaun]

On the other hand, it's a very difficult and touchy subject to get a DM to *boost* something that's underpowered; I'm dreaded too many times wanting to play a monk or whatever and trying to think of how to delicately and politely ask the DM to throw me a bone.
That's not really a problem with 4e, though. If something is underpowered, it's a power or a feat, not really an entire class (certain post-Essential classes excepted). So the solution is to just swap out the lackluster ability at the next level.

Now, this can be a problem if a class has no support ::cough::Seeker::cough::, but generally the more powers released, the less of an issue weak powers become, so there's no real need for a boost.

[Darrin]

All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.

I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

[Raven777]

so why on earth do all the ways to work your minionmancy exist?

Because it's fun?

[Lord Vukodlak]

All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

Seconded!.

[Chronos]

The reason I specifically mentioned the d2 crusader is that the individual pieces are perfectly reasonable. Exploding dice aren't broken; they only add about one point of damage, on average (they can be much more, but only if you're really, really lucky). And turning 1s into 2s isn't broken, either: Even in the most extreme case of the d2, it only adds a half a point. And neither of those things is anywhere near common enough in D&D that you'd expect the designer of one to anticipate the other. But put them together, and BAM.

This is in contrast to things like Festering Anger, which as Tommy2255 points out, is broken all by itself. Well, maybe not entirely by itself, but all you need to break it is a Lesser Restoration, a core spell. Or Naberius. Or a Strongheart Vest soulmeld. Or, heck, faster-than-normal natural healing. There are enough ways to heal ability damage that the author of Festering Anger really should have anticipated abuse.

[Snowbluff]

I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.


Seconded!.

Not sure if honestly complimenting, or just making fun. :smallredface:

[Nightgaun7]

4E is the best edition of D&D so far. If CharOp being a catalyst in the design process was important, then so much the better.

[HaikenEdge]

4E is the best edition of D&D so far. If CharOp being a catalyst in the design process was important, then so much the better.

You'll have to explain this one to me; to me, it's the worst version of D&D, because it plays almost exactly like an MMO, and if I want to play an MMO, I'll play an MMO.

[Nightgaun7]

You'll have to explain this one to me; to me, it's the worst version of D&D, because it plays almost exactly like an MMO, and if I want to play an MMO, I'll play an MMO.

The short version is that I enjoy playing and DMing it far more than I ever did 3.5.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Not sure if honestly complimenting, or just making fun. :smallredface:
Can't it be both? but seriously its a compliment.

[Suddo]

"Your fault" makes it sound like it is a negative. The parts of 4e I like are due to CharOp, this is the tactical side. Sure Encounter Powers were weird and taunting-like abilities but over all the combat was streamlined and more interesting, everyone contributed and in their own style.

Parts of 4e I dislike are things like fluff. Basically no Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good is a clear point I don't like.

[ericgrau]

It could be charop's fault that 4e doesn't have the miriad of awesome options that 3.5 does. Because many options leads to many combos leads to exploit-ability in a way where it's nearly impossible to check it all. Some limitations are nice but they may have gotten a bit far for those who want to play 3.5e. Other aspects aren't necessarily bad, only different. Many of us don't want to play that kind of game, others do. There are even those who don't want a miriad of options.

Now I think the backlash against 4e which is really the backlash against the backlash against 3e is leading to 5e where they try to seek some kind of middle ground that appeals to all crowds. I haven't seen much of 5e so I dunno how it'll turn out, but I'm a bit afraid that you can't please everyone. I think in parts of 4e they were on to something in creating a different game and they should have had it branch off instead. And make two games under distinct names & styles rather than trying to eliminate aspects of either system. Other rules are quite nice as optional rules rather than a different system, but if they try to make most of the system optional to make it more widely appealing I think it'll be a confusing mess.

[Deophaun]

You'll have to explain this one to me; to me, it's the worst version of D&D, because it plays almost exactly like an MMO, and if I want to play an MMO, I'll play an MMO.
P1: "Darn it! That monster beat us to the gold node!"
P2: "That's okay, I see another to the North on my local map"

P1: "I've got 100 pieces of ironwood, so let me take the next ten minutes and turn them into bows to get my crafting skill up."

DM: "OK, you're walking along the road, and suddenly 10 NPCs that are twenty levels higher than you appear."
P1: "So, do we roll for initiative?"
DM: "Too, late, they've already killed you."
P2: "WTF?"
DM: "If you didn't want to be ganked, you shouldn't have wandered in to the Battlefield."

P1: "LFG RHoD, 2 more. No Fighters!"

Yeah, doesn't play anything like an MMO.

[The Trickster]

The short version is that I enjoy playing and DMing it far more than I ever did 3.5.

I will say that it is much easier to DM. Easier rules, less broken stuff, easier to pick up and play.

I only disagree on a personal level because I found 4.0 to be boring on a DM and player level.

[Captnq]

I used to play magic. And this was this one guy named Mike who build the land destruction deck. Now, the land destruction deck won. It always won. You had three rounds to win, or he won. His deck cost over 900 dollars in 1994.

Clearly that needed to be fixed!

Here's how we fixed it. We refused to play with him. He loved that deck, but it wasn't any fun. He could completely destroy up to 6 other players in 3 rounds. It was boring as hell.

Guess what? That's why nobody plays Pun-Pun.

That's why there are house rules. That's why 3.5 works. Because if you have the balls, you can run some sort of insane 35th level epic campaign. And if you don't, you can scale it back to 5th level and have just as much fun.

4th edition was like training wheels. It was like a MMORG, except slow and without the Massive. It was bland. It also cut off the major reason 3.5 exploded was because anyone could publish and make a few bucks. They made it like pulling teeth to get approval. You couldn't publish 3.5 AND 4th. Did you know that? You had to pick one or the other.

And we're not idiots. We're smart. We can figure things out. WotC cared about one thing, MONEY. Screw the players, we got demographics. We will TELL you what you want.

We caught on when you started getting rid of old pictures you still had to pay royalties on. When you killed off characters so you didn't have to keep the old authors, we got it. You couldn't give a crap.

It's failure was simple. They thought we were stupid and we'd just keep throwing money at them. They disrespected us and they forgot they AREN'T the only game in town. We can make up our own just fine. We don't need them. Frankly 5th edition will have to come on it's own dedicated laptop that comes with the purchase of the base rule set before I even think of being a player and it had better be under a hundred. And so HELP me, if they mandate that I HAVE to use their on line service, I will animate Zombie Gygax to devour them all.

[Segev]

4th edition was ... like a MMORG

Much of this post was fine and full of good points, but this particular characterization of 4e is one I wish we would stop making. I don't care for 4e as an excuse for D&D, myself, but it isn't anything like an MMO.

What it is...is a board game. A tactical board game with a lot of fiddly bits for designing your playing pieces' rules.

This is best evinced by such board games as Castle Ravenloft, which uses 4e-style mechanics for its pseudo-D&D characters. It's fun. It's well designed. It even echoes D&D enough that "D&D the board game" is a believable thing to call it.

4e fails to be D&D because D&D has not been a board game for a long time. Sure, we used battle mats. Sure, it started as a war game. But it has been a special kind of dungeon-crawler, evolving into a cooperative storytelling game (for some), for quite some time. And the central mechanics? They were steps AWAY from the simple war game on which it was based.

3e and earlier D&D have more in common with MMOs than does 4e. It's not surprising. MMOs grew out of the D&D traditions, and adapted for the new medium.

I don't care for 4e as a role-playing game. I don't care for it as "D&D." But calling it "an MMO" is not accurate, and it only discredits us as serious critics before we even start discussing the issue when we use said comparison.

[Snowbluff]

Can't it be both? but seriously its a compliment.
Yay!

I'll put it in my sig. I hit the character limit, so I'll have to make a linked one for the handbooks and homebrew...

"Your fault" makes it sound like it is a negative. The parts of 4e I like are due to CharOp, this is the tactical side. Sure Encounter Powers were weird and taunting-like abilities but over all the combat was streamlined and more interesting, everyone contributed and in their own style.

Parts of 4e I dislike are things like fluff. Basically no Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good is a clear point I don't like.

I like the idea of 4e, but the limits put on the players definitely detract from the fun. I like how it encourages tactical use of powers, but it's limiting most of them during fights. I've got combos set up on the rogue I built for a game, but it's pretty much like a PUG in an MMO. No one has any synergy with my feat selections, like World Serpent's Grasp, and that also limits the variety of combat.

[Deophaun]

I only disagree on a personal level because I found 4.0 to be boring on a DM and player level.
See, I'm the opposite from the DM's perspective.

In 3.5, if I do anything as a DM, it's expected that the players will be able to do it as well. If I want to make an expert whip-using NPC that's a threat to the party, I have to turn over looking for the right feats, classes, PrCs, magic items, etc., and there's no guarantee that the stuff i want even exists.

4th? Screw that. Monsters and PCs are different. I want an NPC that is a frightfully effective whip user? I make up a few powers and five minutes later I have my frightfully effective whip user. As long as I have a clear idea of what I want, coming up with a character or obstacle and fitting it into the rules is practically effortless.

Now, that's not to say you can't homebrew in 3.5 (as the homebrew section on this forum makes clear). But 4th is much more friendly to it (and more encouraging) because the expectations are different.

[Captnq]

Yeah, doesn't play anything like an MMO.

Diagonal Speed Boost: In 4th edition. To simplify the movement rules, moving one square diagonally counts as one square, and one square only, leading to the speed boost. Most of the earlier editions have a slight diagonal speed penalty, in that moving one square diagonally counts as 1.5 squares. Because, you know, math is hard.

They Nerfed alignments because morality is hard. You know, Like a MMORG doesn't care about good or evil, just how many points and stuff.

In 4th, every NPC is a Bot who wanders about a preset course. They cannot see through open doorways.

When they fixed and balanced the combat, and REMOVED literally every single part of the game that wasn't combat. You know, like a MMORG.

It's a MMORG. Deal with it. Just accept the truth that 4th was all about the money. 5th edition is most likely all about the money as well.

We are on our own in the wilderness.

[Suddo]

I like the idea of 4e, but the limits put on the players definitely detract from the fun. I like how it encourages tactical use of powers, but limiting most of them during fights. I've got combos set up on the rogue I built for a game, but it's pretty much like a PUG in an MMO. No one has any synergy with my feat selections, like World Serpent's Grasp, and that also limits the variety of combat.

Yeah that's the problem. By making every class be a "type of character" (Healer (AKA Leader), DPS (Striker), Tank, and Controller) you force the design of the encounters to be a certain way. The reason I like having a fighter in the party is because he is the Tank and usually DPS-y (due to no "threat" system).

[Captnq]

{{scrubbed}}

[awa]

No that not what he said (at least i don't think he did)
if im not mistaken what hes saying is he finds the mentality that monster are allowed to have abilities that pcs cant easier to make encounters for. It a legitimate opinion and one i share i often give foes simplified versions of pc powers reducing book keeping and making them easier to keep track of particularly when engaged in large battles.

while the mentality in third edition is that if a monster has a power it must be available for pc use. How many times have you seen people complaining that the dm banned a feat or class and then be angry when the npcs had.

Unless I'm mistaken that is what hes talking about

[Surrealistik]

The short version is that I enjoy playing and DMing it far more than I ever did 3.5.

This, but I'll elaborate: I know it's entirely anecdotal, but I personally was _damn_ sick of all the fights/arguments about what was and was not overpowered after my 3.5 groups fruitlessly tried to peg character strength to a certain standard no one could ultimately agree on, while party members kept being blatantly overshadowed and marginalized, especially by caster types. To be fair, it may be because the people I played with happened to be contentious, but this has been my inevitable experience across many different groups.

In 4e, the lack of extreme variation in power levels largely obviates the need for gentlemen's agreements & bans. Though there are a handful of things that are centralizing and overpowered, they're not gamebreaking as a rule, and are easily identified and excluded without ambiguity.

Also yes, 4e is not a MMORPG; the combat plays like a tactical tabletop game. I disagree with criticisms of 4e combat being 'slow' furthermore; that's generally a function of character level (more levels = more viable options), and more importantly, player familiarity with the system. If you're playing late heroic and beyond with a bunch of indecisive new players loaded down with good options, yeah, your average encounter is probably going to run at a snails pace.

[ericgrau]

Wait wait wait wait WAIT.

Did... did you JUST POST... that...
Lol it's true every edition has homebrew. Maybe he meant the mechanics are simpler so it's easier to BS. Though 3.5e has more premade options with years of opinions on them which is important when you don't have time to playtest.

Anyway as for the MMO bit. When many disparate people who have never seen the arguments about it being an MMO immediately say it's like an MMO... ya it's like an MMO. It's like a board game too. Of course it isn't identical to any particular one because it's its own game and it's meaningless to point that out. It's like any gamey game that's on a simpler level than 3e because that's what it is. With all the pros and cons of such. Just accept it or even embrace it. I don't think I personally could play a long 4e campaign but it was fun for a little while like a lot of board games or computer games and many people may like that style. I liked to track my powers with skittles and I knew they were expended when I ate the skittle on top of it.

I think there were similar complaints from 2e to 3e whenever they cut something out to make things easier. Though it wasn't nearly so extensive and while it lost a lot 3e still kept quite a lot. Losing detail to get your ease is the tradeoff you have to take when you make things simpler.

[Deophaun]

Diagonal Speed Boost: In 4th edition. To simplify the movement rules, moving one square diagonally counts as one square, and one square only, leading to the speed boost. Most of the earlier editions have a slight diagonal speed penalty, in that moving one square diagonally counts as 1.5 squares. Because, you know, math is hard.
It's more to do with fireball than it is with movement. It's also more to do with speed than difficulty. That said, MMORPGs can deal with perfect circles, and do, because math is easy on a computer.

They Nerfed alignments because morality is hard. You know, Like a MMORG doesn't care about good or evil, just how many points and stuff.
This really has nothing to do with MMORPGs. Some do good and evil (SWTOR, for example), some don't. The alignment axis change was dumb, but the alignment system was always dumb to begin with. At least 4 made it easier to ignore, which was a massive improvement.

In 4th, every NPC is a Bot who wanders about a preset course. They cannot see through open doorways.
What. The. $%^& are you talking about Willis?

When they fixed and balanced the combat, and REMOVED literally every single part of the game that wasn't combat. You know, like a MMORG.
No they didn't. Skills, for example, are actually more useful than they ever were in 3.5, inside or outside of combat.

Just accept the truth that 4th was all about the money. 5th edition is most likely all about the money as well.
Here's a truth that may shock you to your core. You know 3.5 and Pathfinder? They're all about the money, too.

You just posted that 4th edition is better because you have to change the rules to make it work?
Nope. I don't have to change any rules (which is why I said "homebrew," not "house rule"). I don't have to change how powers work, how attacks work, how grappling works, how rituals work. But 4th gives me far more powerful tools if I want to add to the game. If I'm making a disease in 3.5, I've got a saving throw, an incubation time, and an effect. If I'm making a disease in 4, I've got an entire condition track, which includes multiple stages, conditions for the disease to get worse, and how to cure it. I can then take that condition track and apply it to poisons if I want, or curses, or insanity, or exposure, or broken limbs, etc., etc.

[Grim Reader]

They thought theorethical optimization meant people didn't really like 3.5, since everyone was poking holes in it (nevermind that the same thing happened with 4E before it was even released, but oh they couldn't know that).

CharOp pointing out flaws with the system does not absolve them of resonsibility for the choices they made to fix those problems.

[Tvtyrant]

I am not sure what the problem is, honestly. They reacted to one problem set by making 3.5 and unifying the system. The reacted to a different set of problems by making 4E, and yet another by making Next. There are tons of RPGs out there with different goals, and it simply makes the community richer to expand the list.

[Spuddles]

Much of this post was fine and full of good points, but this particular characterization of 4e is one I wish we would stop making. I don't care for 4e as an excuse for D&D, myself, but it isn't anything like an MMO.

What it is...is a board game. A tactical board game with a lot of fiddly bits for designing your playing pieces' rules.

This is best evinced by such board games as Castle Ravenloft, which uses 4e-style mechanics for its pseudo-D&D characters. It's fun. It's well designed. It even echoes D&D enough that "D&D the board game" is a believable thing to call it.

4e fails to be D&D because D&D has not been a board game for a long time. Sure, we used battle mats. Sure, it started as a war game. But it has been a special kind of dungeon-crawler, evolving into a cooperative storytelling game (for some), for quite some time. And the central mechanics? They were steps AWAY from the simple war game on which it was based.

3e and earlier D&D have more in common with MMOs than does 4e. It's not surprising. MMOs grew out of the D&D traditions, and adapted for the new medium.

I don't care for 4e as a role-playing game. I don't care for it as "D&D." But calling it "an MMO" is not accurate, and it only discredits us as serious critics before we even start discussing the issue when we use said comparison.

The gamist aspects of 4e are certainly reminiscent of an MMO, largely with party roles, homogeneity of mechanics, and class design around what amounts to a cool down system.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. There's nothing in the system that makes it any more of a rigid RNG fantasy combat simulator than you want.

I dont see what the issue is with comparing it to an MMO. To the people who compare it negatively; so what. Different people like to have fun in different ways. No one is making you switch what you play. Grow up.

[Phelix-Mu]

First of all, to those who like 4e, no probs here. If you like it and have fun, good. Go ahead, give money to the schmucks over at WotC. I mean, it takes all kinds.

What really broke the deal for me was that, in a seeming colossal break with the past array of editions, 4e threw retro compatibility, especially at a setting level, to the wind. No effort was made to carry over core setting elements in the early stages, which, while it might be remedied by later setting-specific books, is basically a kick in the teeth for DMs that have worked extensively in any one setting (or spent time on a custom setting).

Character concepts survived, though often highly deformed, but more specifically, there was no conversion process that was immediately obvious among the materials released with the pre-release stuff I looked at. Existing npcs and pcs would have to be reworked from the ground up, modeled with totally new mechanics that would just have to be handwaved away for any of us that are sticklers for plot-level consistency, if not mechanical consistency.

Finally, I feel they really did low-ball setting complexity a bit. I understand that core cosmology in D&D has always been a bit of a maze to the uninitiated, but they took established D&D memes (the Outer Planes and the Great Wheel) and melted them down into unrecognizable slag.

I hope they later provided materials for this stuff, covering conversion and 3e core setting conjugates, but I was so turned off by the initial presentation of things (and was, at that point, in the midst of a three-year 3.5 campaign that is probably the height of my rpg experience) that I really couldn't be bothered with conducting the actual autopsy on 4e. My group thought it was dumb, it made me cry, and that was enough for me. Bye bye, WotC. Never again shall even a wee farthing of mine weigh down thy purse.

[Raven777]

We are on our own in the wilderness.

Now, if only there was something to help us Find some kind of Path...

[Mithril Leaf]

See, I'm the opposite from the DM's perspective.

In 3.5, if I do anything as a DM, it's expected that the players will be able to do it as well. If I want to make an expert whip-using NPC that's a threat to the party, I have to turn over looking for the right feats, classes, PrCs, magic items, etc., and there's no guarantee that the stuff i want even exists.

4th? Screw that. Monsters and PCs are different. I want an NPC that is a frightfully effective whip user? I make up a few powers and five minutes later I have my frightfully effective whip user. As long as I have a clear idea of what I want, coming up with a character or obstacle and fitting it into the rules is practically effortless.

Now, that's not to say you can't homebrew in 3.5 (as the homebrew section on this forum makes clear). But 4th is much more friendly to it (and more encouraging) because the expectations are different.

As a player and a DM I would consider that one of the big weaknesses of 4e. Monsters and PCs are just different. A DM already has the ability to do whatever he wants with the world, a PC having more access to world building and monster resources usually makes my gaming experience richer. Being able to play monsters (at least in theory, practice often falls flat) means that you gain a whole new play dynamic in many ways. If you want to play a game where you can do anything (which is the main appeal of a DM run game rather than a computer run game) why wouldn't you want the players to be able to be monsters?

[Drachasor]

I'm going to say this now. All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players. Figuring out how to deal with these differences in a party (like the Tier System) and effectively communicating this is ideal for the people who like a party of fighters and healers. Stream is right, DMs should have no problem nerfing or changing something that doesn't work in the game they are playing.

A lot of DMs are not very good at house rules. 3.X designers apparently didn't realize that DMs in general are not game designers. How many times do we see, just on the forums, examples of house rules that are stupid, short-sighted, and make the game worse? Balance is a complicated thing, so it is not trivial to tweak things.

Rather than make a game that's terribly flawed and exploitable, you could just design one that supports multiple power levels out of the box. A game designed this way would indicate the power levels and what that means to the DM and players. Then you don't foist a bunch of work on the community whilst making the game more difficult on people that don't frequent message boards.

[Mithril Leaf]

A lot of DMs are not very good at house rules. 3.X designers apparently didn't realize that DMs in general are not game designers. How many times do we see, just on the forums, examples of house rules that are stupid, short-sighted, and make the game worse? Balance is a complicated thing, so it is not trivial to tweak things.

Rather than make a game that's terribly flawed and exploitable, you could just design one that supports multiple power levels out of the box. A game designed this way would indicate the power levels and what that means to the DM and players. Then you don't foist a bunch of work on the community whilst making the game more difficult on people that don't frequent message boards.

This is Legend. I don't like it. Too bland.

[Drachasor]

This is Legend. I don't like it. Too bland.

That's a problem with Legend, not the concept in general.

[Mithril Leaf]

That's a problem with Legend, not the concept in general.

I would request a mechanically better interpretation of the concept than Legend, since that was it's main goal and it was created by a large number of very experienced and knowledgeable game developers.

[Drachasor]

I would request a mechanically better interpretation of the concept than Legend, since that was it's main goal and it was created by a large number of very experienced and knowledgeable game developers.

Legend had an additional goal of trying to be as generic and flavorless as possible, which is why it seems so generic and flavorless.

[avr]

Legend's fine; if it had the established player base of any edition of D&D I think I'd be happy playing it.

It doesn't. Finding players or DMs for it who you can get on with is searching for needles in a very, very big haystack.

[Deophaun]

As a player and a DM I would consider that one of the big weaknesses of 4e.
It's both. If you like simulationism, 3.5 is the better system. I find it overrated in a tabletop RPG, often getting in the way of the actual game, but I see the appeal of it.

Monsters and PCs are just different. A DM already has the ability to do whatever he wants with the world
Ability to do whatever he wants provided he has the time and effort to do it. 4e drastically cuts down on the amount of effort needed, meaning the DM can do more in the same amount of time.

Being able to play monsters (at least in theory, practice often falls flat) means that you gain a whole new play dynamic in many ways.
Except here's the thing: you can play monsters in 4e. You want to be a bugbear? Be a bugbear. You want to be a dragon? Be a dragon. You want to be beholder? Be a beholder. How can this be, even if there is no dragon or beholder player race? Because bugbear, dragon, and beholder are fluff concepts, and fluff in 4e is infinitely mutable, because 4e is not simulationist. Pick whatever race and class works best for your concept, and then present your character however you want.

If you want to play a game where you can do anything (which is the main appeal of a DM run game rather than a computer run game)
Answered above: you are just as free to do whatever you want in 4e as you are in 3.5. In fact, more so, because the fluff restrictions are gone. You want to be a fighter and a baker? Good news! You don't have to blow all of your 2+Dump Stat skill points into Profession (baker). You just say you are a baker. You'll have a shop in the Nentir Vale.

Now, you want to know how much gold you make from the shop? Well, 4e says you don't, because, again, it doesn't even bother to pretend to be simulationist. Double edged sword. If it bugs you, 4e isn't for you. If it doesn't, 4e's perfect.

[Mithril Leaf]

Except here's the thing: you can play monsters in 4e. You want to be a bugbear? Be a bugbear. You want to be a dragon? Be a dragon. You want to be beholder? Be a beholder. How can this be, even if there is no dragon or beholder player race? Because bugbear, dragon, and beholder are fluff concepts, and fluff in 4e is infinitely mutable, because 4e is not simulationist. Pick whatever race and class works best for your concept, and then present your character however you want.

Answered above: you are just as free to do whatever you want in 4e as you are in 3.5. In fact, more so, because the fluff restrictions are gone. You want to be a fighter and a baker? Good news! You don't have to blow all of your 2+Dump Stat skill points into Profession (baker). You just say you are a baker. You'll have a shop in the Nentir Vale.

Except for a beholder is already a thing. A baker is already a thing. If I say I'm beholder do I get the eye rays and floating and hunger for gnomes? I could say a sword swing is an eye ray, but does it do things that an eye ray does? If you are allowed to refluff mechanical differences, why not just play a free form RPG?

[The Trickster]

A lot of DMs are not very good at house rules. 3.X designers apparently didn't realize that DMs in general are not game designers. How many times do we see, just on the forums, examples of house rules that are stupid, short-sighted, and make the game worse? Balance is a complicated thing, so it is not trivial to tweak things.

Rather than make a game that's terribly flawed and exploitable, you could just design one that supports multiple power levels out of the box. A game designed this way would indicate the power levels and what that means to the DM and players. Then you don't foist a bunch of work on the community whilst making the game more difficult on people that don't frequent message boards.

But but but...if the game was perfectly balanced, what would people talk about here?

[Deophaun]

Except for a beholder is already a thing. A baker is already a thing. If I say I'm beholder do I get the eye rays and floating and hunger for gnomes? I could say a sword swing is an eye ray, but does it do things that an eye ray does?
Sure. It disintegrates the target, because that's what you want it to do. It's going to do the same mechanical damage as a sword swing, and it's going to have the same range as a sword swing (melee), because, after all, those are the mechanics you chose. But when describing how you killed the ogre, we're not saying that you decapitate it with a mighty swing, but rather you blast it and its skull turns to ash. What a frost ray? A fire ray? A charm ray? A dispelling ray? Choose powers that do that. There are plenty of classes that can cover those bases easily enough.

The names of powers, feats, equipment, and monsters in 4e is irrelevant as far as the game world is concerned. Players are actually encouraged to change them as they see fit (not in consultation with the DM, it's something they're told to do right in the PHB). A death-themed wizard isn't using Magic Missile, but Skull Strike or something more creative. Works exactly the same as the Magic Missile power listed in the book, but the game world neither knows nor cares about that.

[Mithril Leaf]

Sure. It disintegrates the target, because that's what you want it to do. It's going to do the same mechanical damage as a sword swing, and it's going to have the same range as a sword swing (melee), because, after all, those are the mechanics you chose. But when describing how you killed the ogre, we're not saying that you decapitate it with a mighty swing, but rather you blast it and its skull turns to ash. What a frost ray? A fire ray? A charm ray? A dispelling ray? Choose powers that do that. There are plenty of classes that can cover those bases easily enough.

Disintegration is notably different from dead in many games, I know this is the case in 3.5 at least.

[Kelb_Panthera]

claiming that the game is broken because they can delibrerately misinterpret the rules to bizzarre effect.

The game is terribly unbalanced within the rules as written, intended, and as they make sense. Without making even one mechanically questionable choice the power and versatility of a core only wizard or cleric so completely outstrips the power and versatility of a monk or fighter that it's borderline absurd. That's not necessarily "broken" but it's unquestionably and undeniably true when you look at the system with any serious degree of objectivity and logic.

There -are- a few pieces that outright don't quite work either as intended or even as makes sense as they're written and -require- a DM to make some interpretation before their actual function can be determined (gate, ironheart surge, interrupted drowning, starvation and thirst, etc).


The simple solution to fix most of the truly broken stuff in 3.5 was to just release more errata. It's no one's fault that the writer of a particular ability wasn't able to predict how it would coexist with every other single ability in the game. Lack of support is what caused 3.5 to be so unbalanced.

With you right up until that last sentence. The game was so inherently unbalanced at its release that no amount of errata that didn't all but outright replace the core rules could've saved it.

[Deophaun]

Disintegration is notably different from dead in many games, I know this is the case in 3.5 at least.
The disintegrate ray of an Eye Tyrant in 4e does a large amount of upfront damage, plus a lesser amount of ongoing damage. That is it. Not hard to find an Encounter or Daily power that can do the same in a Player class.

Again, it's not simulationist. We aren't wondering what happens to the equipment of a person who has been disintegrated, or even whether there is enough to identify the remains. If you have a problem with it, 4e isn't for you.

[HaikenEdge]

The disintegrate ray of an Eye Tyrant in 4e does a large amount of upfront damage, plus a lesser amount of ongoing damage. That is it. Not hard to find an Encounter or Daily power that can do the same in a Player class.

Again, it's not simulationist. We aren't wondering what happens to the equipment of a person who has been disintegrated, or even whether there is enough to identify the remains. If you have a problem with it, 4e isn't for you.

So, your argument is basically, "This isn't a science, it's an art, so if the facts aren't there, just use your imagination and pretend they are."?

[Drachasor]

Again, it's not simulationist. We aren't wondering what happens to the equipment of a person who has been disintegrated, or even whether there is enough to identify the remains. If you have a problem with it, 4e isn't for you.

People overuse "simulationist". Basic versimilitude is not simulationist anymore than the existence of a plot, characters having goals, or having personality is narrativism. Dice rolls don't make it gamism either.

[Dalebert]

All you have to do is trick yourself into believing that your character is somehow different than every other character and you might be able to trick yourself into having fun!

EDIT: Apparently needs to be blue.

[Deophaun]

So, your argument is basically, "This isn't a science, it's an art, so if the facts aren't there, just use your imagination and pretend they are."?
You use the blue sarcasm color, but yes, I would say, not sarcastically, that is exactly the argument. Some people hate that, and I can understand why. But I enjoy it.

For those who don't, WotC did release this (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/20100401b). :smallbiggrin:

[Deophaun]

People overuse "simulationist". Basic versimilitude is not simulationist anymore than the existence of a plot, characters having goals, or having personality is narrativism. Dice rolls don't make it gamism either.
"Verisimilitude" is subjective, and thus not something you can measure. I find plenty of verisimilitude in 4e, and 3.5 often breaks mine because of the inseparability of its fluff and mechanics. But I can't say one or the other therefore has more verisimilitude than the other, because that's a statement of fact and I only have my opinion.

Simulationism, however, can be measured to an extent, or at least objectively discussed.

[Alent]

You use the blue sarcasm color, but yes, I would say, not sarcastically, that is exactly the argument. Some people hate that, and I can understand why. But I enjoy it.

For those who don't, WotC did release this (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/20100401b). :smallbiggrin:

All I see is Stormwind Fallacy, the novel, am I supposed to see an actual solution for people who dislike 4e, or just an insult that they can't even bother to thinly veil?

I actually think 4th Edition isn't so much "an MMO" but rather, something of a repeating, asynchronous "simultaneous evolution" fluke.

The MMO mentions earlier are inaccurate, but grounded in MMOs having the same problem as D&D. (Largely because most MMOs are Fantasy Heartbreakers by nature.)

If you trace MMOs back to their origin, you arrive at text based online OD&D/AD&D clones that lead into a copycat system overhaul Everquest (3.0) then vanilla WoW and the era of WoW clones (3.5). Most of the "defining" MMOs were similar to 3.5 in that they were rife with tier inequality and RAW abuses, and then the homogenization trend came (4). As you can see, you have, at the same points on the timeline, the same results.

The difference being that since MMO subscriptions were threatened by tier inequality problems, they had to act sooner than D&D did. Being fundamentally the same games, when the various MMO companies and WotC looked to solve their tier inequality problems they didn't need to look and copy from anything, the easiest solution is rather self evident- what you got was class homogenization and massive simplification of possible options.

The big question is, will the attempt to move away from the failed homogenization efforts work in both "next" games?

[Brookshw]

All I see is Stormwind Fallacy, the novel, am I supposed to see an actual solution for people who dislike 4e, or just an insult that they can't even bother to thinly veil?


Really? I see something dated April 1st.

[MeeposFire]

As a player and a DM I would consider that one of the big weaknesses of 4e. Monsters and PCs are just different. A DM already has the ability to do whatever he wants with the world, a PC having more access to world building and monster resources usually makes my gaming experience richer. Being able to play monsters (at least in theory, practice often falls flat) means that you gain a whole new play dynamic in many ways. If you want to play a game where you can do anything (which is the main appeal of a DM run game rather than a computer run game) why wouldn't you want the players to be able to be monsters?

Considering that 3e is the only edition where monsters work like PCs and that after playing every last version of D&D from basic-4e I will say that this is one area that I REALLY HATE about 3e. It sounds nice as it makes things sound even but in the end it is often overly complicated, overly slow, and ponderous to design all enemies, npcs, and everything else by PC rules. I have found that it is easier to use the rules in earlier and later editions to make enemies and NPCs while being quicker and more often better in combat.


Oddly enough your complaint is unfounded about monsters as characters. If there was one area where 4e design can actually work it is monster classes. As bad as the 4e vampire is compared to most classes it still operates at the baseline performance levels (it just cannot go much higher than that though thankfully it doesn't get much lower either) and it is the most playable vampire in any edition of D&D ever from level 1 up. If you want to play a monster a character race is easy to make up if it does not exist. If it isn't a race that needs more than just a couple of racial stats (like the vampire) you can create a class progression for it (sort of like savage species progressions except that it could work). Since you are creating from the ground up you can add class abilities or powers directly into the progression if they are im[important to the character. As you level you gain more powerful abilities related to the monster.

A beholder class (for race it would be limited to a couple of beholder sub races or something for variety if you want) could be made with a full progression. As you gain levels you gain additional power most likely in the form of eye rays giving you more types of attacks.


Personally I think the biggest problem in 4e was that it was such a new direction and they only had the chance to do a play test and then run with it. For that it does quite well but I think it could have used some revisions. Unlike in 3e this is less towards trying to make things work better mechanically but instead to make things more versatile in the system. For instance later products tried to give many classes in class basic attacks. I would continue that trend but would also base most encounter powers off of them when appropriate. In many cases this would lead to the powers being mostly the same as they are now but since they are based off of your basic attack you can trade it between classes better and in your mind you see it as sa different technique using your weapon rather than an entire seperate power.

[Drachasor]

"Verisimilitude" is subjective, and thus not something you can measure. I find plenty of verisimilitude in 4e, and 3.5 often breaks mine because of the inseparability of its fluff and mechanics. But I can't say one or the other therefore has more verisimilitude than the other, because that's a statement of fact and I only have my opinion.

Simulationism, however, can be measured to an extent, or at least objectively discussed.

Questions like "what happens to the equipment when a creature is disintegrated" matter as far as verisimilitude is concerned, especially in a loot-based game.

And "simulationism" refers to GNS theory, and in that sense it does not mean what you seem to think it means.

I don't see how you are drawing a meaningful distinction between two words that mean the same thing. Please explain this.

[Deophaun]

Questions like "what happens to the equipment when a creature is disintegrated" matter as far as verisimilitude is concerned, especially in a loot-based game.
If the entire creature is disintegrated, and the items stay behind, then you might have a problem.

If a dime-sized hole in the creature's skull is disintegrated, and the items remain, you probably have no problem.

Thus, in 4e, versimilitude is fully in the domain of the DM, not the system. The system just gives you a collection of numbers. It's the DM that determines how those numbers look.

[Dalebert]

The flavor of the game depends on more than fluff. Disintegrate is by nature an all-or-nothing effect that leaves a cloud of dust behind. A disintegrate that pokes a hole is a sword. It isn't scary in the same way. A necromancer who's magic missiles look like skulls isn't scary. Your tactics for dealing with him are no different versus if he's draining your life force in a manner that debilitates you in some way that's different from losing hit points to MM. You can change the colors and textures of the same spell or the same combat maneuver, but if it doesn't affect mechanics, it doesn't affect the game much. Without enough mechanics to reflect the difference of abilities, the strategies aren't going to change much from combat to combat and it's going to get monotonous.

Simplifying and homogenizing may be helpful to a point but they got carried away in 4.0. WoW did it too during the time I was away. It became more accessible to a broader number of players, but for folks who had been around since old WoW, it felt like busy-work.

[Knaight]

Regarding the arguments that simplified math is somehow an MMO style thing - this is hogwash. MMOs have computers to crunch the math, and it shows. I've yet to see an item which, say, multiplies damage for a certain attack by (1.0345*)^n, where n is some sort of character trait that is likely not an integer. With the occasional exception - e.g. Phoenix Command - RPGs tend to stick to integers, with the occasional number which is half or 1/4 of an integer.


I would request a mechanically better interpretation of the concept than Legend, since that was it's main goal and it was created by a large number of very experienced and knowledgeable game developers.

There's Mutants and Masterminds, which explicitly has you set a power level. There's GURPS (and a whole bunch of other games), where you create characters by spending points and alter the point values. So on and so forth. Legend did nothing new.

*This is an arbitrary number, illustrative mostly because of the significant figures involved.

[Alent]

Really? I see something dated April 1st.

I just didn't like the joke. I probably shouldn't have snarked at it, but long days will do that to your judgment.


...Without enough mechanics to reflect the difference of abilities, the strategies aren't going to change much from combat to combat and it's going to get monotonous.

Simplifying and homogenizing may be helpful to a point but they got carried away in 4.0. WoW did it too during the time I was away. It became more accessible to a broader number of players, but for folks who had been around since old WoW, it felt like busy-work.

I think the big issue here is that once you start trying to ensure equality without a story model in mind, you easily end up in a feedback loop until both options are mathematically and mechanically identical.

From a game sense, this is great. From a story sense, a story about ten identical copies of Aquaman solving a story underwater where they fight identical copies of Aquaman is boring.

[Drachasor]

If the entire creature is disintegrated, and the items stay behind, then you might have a problem.

If a dime-sized hole in the creature's skull is disintegrated, and the items remain, you probably have no problem.

Thus, in 4e, versimilitude is fully in the domain of the DM, not the system. The system just gives you a collection of numbers. It's the DM that determines how those numbers look.

There's more to 4E than just numbers. Heck, there's more to it than just numbers and tags. But its inherent verisimilitude is very weak, since the most reasonable interpretation of the system is that in models particular encounters without regard to how other encounters might look. What had 30 hit points at level 1 might only have 1 hit point at level 5.

And depending on one person to ensure verisimilitude is always a tricky thing, because no one is ever 100% consistent and even being reasonably consistent is an awful lot of work. It's actually nice when the system shoulders more of the burden, imho.


The flavor of the game depends on more than fluff. Disintegrate is by nature an all-or-nothing effect that leaves a cloud of dust behind. A disintegrate that pokes a hole is a sword. It isn't scary in the same way. A necromancer who's magic missiles look like skulls isn't scary. Your tactics for dealing with him are no different versus if he's draining your life force in a manner that debilitates you in some way that's different from losing hit points to MM. You can change the colors and textures of the same spell or the same combat maneuver, but if it doesn't affect mechanics, it doesn't affect the game much. Without enough mechanics to reflect the difference of abilities, the strategies aren't going to change much from combat to combat and it's going to get monotonous.

Simplifying and homogenizing may be helpful to a point but they got carried away in 4.0. WoW did it too during the time I was away. It became more accessible to a broader number of players, but for folks who had been around since old WoW, it felt like busy-work.

To be fair, WoW was alway busy work. It's just that busy work looks less like busy work when it is novel. Homogenization of classes didn't really change this.

However, more to the overall point, balance doesn't require homogenization, nor does some general homogenization lead to everything being balanced necessarily. Homogenization is often a quick and dirty way to work towards balance.

That said 3.5 actually demonstrates that you can have many different mechanics that are balanced with each other. Sure as a whole 3.X is not balanced, but there ARE many classes that are close enough to equal in power -- start looking a T3 classes for instance, and narrow things down a bit from there. Many of these sets of classes have very different mechanics -- For instance the Wildshape Ranger, Warblade, and Swordsage...or perhaps Bard, Factotum, Duskblade, Psychic Warrior. And this is in a system severely happened by the overpowering mechanic of spells. (And these examples are rather hampered by my lack of experience with Binders, Incarnates, etc).

That said, 4E does show that you can have similar mechanics for classes that yield very different playstyles. That's not something we should ignore, even if 4E has other problems. Similarly, it also had a pretty nice system for adjudicating creative ideas in a balanced way.


I think the big issue here is that once you start trying to ensure equality without a story model in mind, you easily end up in a feedback loop until both options are mathematically and mechanically identical.

From a game sense, this is great. From a story sense, a story about ten identical copies of Aquaman solving a story underwater where they fight identical copies of Aquaman is boring.

Hmm, depends on what you mean by a "story model" here. You can certainly strive to have many different strategies to be mathematically equal in terms long-term effect (e.g. things are balanced overall) without making sure each option is identical or nearly so. However, you do need to have, as a goal, to make sure you are providing different mechanics on purpose.

Of course, your overall game design can hamper this. If we want to talk about WoW, its entire raid encounter design has so many requirements that it leaves very little room for class variability.

[Vanitas]

This is Legend. I don't like it. Too bland.

Finally someone that agrees with me.

[Gemini476]

From a game sense, this is great. From a story sense, a story about ten identical copies of Aquaman solving a story underwater where they fight identical copies of Aquaman is boring.

Seeing as Aquaman fighting Aquaman underwater actually means "Army of sea critters fighting army of sea critters underwater while the generals duke it out with superstrength and water magic", I fail to see how that is boring.
Well, other than the massive amount of rolls you get unless you don't actually simulate the background combat.

Really, fighting Aquaman underwater is just about the least boring place to do so in.


...Also, two different Fighters in 4E are probably more different than two different Fighters in 2E, for instance. And in the specific case of 4E, monsters are pretty different from PCs. So that's an additional thing there, I suppose.
The Aquaman analogy kind of breaks down pretty quickly.

[Ansem]

People like that should be burned for such heretical statements.
Besides:

As someone with limited experience with 3.x and very extensive experience with 4E, whenever I looked through 3.5 books I was always struck by just how much wound up being familiar.
Already means it has no real credibility for me.

[georgie_leech]

Except for a beholder is already a thing. A baker is already a thing. If I say I'm beholder do I get the eye rays and floating and hunger for gnomes?

Sure, let's take a look at this. What are the interesting bits of a beholder? The eye rays, the floating, the antimagic, and the power? The last is the easiest; if you want a higher power level, play a game at a higher level. For a lark though, let's see how much we can capture at low levels. In terms of the rays, those can all be represented by Arcane attacks, preferably single target if we want to maintain the "ray" aspect. For our purposes, we're going to be fluffing all the different powers as coming from your Beholder abilities rather than learned abilities; we're treating level ups as unlocking further Beholder power, not in learning more advanced Wizard techniques.

Explaining the entire build would require you be familiar with the mechanics for it to make much sense, so I'll just sum that up: Crunchwise, this character will be a Hybrid Warlock (Fey Pact)|Wizard with a Multiclass feat for Druid. This multiclass is different from 3.X multiclassing, and it takes two feats and level 7 or higher to get what we need: the lowest level power (Charm Beast) that let's us dominate a single target at range, to represent the two Charm rays.

Disintegrate, as mentioned earlier in the thread, works differently; SoD's are generally not existent in 4th, as it isn't fun for a single flubbed role to completely kill a character. It can be represented by high untypless damage, which we can get with a number of powers. Taking an upper bound of level 8 (our current minimum), we can use Eldritch Rain, which, despite the name, actually shoots rays of magic energy that deal 2d8+Cha+Int typeless damage at level 3, with an extra 1d6 (or d8 with a feat) if the target is Cursed (a class feature that boosts damage). At levels higher than 19 (4th has a level range of 1-30), we can use the actual Disintegrate Wizard spell, which deals a sizable chunk of typeless damage with a good amount of ongoing damage that lasts until the target makes two saving throws (the first only reduces the ongoing damage).

The Fear can be represented by a Warlock Power with the Fear keyword. There's a First level Warlock Daily that does just that; it even temporarily immobilises the target in fear, and gives them a penalty to their Will.

At low levels, Finger of Death and Flesh to Stone are just not level-appropriate, so we need to go to a higher level to get similar effects, as well as considering that save-or-die's just aren't a thing in 4th ed. To represent the petrification we have a level 15 Warlock power that keeps the target from getting standard actions, which keeps most enemies from attacking at all; this can be imagined as a partial petrification, prohibiting the careful movements needed to attack. More than simply doing damage though, I agree that the FoD ray needs to do more than necrotic damage to maintain the same kind of power. Enter Wrath of Accamar, a level 19 power that deals a decent chunk of necrotic damage, more ongoing necrotic damage, and for the duration of the DoT the target can't take actions (or be affected by other creatures), effectively taking them out of the fight temporarily.

Inflict Moderate Wounds is any of a number of Necrotic powers, but let's use a Level 1 Wizard spell (Ray of Enfeeblement) that deals Necrotic damage and Weakens the target to boot.

Sleep is likewise covered by a Wizard Power, namely Sleep.

Slow, strangely enough, is better modeled by he Daze status effect, but both it and the actual 4th Edition Slow condition are available in abundance on the Warlock Power list.

Telekinesis has a couple of functions, so it depends on which you want to emulate. The first is the most difficult to emulate with the current class selection, though if you trade out the Druid multiclass with Psion, Telekinetic Lift is exactly that. The Combat Maneuver part just doesn't translate into 4th at all; with the exception of Bull Rush, there aren't generic combat maneuvers that every character can do, rather they are a part of individual powers, and there is never going to be a 4th Edition Power that has some variation of "Use any of these other powers from other classes using your preferred stats at range." That leaves the mass hurl, which is doable but requires enough spent resources that it cuts into the effectiveness of other abilities.

The Antimagic cone is another concept that doesn't translate properly, as effects that completely nullify other classes don't exist. We can grab a lesser, more PC-friendly ability though in the Wizard's Dispel Magic, one of the few ways to directly turn off existing Conjurations or Zones (both keywords that have specific meanings in 4th, but basically it ends ongoing magical effects); outside of specific powers, effects remain until the duration expires, whether because it wasn't maintained or a save was made, so effects like this are as close to antimagic as you can get.

The flight can come from race, though here we hit a minor snag, mostly coming 4th's general aversion to permanent flight at low levels. The Pixie though can be fluffed as a mini-beholder (closer to gauth in size if not anatomy) quite readily, excepting the Fey Origin part; frankly, that only has an effect on a few very specific items and powers, so I'd have no problem changing that out for Aberrant Origin instead (I'd use an existing Aberrant race, but those basically don't exist; 4th Edition treats Aberrations as fundamentally different from everything else, and thus there aren't any Far Realm races). More importantly, it grants Stat Bonuses important for our class choices; in 4th, every Race adds +2 to one stat, and +2 to another stat that must be chosen from two others. In this case, Pixies give +2 to CHA (important for Warlock) and a choice between DEX and INT for the other (INT for Wizard, obviously, and it also provides benefits for a variety of Warlock powers.) Pixie is also one of the few PC races that actually has a fly speed, and while it can't hover natively, it's also light enough to be kept airborne by its own Mage Hand cantrip if you absolutely need to hover in place (there might also be a feat somewhere that helps, but I lack the system mastery to confirm/deny).

You don't need to worry overmuch about how items would be incompatible with Beholder anatomy; the Inherent Bonus system can ensure you won't fall behind in the numbers the system expects you to have.

So to sum up, this has multiple single target effects approximating the Beholder rays, the natural flight, and one of the few ways in the system to dispel magic. The abilities may not all be there at level 1, but it's still playable from that level, gaining the more powerful effects as it levels in a way vaguely similar to Savage Species Racial Classes. Is there something you were looking for in particular that's still missing?

EDIT: Attempting to format a little bit better to alleviate Wall o' Text Syndrome.

[Vanitas]

Already means it has no real credibility for me.
Are you familiar with AD&D and OD&D? There are a lot more differences between one and the other than between 3.5 and 4e, specially towards the end of 3.5 design cycle.

[Gemini476]

Hey, georgie_leech. Do you think you could make a Dragon? I think that could be pretty fun to see.


Are you familiar with AD&D and OD&D? There are a lot more differences between one and the other than between 3.5 and 4e, specially towards the end of 3.5 design cycle.

Eh, Basic and Advance were probably more similar than, say, 2E and 3E. Of course, the differences between Basic and Advance actually got larger as the separate editions continued, so they're a bit harder to pin down.
Then again, of course, Skills and Powers and the like made 2E more like what 3E would become.
...All of them have their differences, anyway.

I will always love the Weapon Mastery, though. Even if the tables were horribly unreadable. Someone experienced in Daggers crits more often than someone who isn't, and someone good with a battleaxe can stun people when someone who isn't cannot. It's like free Weapon Focus/Specialization/and so on but with weapon-specific feats!

[Vanitas]

I will always love the Weapon Mastery, though. Even if the tables were horribly unreadable. Someone experienced in Daggers crits more often than someone who isn't, and someone good with a battleaxe can stun people when someone who isn't cannot. It's like free Weapon Focus/Specialization/and so on but with weapon-specific feats!
You know, 4e got pretty close to that feel with their weapon specific feats, actually.

[georgie_leech]

Hey, georgie_leech. Do you think you could make a Dragon? I think that could be pretty fun to see.


Depends on which bits you want to emulate. Dragons are varied enough that attempting to capture all of the different elements without significant cheese runs into the Monk problem, where it fails to do a bunch of different things instead of successfully doing a couple of things. The beholder above basically focusses on killing single targets at range with magic, with a smattering of debuffs attached. I could do this because it had a specific set of abilities to emulate, and even then it's not terribly well optimised; a number of choices were made for the flavour over actual build synergy. The big issue with Dragons is that on top of their iconic things like Fearsome Presence and Claws and Flying and Elemental Breath, they've got Sorcerer casting stapled on, which essentially gives them an entire extra class to play with, and an incredibly versatile class at that.

Off hand, I can make an extremely Dragon-y character that copies the physical aspects like claws and flight and breath, the Dragonborn equivalent of Fistbeard Beardfist, but it would lack the magical utility 3.X dragons have. I could also make an arcane cannon that tosses out elemental effects and emulates Dragons in their casting as much as possible, but it would require a great deal of refluffing to imagine that their spells channelled through a dagger were claws enhanced with inherent magic. Which would you prefer?

[awa]

i don't know why people keep bringing up the beholder its not like you can play one in 3.5.

There are a lot of monsters with powers that break the game if pcs get a hold of them and there are a lot of ways to get ahold of them. Saying monsters/ npcs are different then pcs and not giving them ways to get those game breaking abilities opens up a lot of story possibilities with out breaking the game.

[Eldariel]

i don't know why people keep bringing up the beholder its not like you can play one in 3.5.

You certainly can. Just be a Druid with Aberrant Wildshape and Assume Supernatural Ability or a Psion/Wizard/whatever with Metamorphic Transfer and enjoy your Beholderhood. Even better, be an Elan, purchase casting of Polymorph Any Object with one of the mentioned feats and profit. Or you could just eat up the LA. Hell, I'm pretty sure you could find a monster class for it if that struck your fancy.

[georgie_leech]

. Or you could just eat up the LA.

Quibble: Beholders have an LA of -- so you can't just suck it up. Using some form of magic to turn into one is indeed the only way to play as one.

[Grim Reader]

Are you familiar with AD&D and OD&D? There are a lot more differences between one and the other than between 3.5 and 4e, specially towards the end of 3.5 design cycle.

Um, no. Hell, no. I played both OD&D and AD&D for years. And the differences between them were tiny compared to the abyssal gulf that was 3.5 - 4th.

[Gemini476]

Depends on which bits you want to emulate. Dragons are varied enough that attempting to capture all of the different elements without significant cheese runs into the Monk problem, where it fails to do a bunch of different things instead of successfully doing a couple of things. The beholder above basically focusses on killing single targets at range with magic, with a smattering of debuffs attached. I could do this because it had a specific set of abilities to emulate, and even then it's not terribly well optimised; a number of choices were made for the flavour over actual build synergy. The big issue with Dragons is that on top of their iconic things like Fearsome Presence and Claws and Flying and Elemental Breath, they've got Sorcerer casting stapled on, which essentially gives them an entire extra class to play with, and an incredibly versatile class at that.

Off hand, I can make an extremely Dragon-y character that copies the physical aspects like claws and flight and breath, the Dragonborn equivalent of Fistbeard Beardfist, but it would lack the magical utility 3.X dragons have. I could also make an arcane cannon that tosses out elemental effects and emulates Dragons in their casting as much as possible, but it would require a great deal of refluffing to imagine that their spells channelled through a dagger were claws enhanced with inherent magic. Which would you prefer?

How about emulating the 4E Dragons, since trying to emulate a 3.5 one is kind of like someone making a 3.5 build that tries to emulate a Solar Exalt?

Going by the Monster Vault, that probably means Flight+Breath Weapon+Natural attacks (Tail slap, Claws, Bite)+Bloodied Breath (i.e. recharge BW when first bloodied), if we want a generic one. The various colors get special abilities as well, but a "dragon" build doesn't need to focus on getting all of them, y'know?
Oh, and they need to be big. So I guess Pixie won't work. When's the earliest that flight comes online?

[awa]

You certainly can. Just be a Druid with Aberrant Wildshape and Assume Supernatural Ability or a Psion/Wizard/whatever with Metamorphic Transfer and enjoy your Beholderhood. Even better, be an Elan, purchase casting of Polymorph Any Object with one of the mentioned feats and profit. Or you could just eat up the LA. Hell, I'm pretty sure you could find a monster class for it if that struck your fancy.


you can play a monster that looks like a beholder but your not actually playing a beholder the beholder has a lot of supernatural abilities you only get a small number of them with most of those tricks except for the polymorph any object which just breaks the game.

there is no la or monster class for beholders at least not a home brewed one and home-brew exists for fourth edition as well.

[Eldariel]

you can play a monster that looks like a beholder but your not actually playing a beholder the beholder has a lot of supernatural abilities you only get a small number of them with most of those tricks except for the polymorph any object which just breaks the game.

You can get all of 'em with two ways to assume supernatural abilities; Beholder has Eye Rays and Antimagic Cone as its two supernatural abilities. So for instance two instances of Assume Supernatural Ability plus Aberrant Wildshape on Druid or Master of Many Forms (no feat needed) = all-day Beholder on level 11.

[Vanitas]

Um, no. Hell, no. I played both OD&D and AD&D for years. And the differences between them were tiny compared to the abyssal gulf that was 3.5 - 4th.

I can only assume you're not very familiar with 4e, then. Or maybe you didn't really the whole article to know what he meant by that.

[Deophaun]

You certainly can. Just be a Druid with Aberrant Wildshape and Assume Supernatural Ability
The druid might not work, as you have to then be a beholder that reveres nature, which rather limits you choice of how to RP it. The others work, but at starting levels you are not emulating being a beholder in any fashion.

Going by the Monster Vault, that probably means Flight+Breath Weapon+Natural attacks (Tail slap, Claws, Bite)+Bloodied Breath (i.e. recharge BW when first bloodied), if we want a generic one. The various colors get special abilities as well, but a "dragon" build doesn't need to focus on getting all of them, y'know?
Oh, and they need to be big. So I guess Pixie won't work. When's the earliest that flight comes online?
I would think a dragonborn druid with the Sky Hunter PP and the Sovereign Beast ED would be able to pull off a convincing Silver almost effortlessly.

[Dalebert]

I apologize for derailing the thread ever so briefly, but... Vanitas, your avatar looks like he has the face of a red-skinned dude with a gray beard on his chest. Is that purposeful or just a happy accident? I actually thought it was a squat guy with a tiny head and a big black hat at first.

[Vanitas]

I apologize for derailing the thread ever so briefly, but... Vanitas, your avatar looks like he has the face of a red-skinned dude with a gray beard on his chest. Is that purposeful or just a happy accident? I actually thought it was a squat guy with a tiny head and a big black hat at first.

That's symbiotic armor, actually.
http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101002080044/kingdomhearts/images/4/46/Vanitas_KHBBS.png

[Eldariel]

The druid might not work, as you have to then be a beholder that reveres nature, which rather limits you choice of how to RP it. The others work, but at starting levels you are not emulating being a beholder in any fashion.

Level 1 Beholder should hardly be a thing any more than level 1 Angel or Giant or whatever; it just makes sense for more powerful things start at higher level.

[georgie_leech]

Level 1 Beholder should hardly be a thing any more than level 1 Angel or Giant or whatever; it just makes sense for more powerful things start at higher level.

You know, I think that's actually one of the strengths of 4th; with a bit of imagination, you can start as powerful things at first level that just haven't grown into their power yet. For instance, a Deva (fluffing their Memories of a Thousand Lifetimes as Angelic Inspiration or something) with a Divine Class and one of the many Angel-themed Paragon Paths translates nicely into an angel growing into their abilities; a Goliath Warden taking the Stoneblessed Paragon Path emulates the great strength and has multiple (stacking) effects that increase reach, which makes a pretty convincing Giant if you don't mind refluffing the arboreal aspects of the Warden.

Speaking of refluffing, have managed to cram everything but the Bite into the Dragon, which I'm still trying to finagle. Would probably be easier if I had experience with the Vampire class :smallbiggrin: Again, it's not well optimised (and also pretty MAD), but it's definitely dragon-y and I don't think it's terribly unplayable.

[Deophaun]

Level 1 Beholder should hardly be a thing any more than level 1 Angel or Giant or whatever; it just makes sense for more powerful things start at higher level.
Eldariel, who are you to say what players can and cannot be at Mithril Leaf's table?

[Grim Reader]

I can only assume you're not very familiar with 4e, then. Or maybe you didn't really the whole article to know what he meant by that.

I played 4th ed for an 18 months campaign, level 1-22, and then about a score of one-offs with new charaters every time. To say that the differences between OD&D and AD&D were even on the same plane as the differences between 3.5 and 4th is abject nonsense.

[Vanitas]

I played 4th ed for an 18 months campaign, level 1-22, and then about a score of one-offs with new charaters every time. To say that the differences between OD&D and AD&D were even on the same plane as the differences between 3.5 and 4th is abject nonsense.

Well, that's not the same as being familiar with 4e. I'll ask it again: did you read the whole article?

[Eldariel]

You know, I think that's actually one of the strengths of 4th; with a bit of imagination, you can start as powerful things at first level that just haven't grown into their power yet. For instance, a Deva (fluffing their Memories of a Thousand Lifetimes as Angelic Inspiration or something) with a Divine Class and one of the many Angel-themed Paragon Paths translates nicely into an angel growing into their abilities; a Goliath Warden taking the Stoneblessed Paragon Path emulates the great strength and has multiple (stacking) effects that increase reach, which makes a pretty convincing Giant if you don't mind refluffing the arboreal aspects of the Warden.

Well, that's principally how Monster Classes work in D&D 3e too but I find them pretty unbelievable; simply 'cause playing e.g. Beholder without its eye rays and anti-magic cone doesn't really feel like playing a Beholder.

[charcoalninja]

Going to take a moment and voice my agreement with most of the 4e crowd here. The biggest attraction for me of the system was the freedom from mechancial fluff.

In 4e I can play literally anything I want at any level I want without any problems. In 3.5 you cannot do this. In 4e you can flavour your wizard into a grenadier if you want to, in 3.5 magic works a specific way and it is mechanically significant that it works that way. Turning all spells in ex abilities breaks the game in half and creates an incredible advantage for that player. In 4e there is no mechanical consequense in terms of performance to my changing wizard into a carreer arsenist. With some DM handwaving for preparing bombs and such during extended rests, the player has his set amounts of powers for the trip, and blows things up with tech rather than magic.

The Beholder example is the best one for this so far. By taking hybrid classes you can combine whatever you want into a chasis that best emulates the concept you want.

I think that is the fundamental difference, and discord I'll argue between 4e and 3e. In 3E, character creation CREATES the concept. In 4e the concept creates the character. There was an article a while back where some people working on Next said that in 4e if you wanted your fighter to be a survivalist and an archer, you had to wait for 4e to release that build, but that's the 3e way of looking at it. I want to be a fighter(class) gets all the attention rather than the fact that the character is an archer and a survivalist which is actually a Ranger.

So where people fixate on the class, its name and its core fluff, in 4e you don't do that. 4e asks first and foremost, what is your character like? What do you WANT him to do? That's why it defined the roles, and why classes are organized by role. Does your character protect people in combat or flat out kill people (defender vs. striker). In 4e the class is chosen based on the best way to emulate whatever the hell it is that you want to do, while in 3e it seems that character creation tells you what it can do, and people try to make a character that fits the class they've chosen. Just been my impression.

Additionally, I don't understand the sheer embracing of homebrew and houserule for 3.5 and the utter dismissal of it for 4e. If you really liked a power that a monster had, what's stopping your character from choosing that as his next power? Or choosing a class power as similar to it as possible and saying that your character developed it from seeing that monster?

This has really turned into a more stream of consciousness sort of typing than the more organized reply I had intended but I hope I managed to convey something of what I was talking about in there.

I also cannot understand how people can feel that 4e had less out of combat support than 3.5, when with 4E skills you can do everything you could do in 3.5, and it additionally emphasised skill encounters in its core mechanics and a legitimate thing (the mechanics WERE terrible, but hey 3.5 is full of terrible mechanics too).

4e certainly wasn't perfect, by a large margin, and I want to echo the distaste for the constant errata they published. Using the character builder for my games while 4e was going strong put all the changes front and center and for a while there I felt like I didn't know my own game anymore and found it really frustrating. Now that the edition is done though, I don't have to worry about that crap. I also hated the nerfing of flight, and rage against any power that says:
"Gain a fly speed but you must land at the end of your turn or you fall"

That crap isn't flight. That's JUMPING.

I like rituals but I feel that more effort should have been made to have them interact with each other similar to how 3.5 magic does. For example, in 4e if I lay down a magic circle vs. all, how do you counter it? If I roll a 45 on my arcana that thing can hedge out GODS. There's nothing in the entire edition for how to break the ritual, how to get out of it, nothing. That's just one example. If they had built the rituals with more mind towards creating a unified magic system like spellcasting in other editions had been, rather than just singular one time magical effects, I think 4e as a whole would have been better recieved by everyone.

Anyway, stream of thought off, love 4e, love 3.5, which is why personally I've combined them and play both at the same time. That way I get everything!

[Knaight]

I played 4th ed for an 18 months campaign, level 1-22, and then about a score of one-offs with new charaters every time. To say that the differences between OD&D and AD&D were even on the same plane as the differences between 3.5 and 4th is abject nonsense.

I'd agree with that. That said, 3.5 and 4e are pretty similar in a lot of ways. If you've only played D&D they look different, but the difference between any edition of D&D and GURPS - another very traditional game - is bigger than the difference between any two editions of D&D. If you bring in some nontraditional games (e.g. Fiasco or Microscope), all the editions of D&D start looking really similar.

[georgie_leech]

Okay, one Dragon PC, coming up. For the purposes of this, limits of some sort have been placed on this Dragon's power, resulting in stunted growth (Medium creatures) and weaker physical aspects like claws or scales (a quirk of Hybrid rules means this Dragon is only proficient in Cloth armor, and lacks the Class Feature that would normally shore its AC up) since this Dragon is notably weaker than the solo Dragons printed in the Monster Manuals etc.; as levels/xp are accumulated, the limits degrade and the Dragon becomes more draconic. A lot of these choices aren't particularly optimised, but this is a flavour excerise anyway; if you want more power, add more levels or a more generous point buy array or more wealth or something. I won't be describing everything in this character, just the bits relevant to draconic fluff or necessary for proper functioning; helpful feats will be listed after.


As a reminder, the qualities being emulated are a Breath Weapon, Flight, Claws, Bite, Tail Slap, and Breath Weapon recharged when Bloodied (for those unfamiliar with 4th ed. rules, below half health.)

1. Race is Dragonborn. This is the obvious bit, as it gives us both a Breath Weapon (Dragon Breath racial Power), and later on, it will qualify us Flight. Plus, it's Dragon-y, which is a good place to start. Ability Boosts applied to CHA (mandatory, unfortunately) and CON. Also, the boost to Healing Surges (how healing works in 4th) doesn't hurt the idea of Dragons being tough.

2. The important stats at creation are DEX 18, CON 13->15, STR 13. CHA should probably be 12 (thanks to the +2) for the sake of being a little more intimidating and the +1 to Will; the 8 can go in either INT or WIS, depending on which skills you care less about. This array is necessary for prerequisites later, and the 18 DEX is needed because of class choice.

3. Class choice is being determined because of the complexity of having 3 "natural weapons" to work with: Bite; Claws; Tail Slap. To represent this, there needs to be 3 distinct ways of damaging the opponent. Thus, the Dragon will be a Hybrid Fighter/Monk (no, seriously.) The Claws are represented by the Monk Powers, as they can be re worked pretty easily to be about clawing someone in a specific way instead of punching them in a specific way, and they have their own damage dice so don't care about the relatively weaker unarmed damage. Rather than interpreting Tail Slap as a mighty blow, this Dragon is assumed to use it as an added attack against a different opponent; Hybrid Monk gives us Flurry of Blows out of the box, and the Stone Fist version says "You lash out at another enemy after your first attack, a casual reminder of your great strength." Seems Draconic to me; it deals a small amount of automatic damage (3+STR Mod) to a target adjacent to you, a little more if they weren't the target of the attack that triggered it, and eventually expanding to affecting everyone adjacent, like a Sweep Attack of some sort. The challenging bit was the Bite, until I realised that most animals with a good Bite attack in previous editions also had some variation of Improved Grab, representing the whole "go for the throat and hang on" thing. With the Hybrid Talent Feat, we get access to the Brawler Style, which gives bonuses to Unarmed Attack and Grab accuracy, and the associated powers tend to be some variation of damage and a grab, which can be modeled by Biting and hanging on (note that this is not an attempt to circumvent the limitations of Brawler Style or Grabbing in general; it affects fluff, not crunch). Since those powers are all weapon based, we can use Spiked Knuckles (which we'll fluff as metal claws (https://7f35fa5d26e8806816ba-4a262251312bba5b856ed3111aa41fe6.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.c om/3_prod/d1/Picture/55/75/82_19308799.jpg) to enhance the weaker-than-normal Dragon claws); if we take Brutal Brawler, our "claws" do as much damage as a Longsword, and as noted Dragon expert Smaug points out, "His [sic] claws are swords." Try to get them in the Adamantine variety, and they slice through part of a targets DR so, they're sharp enough to rend properly.

3a. Which Powers taken aren't especially important, but on the Fighter side, Grappling Strike lets you do the Bite and Grab thing from level 1. On the Monk side, the choice is probably between Crane's Wings for the enhanced Jump as a Move Action option as a poor man's flight, and Dragon's Tail if you want a power that fits the Tail Slap Natural Weapon a little better than SFFoB.

3b. Skills aren't terribly important to feeling like a Dragon, but Intimidate at least fits thematically. Endurance goes well with the general idea of Dragon's being tough. Athletics will help us Jump further until we can get proper flight. Finally, using a Background we can get access to Arcana, in case we feel like the Dragon should at least be able to identify other Dragons.

4. Part of the problem with modeling a Dragon is that they tend to be Large, and 4th generally doesn't give access to Large things for the PC's. We can get around this though by using one of 3 non-PP Warden powers though. At level 8 or earlier take the Defender of the Wild feat to multiclass into Warden, and at 10 we can take the feat to swap out a level 9 Daily with the Warden Daily "Form of the Oak Sentinel." This one has the lowest level, so it available the earliest. Although it kind of turns you into a weird tree/person hybrid when used, we can refluff that as being able to temporarily overcome some of the limits on the Draconic Power. This power lets us do a few things (automatically damage people that attack you, take a hit for an ally), but the part we care about is that it increases our Reach by 1; if we can't actually be a Large creature, at least we can have the Reach of one.

5. Since this is a quest to be the dragoniest Dragon we can get, lets use the Dragonborn Racial Paragon Path, Scion of Arkhosia. It gives us some assorted boosts to our Dragon Breath, and a couple of different Breath Weapons, but the parts we care about are at levels 12 and 16. At 12, we get the ability to fly our speed as a Move Action thanks to Dragon Wings, even though we have to land in between flights, and at 16, the Blood of Io feature gives us overland flight with a speed of 12. Now our dragon can soar through the skies, even if he's not quite good enough with it yet to fly in battle properly.

6. Finally, in Epic (level 21+; like 3.X goes to 20, 4th goes to 30) the points we stuck in CON pay off and we nab the last of the Dragon abilities we're trying to emulate. Between the +2 to all stats we've accumulated by reaching Epic, We have 17 CON, which qualifies us for Dragon Warrior, which makes our 1/encounter Dragon Breath Power recharge when we first become bloodied, as requested.

7. This is a list of a bunch of feats (Not discussing prerequisites) that enhance our already Draconic abilities without necessarily providing new ones. They're still Dragon-y though, so in alphabetical format, meet the Feats.

Armor Proficiency (Leather->Hide->Scale): If you want more AC, I can see Hide and Scale being refluffed to be a part of your natural armor, somehow. The arrows indicate which are prerequisites of the others.
Armor Specialization (Hide, Scale): If you're getting either kind of armor, this gets rid of the negative effects of the armor so you really can treat it like thicker skin. Don't get Hide though, better feat below.
Bloodied Invigoration: Some Fighter Powers have the Invigorating Keyword (if you're trained in Endurance, get temp hp when you hit with it); this feat lets you get extra temporary hp when you hit with one while Bloodied, which can help model Draconic resilience.
Brutal Brawler: As mentioned above, this helps the "claws" behave more like claws and less like ineffective weapons.
Brutal Flurry: Do a bit more damage with the "Tail Slap" if you only target one creature.
Crushing Pin: Do DEX Mod damage to creatures that try to escape your grab; maybe you start chewing on them or something.
Draconic Arrogance: Dragons are pretty arrogant; get a mechanical befit for it by dealing STR Mod damage to enemies you Push or knock Prone.
Dragon's Grasp: Lets you apply the bonus from a particular Monk item to Grab attacks.
Dragonborn Channeling: Channels your Dragon Breath through a melee attack for extra damage; this is the equivalent of Biting someone and then breathing fire or whatever whilst you still have a hold of them.
Dragonborn Frenzy: Do extra damage while Bloodied.
Dragonborn Senses: Get low-light vision, and a piddly +1 feat bonus to Perception checks.
Dragonclaw Mark: Both Hybrid Fighter and Multiclass Warden give you ways to mark enemies, and this makes your Dragon Breath do extra damage to them.
Empowered Dragon Breath: Exactly what it says on the tin; use bigger damage dice for Dragon's Breath.
Enlarged Dragon Breath: Another descriptive name; makes Dragon's Breath's AoE bigger.
Grit: Get CON Mod temporary hp when you spend a Healing Surge. Again, it doesn't hurt.
Improved Grab: Take if you're really, really determined to make your grabs inescapable.
Improved Vigor: Another Boost to Invigorating Powers
Irresistible Flame: Lets you ignore 20 points of Fire Resistance, if you went with the classic Fire for your Dragon's Breath.
Primal Breath: If you care about doing extra damage to Marked Enemies, this lets your Dragon's breath Mark everyone it hits.
Primal Resurgence: As long as we're recharging Dragon's Breath, we may as well recharge the effect that lets us pretend to be a bigger Dragon for 5 minutes.
Second Skin: Strictly better than Armor Specialisation (Hide); offers the same benefits with +1 AC compared to AS, and they don't stack with each other.
Skill Focus (Any of the skills mentioned): If you think the skills help you feel like a Dragon, this gives that one skill a +3 boost. I am not going to go hunting through the books though for every little possible +1 or 2 though.
Spirits of the Primal Dragons: Getting Bloodied really seems to be getting close to a "More powerful when close to death" thing going; this adds damage for a round the first time you get bloodied
Stone Fist Master: SFFoB now causes the targets to grant CA to the next attack against it.
Surging Flame: Do extra damage to creatures resistant to Fire on the next attack made on them. A strict reading implies that it does the extra damage even if the Fire Resistance is mitigated down to nothing.
Unarmored Agility: Straight up improve your AC when unarmoured or wearing cloth armor. This one is easy to fluff as thicker scales.
Wrenching Grasp: Missed Grabs still do DEX Mod damage as you just graze them with bite or something.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

In 4e I can play literally anything I want at any level I want without any problems.

You can do this in any game at all, if you're willing to re-flavor things until they're unrecognizable and your GM will let you. You can build Iron Man in Shadowrun, Dracula in SWSE, Obi-Wan Kenobi in Riddle of Steel, Tasslehoff Burrfoot in Ars Magica, or tons of other characters in seemingly-incompatible systems. That isn't a strength of 4e, that's a basic property of an RPG.


In 4e you can flavour your wizard into a grenadier if you want to, in 3.5 magic works a specific way and it is mechanically significant that it works that way.

"I'm a grenadier on Toril. I chuck grenades at my enemies that explode with certain effects based on the alchemical compounds I use. It takes about 8 hours for me to craft grenades and for my mixtures to set and an hour to assemble enough grenades to get me through the day. Unfortunately, antimagic fields interfere with my grenades' trigger mechanisms, because they use Gond's smokepowder and by his agreement with Mystra it doesn't work where Her magic doesn't work, but it doesn't bother me all that much."


Additionally, I don't understand the sheer embracing of homebrew and houserule for 3.5 and the utter dismissal of it for 4e. If you really liked a power that a monster had, what's stopping your character from choosing that as his next power? Or choosing a class power as similar to it as possible and saying that your character developed it from seeing that monster?

The fact that there are no rules for taking monster powers as a PC and so it reqiures DM approval, obviously. Houserules and homebrew are great for 4e as much as for 3e, but they require the DM's permission and final approval. You can reflavor an existing PC power as a similar monster power, which you can also do in 3e, but if you say "I want to flavor my new wizard spell as picking up a basilisk's gaze attack" and your DM says "no, I don't like that flavor, sorry," you're SOL in either edition.


I also cannot understand how people can feel that 4e had less out of combat support than 3.5, when with 4E skills you can do everything you could do in 3.5, and it additionally emphasised skill encounters in its core mechanics and a legitimate thing (the mechanics WERE terrible, but hey 3.5 is full of terrible mechanics too).

3e has many out of combat mechanics beyond the skill system (utility spells, Leadership minions, SBG strongholds, DMG2 business rules, etc.), and not only are they more fleshed-out than skill challenges, but they are "player-side" mechanics, by which I mean that a skill challenge happens when the DM says "I'm going to make this a skill challenge" and anything that requires a skill challenge to accomplish can't really be initiated by the PCs, but a player can choose to cast a divination, send his minions off on a mission, start building a stronghold, etc. without needing any more explicit DM permission than any other action.

[MeeposFire]

How about emulating the 4E Dragons, since trying to emulate a 3.5 one is kind of like someone making a 3.5 build that tries to emulate a Solar Exalt?

Going by the Monster Vault, that probably means Flight+Breath Weapon+Natural attacks (Tail slap, Claws, Bite)+Bloodied Breath (i.e. recharge BW when first bloodied), if we want a generic one. The various colors get special abilities as well, but a "dragon" build doesn't need to focus on getting all of them, y'know?
Oh, and they need to be big. So I guess Pixie won't work. When's the earliest that flight comes online?

Well first "race" would be designated by choosing type. For instance you could choose "red" or "Silver" as your racial choice (where each would give you bonuses that make sense) for your dragon class. Each type would have a different encounter power and would all have an at will polymorph for human form. For at wills you could have basic attacks powers that use your claws and another one that uses your tail or jaws that has some sort of control effect.

Your first encounter power would be a breath weapon that increases in power as you level. As you level you also get more uses but in addition I think it would be neat to tie in encounter based effects into the breath effect (such as once in an encounter when you use one of your breath weapon power attacks you can knock them prone and at higher levels you get things such as stun or daze think like the 3e dragon breath feats).

Dailies would be sorcerer dailies chosen from their list (sorry not the best list but it makes thematic sense) and they would be considered a dragon sorcerer for all purposes.

Utilities would be based around dragon tropes such as higher level ones allowing you full flight (I envision that a dragon would start with Pixie type flight at first and then can use utility powers to upgrade later) and also would allow for sorc utilities.

I would probably make it CON/STR based with cha as secondary. Unlike most split primary stat classes all attacks can use either. The advantage to each is that con makes you tougher but str can give you nice bonuses with your sorc powers. Striker seems to fit what I would think goes for a dragon (basic idea is to add your cha mod on all attacks). The natural weapons would be defined (such as D10 +3 weapons or what not) and would be "enchanted" by hording treasure. All dragons would know a ritual (knowledge of that is what prompts them to become heroes rather than sitting on their treasure like most dragons which is usually more comfortable and fulfilling for them) that allows them to transfer their wealth into giving their claws weapon enchantments and their scales armor enchantments. Their scales would be treated as heavy armor (considered scale armor without using a feat) and would advance to its masterwork qualities once the enchantment reaches a high enough level.


I think we could make it work. I would just need to know what sort of things are needed to really feel dragon like so we make sure we have it.

[charcoalninja]

You can do this in any game at all, if you're willing to re-flavor things until they're unrecognizable and your GM will let you. You can build Iron Man in Shadowrun, Dracula in SWSE, Obi-Wan Kenobi in Riddle of Steel, Tasslehoff Burrfoot in Ars Magica, or tons of other characters in seemingly-incompatible systems. That isn't a strength of 4e, that's a basic property of an RPG.



"I'm a grenadier on Toril. I chuck grenades at my enemies that explode with certain effects based on the alchemical compounds I use. It takes about 8 hours for me to craft grenades and for my mixtures to set and an hour to assemble enough grenades to get me through the day. Unfortunately, antimagic fields interfere with my grenades' trigger mechanisms, because they use Gond's smokepowder and by his agreement with Mystra it doesn't work where Her magic doesn't work, but it doesn't bother me all that much."


Aside from the fact that you have to speak words of magic in a strong voice and make distinguishable gestures that anyone with ranks in spellcraft can identify and then counter the effects of your grenades with a spell just as they would if you were throwing a spell. And that any grenades that are single target are subject to spell turning. That any lingering effects of them are dispellable by dispel magic. That many creatures can ignore the effects of your grenades due to spell resistance. Great effort (not being sarcastic I liked the gond spellpowder idea), but there are too many mechanics in the way of mundaning magical effects like this, even with simple blast spells. Your grenadier also can't toss them in armour without your grenades not working half the time. 4e has no such problems and in fact the system explicitly encourages it in its rule text.

Now you can bypass the verbal and somatic components through Still and Silent spell, but now you are markedly mechanically weaker simply because you wanted a different flavour. And you can't toss a "real" grenade until level 5.



The fact that there are no rules for taking monster powers as a PC and so it reqiures DM approval, obviously. Houserules and homebrew are great for 4e as much as for 3e, but they require the DM's permission and final approval. You can reflavor an existing PC power as a similar monster power, which you can also do in 3e, but if you say "I want to flavor my new wizard spell as picking up a basilisk's gaze attack" and your DM says "no, I don't like that flavor, sorry," you're SOL in either edition.


Can't deny the power of a DM saying no. Nothing kills fun faster.



3e has many out of combat mechanics beyond the skill system (utility spells, Leadership minions, SBG strongholds, DMG2 business rules, etc.), and not only are they more fleshed-out than skill challenges, but they are "player-side" mechanics, by which I mean that a skill challenge happens when the DM says "I'm going to make this a skill challenge" and anything that requires a skill challenge to accomplish can't really be initiated by the PCs, but a player can choose to cast a divination, send his minions off on a mission, start building a stronghold, etc. without needing any more explicit DM permission than any other action.

VERY valid point, I had forgotten the sheer detail that was developed in those subsystems. That is a great counterpoint and those are very valued subsystems that there simply isn't the material for in 4e.

[georgie_leech]

but a player can choose to cast a divination,

Divination is a thing in 4th Edition. You spend some gold for reagents, do a funny dance for 10 minutes or an hour (or as a standard action, if you want to optimise for it) and then you can scry or speak with the dead or call up the spirit of an ancient Wizard of the appropriate civilisation or speak directly to one the handmaidens of the Raven Queen and start playing twenty questions with fate. The number of questions is reduced, and is dependent on a skill check (In fact one of them explicitly starts a skill challenge :smallbiggrin:), but it's still there and comes with the added benefit of no risk of being driven insane by the entity you're contacting.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Aside from the fact that you have to speak words of magic in a strong voice and make distinguishable gestures that anyone with ranks in spellcraft can identify and then counter the effects of your grenades with a spell just as they would if you were throwing a spell. And that any grenades that are single target are subject to spell turning. That any lingering effects of them are dispellable by dispel magic. That many creatures can ignore the effects of your grenades due to spell resistance. Great effort (not being sarcastic I liked the gond spellpowder idea), but there are too many mechanics in the way of mundaning magical effects like this, even with simple blast spells. Your grenadier also can't toss them in armour without your grenades not working half the time. 4e has no such problems and in fact the system explicitly encourages it in its rule text.

All of which can be refluffed if desired.
"My old sargeant always told me to yell Fire in the hole! and give it a good windup before throwing, so none of my allies got hurt in the blast."
"Damn wizards, always telekinesis-ing my grenades out of the way so they explode harmlessly!"
"Golems and dragons? Yeah, their hide is pretty thick, but most of the time I can hurt them."
"Of course I can't always use my grenades well if I'm wearing armor; you try tossing a heavy hunk of metal when you can't pull back your arm all the way, see how accurate you are!"

Just like you asked why people seem to like houserules in 3e but not in 4e, I'd like to know why everyone proclaiming the wonders of refluffing in 4e seem to think (A) that it's a novel invention and (B) that it's not doable in 3e. If people put half the effort into reflavoring 3e wizards into grenadiers as they did reflavoring 4e wizards into beholders, this argument wouldn't come up anymore. :smallwink:


I'd also point out that not everyone necessarily views 4e's flavor/mechanics disconnect as a good thing. In games with strong a flavor/mechanics connection, players (and characters) can infer a lot from what they see and experience in game. Encounter an enemy who casts a black tentacles spell? You can roughly judge its power level and guess at some of its other capabilities. Encounter a dragon? You can be fairly sure it can fly, breath energy of some sort, cast a few spells, and rip you apart in melee. If you run into a monster that doesn't meet your expectations (like a red dragon that can't fly or a black tentacles caster with a terrible Will save), it's most likely because of a polymorph effect, a disguise, or some other in-game reason why that might be so.

In an effects-based game with a flavor/mechanics disconnect like 4e, Fate, GURPS, or the like, you can't really infer much from what you experience. There are rarely abilities like identifying spells based on verbal components or other things involving flavor like that, a "dragon" could be practically anything reflavored to look like a dragon, you can't make judgments like "Oh, he can use [ability X], he's probably this tough and can also do Y and Z" because X could be anything else reflavored into X, and so forth.

The latter isn't an inherently bad thing (many people play both D&D and effects-based games), but it's not to everyone's taste, so saying "A fighter can be anything in 4e!" is not always an argument in favor of 4e.


And you can't toss a "real" grenade until level 5.

No incendiary grenades, but flashbangs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flare.htm), smoke grenades (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/obscuringMist.htm), and frag grenades (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shatter.htm) are perfectly possible.


Divination is a thing in 4th Edition.

I didn't say 4e doesn't have divinations, I was contrasting utility magic (of which 3e has much more than 4e) with skill challenges; in either edition, "go to the library and research X" is going to be more DM-dependent than "cast a divination and directly ask a question about X," so one can't really argue that 4e having skill challenges makes up for the lack of all the other out-of-combat stuff in 3e when there are notable advantages to the latter.

[Pex]

It's nothing new to me, but the more common term was "balance". The people who yelled the most against 3E, and still do, are players who resent and are upset of what they perceive as the imbalance of the system. Even for imbalance situations where they have a point they just cannot get over it. 3E was just not for them. 4E's paradigm is an insistence on balance by a solution that turned off those who really like 3E despite imbalances they notice and acknowledge. 4E's solution is sameness while those who enjoy 3E want its variety.

WOTC's mistake was thinking everyone agreed with the vocal minority on its hatred of 3E. That made them throw away almost everything that was in 3E and bash the system in publicity with the process. The success of Paizo's Pathfinder proved them wrong. 3E was/is loved, imbalanced faults and all.

[TuggyNE]

4E's solution is sameness while those who enjoy 3E want its variety.

WOTC's mistake was thinking everyone agreed with the vocal minority on its hatred of 3E.

That, and thinking that the only way to achieve equality is to make everyone the same.

[Deophaun]

4E's solution is sameness while those who enjoy 3E want its variety.
Said in a thread where people are making beholder and dragon 4e characters.

[eggynack]

Said in a thread where people are making beholder and dragon 4e characters.
They are, and Georgie_Leech's stuff looks great, but it all seems a bit samey. A lot of those "Claws" and "disintegration rays" are just hitting stuff for damage or hitting stuff for more damage. 3.5 lets you use real claws and real disintegration rays. Sure, you can refluff and reflavor all you want, and you might even get to a reasonable place, but 3.5 appears to have a much greater variety of stuff. That dragon could just as easily be a not-dragon, but when I put together a dragon based character in 3.5, he's going to be unmistakably a dragon. No reflavoring necessary.

[georgie_leech]

They are, and Georgie_Leech's stuff looks great, but it all seems a bit samey. A lot of those "Claws" and "disintegration rays" are just hitting stuff for damage or hitting stuff for more damage. 3.5 lets you use real claws and real disintegration rays. Sure, you can refluff and reflavor all you want, and you might even get to a reasonable place, but 3.5 appears to have a much greater variety of stuff. That dragon could just as easily be a not-dragon, but when I put together a dragon based character in 3.5, he's going to be unmistakably a dragon. No reflavoring necessary.

Claws also just deal damage in 3.5.

I'm also glossing over most of the status effects and options the characters have for the sake of not explaining the entirety of 4th Edition in a single post. I touched on a few of the status effects of the Warlock, but all characters have multiple options. Part of the reason I used Monk for the Dragon is specifically so that it has interesting abilities; at first level, the Dragon can Claw someone, "Bite" someone with a grab attack, knock enemies Prone, fly their speed, damage multiple targets (and it is just damage, no attack necessary; Monks only need to hit one target to use Flurry of Blows to damage another), Breathe Fire (or Acid, or Frost, or Lighting, or Poison), Attack everyone within 10 feet of them for Force Damage, and increase their melee reach for the rest of the encounter. At each level it gains either a new Power to attack with or a Feat, and sometimes both. Level 2 gets the first Utility Power, and the two choices that stand out to me are being able to ignore difficult terrain and run across water, and giving yourself Regeneration while under half health for the rest of the fight.

Incidentally, while agree it could also be not a Dragon, it would still be fairly Draconic; I make a point of sticking as close to what I'm trying to refluff as possible, which is why the "Beholder" sought out single target ranged arcane powers where possible, even if I could have fluffed AoE's as firing multiple rays at once.

[Gemini476]

They are, and Georgie_Leech's stuff looks great, but it all seems a bit samey. A lot of those "Claws" and "disintegration rays" are just hitting stuff for damage or hitting stuff for more damage. 3.5 lets you use real claws and real disintegration rays. Sure, you can refluff and reflavor all you want, and you might even get to a reasonable place, but 3.5 appears to have a much greater variety of stuff. That dragon could just as easily be a not-dragon, but when I put together a dragon based character in 3.5, he's going to be unmistakably a dragon. No reflavoring necessary.

DID YOU KNOW:
In Pathfinder (widely seen as the alternative to 4E if you're switching from 3.5), Disintegrate does 2d6/CL damage on a failed save. When you get it, that's 22d6 damage. On a succeful save, it only deals 5d6 damage.

A Young Red Dragon bites for 2d6+10 damage. That's roughly equivalent to 5d6+1 damage.

Clearly Young Red Dragons in Pathfinder do not bite you, they merely shoot a Disintegrate breath weapon with a really low DC.

[Deophaun]

3.5 lets you use real claws and real disintegration rays.
Real disintegration rays? That's what I get for buying my 3.5 books used.

[Snowbluff]

So when does the 4e disintegration ray destroy a 10 foot cube of terrain?

[georgie_leech]

So when does the 4e disintegration ray destroy a 10 foot cube of terrain?

It doesn't, it does damage to it the same as any other ability. The 10 foot cube thing is how a spell that kills instead of damages interacts with things it really should be able to interact with but can't "kill." Since that's no longer how Disintegrate works, it doesn't need that special rule to function. Note that it can still interact with objects (unless the DM is especially anal about only allowing you to target creatures with anything), it just does it through the established hp mechanics.

As an aside, I don't think the removal of terrain was the primary purpose behind the spell anyway; if you can't do better with a 6th level Wizard spell then make a hole in the ground, you probably aren't trying hard enough.

[eggynack]

Claws also just deal damage in 3.5.
Well, yeah, but they're at least actual claws, and that is an important thing on occasion. Perhaps not the most important thing, but there's something satisfying in just being able to say, "My character's use of claws is represented by the fact that he has claws."


I'm also glossing over most of the status effects and options the characters have for the sake of not explaining the entirety of 4th Edition in a single post. I touched on a few of the status effects of the Warlock, but all characters have multiple options. Part of the reason I used Monk for the Dragon is specifically so that it has interesting abilities; at first level, the Dragon can Claw someone, "Bite" someone with a grab attack, knock enemies Prone, fly their speed, damage multiple targets (and it is just damage, no attack necessary; Monks only need to hit one target to use Flurry of Blows to damage another), Breathe Fire (or Acid, or Frost, or Lighting, or Poison), Attack everyone within 10 feet of them for Force Damage, and increase their melee reach for the rest of the encounter. At each level it gains either a new Power to attack with or a Feat, and sometimes both. Level 2 gets the first Utility Power, and the two choices that stand out to me are being able to ignore difficult terrain and run across water, and giving yourself Regeneration while under half health for the rest of the fight.
Fair enough, I suppose. That's still likely a lower variety than what is achievable in 3.5, if only because stuff like casting exists, but I can't claim nearly as broad an understanding of 4.0's variety as I can in 3.5.


Incidentally, while agree it could also be not a Dragon, it would still be fairly Draconic; I make a point of sticking as close to what I'm trying to refluff as possible, which is why the "Beholder" sought out single target ranged arcane powers where possible, even if I could have fluffed AoE's as firing multiple rays at once.
There definitely is a lot of the feel there, and the builds seem well put together, but there's some sort of underlying difference in feel there. I mean, if I were trying to put together a dragonish character in 3.5, it'd almost certainly be with a druid running dragon wild shape. I don't have to go too far in detail to show how dense such a thing is in ridiculously variety filled abilities, even if you have to be pretty high level. It's probably not a coincidence that a druid would also be my solution to the aberration problem, this time running aberration wild shape. I certainly couldn't get anywhere near that level of variety onto a 3.5 monk, though I probably could with some of the tier 3 classes.

[georgie_leech]

Well, yeah, but they're at least actual claws, and that is an important thing on occasion. Perhaps not the most important thing, but there's something satisfying in just being able to say, "My character's use of claws is represented by the fact that he has claws."

Fair enough. I don't dispute that 3.5 has many more out of the box options than 4th, and that's because 3.5 tends to be much more granular. 4th Edition makes basically no distinction between Natural Weapons and regular weapons, with the obvious exception that you can actually purchase the latter. The only class I can think of that actually uses any "Natural" Weapons are the Vampire (for obvious reasons) and the Druid while Wildshaped.


Fair enough, I suppose. That's still likely a lower variety than what is achievable in 3.5, if only because stuff like casting exists, but I can't claim nearly as broad an understanding of 4.0's variety as I can in 3.5.

It's always struck me as a different kind of variety. 3.5 has more mechanical variety, in that it has a much greater variety of options to choose from. With a dash of Class X and Feat Y and Item Z you can get effects A, B, and C. 4th Edition though, for all it has a fairly rigid design structure overall, can be contorted to mean different things fairly easily on a more local level. Take a Fighter Power that uses a weapon, does some damage, and knocks the target prone. This might be anything from tripping the opponent with your leg as you hit them with your sword, sweeping their legs out from under them with your weapon, hitting them hard enough to just knock them over, a skillful flurry of minor blows that forces the opponent to their knees... In my experience 3.5 almost certainly has an option for all of these, but the focus on mechanical variety encourages that you find a specific way to do each one.

In a sense, optimisation in 3.5 is like engineering, or a puzzle; you know what you want to achieve, so you go looking for individual pieces that fit together into the whole so you can do whatever it is you want to do without sucking at it. While you can do that with 4th (and can get some suitably silly results too), I find it tends to encourage more of a "weaving" frame of mind; you have the thread of the mechanics, now what can you create with them? I acknowledge them as fundamentally different approaches, it just bugs me when people claim that it has no variety at all.


There definitely is a lot of the feel there, and the builds seem well put together, but there's some sort of underlying difference in feel there. I mean, if I were trying to put together a dragonish character in 3.5, it'd almost certainly be with a druid running dragon wild shape. I don't have to go too far in detail to show how dense such a thing is in ridiculously variety filled abilities, even if you have to be pretty high level. It's probably not a coincidence that a druid would also be my solution to the aberration problem, this time running aberration wild shape. I certainly couldn't get anywhere near that level of variety onto a 3.5 monk, though I probably could with some of the tier 3 classes.

Thanks! As mentioned up thread, it might be possible to do something with Druid, and it would probably capture the Natural Weapon "feel" a lot better than mine did. I don't have much experience with Druid though, so wasn't sure that I could pull off the other bits as well; the Breath Recharge bit needs a Martial class somewhere in there, for instance, no discussion possible. And Yeah, 3.5 Druid is kind of crazy like that, isn't it? It might not have the same theoretical power ceiling as the Wizard barring cheesy tricks like Shapechange Wish Looping, but it's kind of ridiculous in how much you can get it to do. I guess that's what happens when you get multiple class features (Animal Companion, Wildshape, various summoning and polymorph effects) that basically say "thumb through the Monster Manuals and cherry pick whatever abilities you feel like borrowing, and don't worry about being locked into anything, you can always change your mind later."

[eggynack]

And Yeah, 3.5 Druid is kind of crazy like that, isn't it? It might not have the same theoretical power ceiling as the Wizard barring cheesy tricks like Shapechange Wish Looping, but it's kind of ridiculous in how much you can get it to do.
I've been doing some research on that account, and I'm pretty sure that dipping contemplative for the spell domain equalizes the power ceilings to some degree. That's also obviously leaving aside planar shepherd, which is obviously ridiculous.


I guess that's what happens when you get multiple class features (Animal Companion, Wildshape, various summoning and polymorph effects) that basically say "thumb through the Monster Manuals and cherry pick whatever abilities you feel like borrowing, and don't worry about being locked into anything, you can always change your mind later."
Indeed so. It's doubly true when you pick up stuff like dragon or exalted wild shape, thus increasing the abilities you can spontaneously borrow to include stuff like true seeing, infinite immunities, and at will dimension door. Suffice to say that the intricacies of dragon wild shape are a thing which I've only recently started researching in a serious way, and it is a neat thing. I'm probably going to be suggesting it more in random druid advice threads now, especially as I've already gotten a lot of mileage out of the whole dipping holt warden followed by contemplative thing.

[georgie_leech]

At this rate, you're going to oust Wizard as the quintessential Tier 1. "Tier 1: There's a spell Druid for that."

[eggynack]

At this rate, you're going to oust Wizard as the quintessential Tier 1. "Tier 1: There's a spell Druid for that."
That is the dream. Hopefully some increased druid-love of that variety may come of the mighty handbook, which currently clocks in at 58,656 words. It is a thing of some level of fanciness.

[georgie_leech]

That is the dream. Hopefully some increased druid-love of that variety may come of the mighty handbook, which currently clocks in at 58,656 words. It is a thing of some level of fanciness.

Wow. I suppose there's an entire section on debunking various things people think trip Druids up?

[eggynack]

Wow. I suppose there's an entire section on debunking various things people think trip Druids up?
Not in particular, though there is some emphasis there on stuff that's relatively uncommon, so spells like shuffle (Shining South, 49) or stormwalk (Storm, 122) get a mention where they likely wouldn't in a wizard handbook, just because teleportation pops up on the list so rarely, and it's thus often cited as a weakness. Druids just be dense. I think most of the length is taken up by spell stuff, though stuff that is not that has been occupying most of my time lately. For example, the various abilities made accessible through becoming a dragon. Also, I have oft been known, through the course of my various ventures, as a rather verbose personage.

[Vanitas]

Just like you asked why people seem to like houserules in 3e but not in 4e, I'd like to know why everyone proclaiming the wonders of refluffing in 4e seem to think (A) that it's a novel invention and (B) that it's not doable in 3e. If people put half the effort into reflavoring 3e wizards into grenadiers as they did reflavoring 4e wizards into beholders, this argument wouldn't come up anymore. :smallwink:


They are also ignoring how the 4e beholder is under the arcane power source, which has mechanical interactions of its own. Refluffing leads to some funny mechanical consequences in either edition and it is not a 4e strength - it's just more necessary in 4e because there is a lot less diversity. It's not a feature - it's more of a bug.

[eggynack]

Also, tossing out (lesser) orbs of X seems like it would make for a solid grenadier. Grenades need to work against things that block magic? Well, orbs of X do that. It's not perfect, because orbs are still spells, and thus fail against specifically anti-spell things, but it works out alright. Additionally, in keeping with my "everything is druids" theme, fire seeds is basically perfect for a grenadier, even if it is high level.

Edit: Actually, you can probably run it with any sort of SR: no, instantaneous conjuration (creation) blasting spell, which are plentiful enough. Splinterbolt shoots arrows at people? Now it shoots an arrow shooting grenade that increases in size as you level. Icelance throws an icy spear at folks? Now it's an icy grenade. Blast of sand is a blast of sand? Now it's a grenade. Rockburst would also fit thematically with the whole deal. Add on the fifth fangshields druid substitution level, so you have the hands necessary to throw grenades while you fly around as a bat, and everything is copacetic.

[georgie_leech]

They are also ignoring how the 4e beholder is under the arcane power source, which has mechanical interactions of its own. Refluffing leads to some funny mechanical consequences in either edition and it is not a 4e strength - it's just more necessary in 4e because there is a lot less diversity. It's not a feature - it's more of a bug.

So was the "beholder" I posted. :smallconfused:

[Vanitas]

So was the "beholder" I posted. :smallconfused:

What I meant is that your "beholder" is an arcane character, but a beholder monster is not.

[Togo]

Hm... Is there anything that 4e can refluff in this way that 3.5 can't?

My perception of 4e is that it lacks mechanical granularity. That is that it supports a narrower range of mechanics, making the different options less textured mechanically, and making everything feel slightly 'samey'.

From my point of view, the only point of having a system-heavy game like D&D is to create situations and effects that wouldn't occur to the players or the DM. If we're going to make the mechanics for different things very similar, then the system isn't adding anything to the game, and we might as well dispense with it altogether. As a result I either play very system-heavy games, such as 3.x, or very system light games such as FATE or BeSM. I don't have any use for a streamlined version of a system heavy game, because the streamlining removes the benefits of the system, without which I might as well remove the system altogether.

I can create a beholder. I just make a badge saying "look, I'm a beholder" and stick it to the player's shirt. Job done. If you want the distinction to make a mechanical difference in the game, then you need rules that distinguish being a beholder from being anything else. 4e doesn't do that for me. 3.5 does.

It does seem a very well designed game, it runs smoothly and it does a good job at presenting options to players without allowing them to break the game or challenge the format of the scenario. I just have no real interest in playing it.

Given that the reason I have no interest in it, is precisely because all the classes are carefully balanced and the mechanical options available to players are very limited, it seems reasonable to point to character-op forums filled with people blaming their ability to use meaningful options to break a game on the design of the game not stopping them from doing so, as an influence that may have heavily inspired precisely those elements of 4e that stop me from enjoying it.

[Drachasor]

They are also ignoring how the 4e beholder is under the arcane power source, which has mechanical interactions of its own. Refluffing leads to some funny mechanical consequences in either edition and it is not a 4e strength - it's just more necessary in 4e because there is a lot less diversity. It's not a feature - it's more of a bug.

Well, it's not a feature or a bug. Refluffing isn't a part of how 4E works anymore than it is 3E, 2E, or 1E. You CAN refluff stuff if the DM allows, but you certainly don't have any right to do so -- as a point of comparison there are system where refluffing is a right.

I don't think having the same basic mechanics being shared is really 4E's problem though. Each class does have unique elements to it that make them play differently. In my experience the biggest problem 4E had is that the PHB is written like a straight-jacket. It ingrains into the players the idea that if they do not have explicit permission to do something, then they can't do it. Now, the 4E DMG has rules to support creative ideas, but that doesn't fix the problem of the PHB telling players DO NOT BE CREATIVE.

Fixed abilities that do precisely what they say and no more. Removal of a lot of non-combat mechanics in general. A sharp indication that combat abilities should not be used creatively. And the rather artificial leveling system (where you just lose weaker powers and get new ones that might not be remotely similar). I think this is probably where the "it's like a video game" stuff comes from, the feeling of being artificially constrained even if it doesn't make sense. (That said, I don't think the video game criticism is accurate in general).

Related to this is how 4E doesn't really care enough about verisimilitude (imho). This is important in any RPG. Now sure, 3E could get ridiculous in this regard, but it cared enough to have a veneer of high fantasy realism. 4E moves very far away from this and it rubs some the wrong way.

But none of this really has anything to do with balance, strictly speaking. They could have had rules for scaling powers up so you had more consistency with characters. They could have emphasized that you can be creative in the PHB (and even built it into the rules a bit more). They could have had more non-combat bits. They just didn't think about it, imho, so it didn't get worked on. Or perhaps they had tunnel vision and were overly paranoid about balance concerns.

You certainly can have a reasonably balanced game where classes share some similar mechanics that doesn't look or play remotely like 4E. You can also have a reasonably balanced game with very different mechanics across classes.

In other words, just because 4E made some major mistakes doesn't mean every design goal 4E had was bad, nor that everything 4E does is bad.

[LordBlades]

A question (Since I don't have any 4E books and can't really be bothered to borrow some just for that): does 4E Disintegrate actually do any disintegrating?

3.5 Disintegrate, while it does have some rules and saves and so it might not always produce the desired effect, in general disintegrates stuff (people, items, parts of the scenery etc.).

[Gemini476]

A question (Since I don't have any 4E books and can't really be bothered to borrow some just for that): does 4E Disintegrate actually do any disintegrating?

3.5 Disintegrate, while it does have some rules and saves and so it might not always produce the desired effect, in general disintegrates stuff (people, items, parts of the scenery etc.).

This is the un-erratad version:
{table]Disintegrate Wizard Attack 19
You fire a green ray from your wand. Whatever the emerald beam hits disappears in a puff of gray dust.
Daily + Arcane, Implement
Standard Action...Ranged 10
Target: One creature or object
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Special: You don't need to make an attack roll to hit an unattended object with this power.
Hit: 5d10+Intelligence modifier damage, and ongoing 10 damage (save ends). If the target saves, it takes ongoing 5 damage (save ends).
Miss: 3d10+Intelligence modifier damage, and ongoing 5 damage (save ends).[/table]

There's probably some standardized version for presenting this somewhere in the homebrew forum, but I haven't seen it.


But yeah, if it destroys anything it destroys it through disintegrating it, much like a sword destroys by cutting or a Fireball by burning.

The only limits for Raise Dead, if I'm reading this correctly, are:
You need a part of a corpse of a creature that died no more than 30 days ago.
The creature is not petrified.
The creature did not die of old age.
The soul must be willing to return to life.
Some magical effects trap the soul and prevent Raise Dead from working, and the gods can intervene to prevent a soul from retuning to life.

So unrecoverable low-level death by Disintegration is no longer a thing.

[Snowbluff]

It doesn't, it does damage to it the same as any other ability. The 10 foot cube thing is how a spell that kills instead of damages interacts with things it really should be able to interact with but can't "kill." Since that's no longer how Disintegrate works, it doesn't need that special rule to function. Note that it can still interact with objects (unless the DM is especially anal about only allowing you to target creatures with anything), it just does it through the established hp mechanics.

As an aside, I don't think the removal of terrain was the primary purpose behind the spell anyway; if you can't do better with a 6th level Wizard spell then make a hole in the ground, you probably aren't trying hard enough.

It's just a lousy, over levels scorching ray, then. Disintegrate is not just any ray spell.

[Actana]

It's just a lousy, over levels scorching ray, then. Disintegrate is not just any ray spell.

Is it though? Lets take a look at the 3.5 version of Disintegrate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm).


A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger.
Just as the 4e one says in the fluff. The errata'd version of 4e even makes it your pointing finger instead of wand.


You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit.
Exactly like 4e though since the core mechanics are different, it is instead Intelligence vs Reflex. Reflex is 4e's "touch attack" defense, and Intelligence as an attack modifier replaces both the attack roll and the saving throw of 3.5. It's streamlined, but not exactly different in any way.


Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6).
Pure damage. That's about the same as in 4e, though 4e also has the ongoing damage for it, which makes it slightly more interesting mechanically.


Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected.
Disintegrate's fluff says it reduces things to grey dust. That's about the same here. No real differences to be honest.


When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field.
This is pretty much the only mechanically different thing comparing the two, and even then 4e's Disintegrate clearly states that the target is either a creature or an object. It even says that it automatically hits an object. And since objects can't make saving throws, the ongoing damage will eventually destroy whatever object you point the ray at.


A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage. If this damage reduces the creature or object to 0 or fewer hit points, it is entirely disintegrated.
4e's Disintegrate has essentially half damage. Same mechanical effect, though different numerical values.


Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting.
So in effect it is "Target: one creature or object". Just as in 4e.


Then, lets take a quick look at 3.5's Scorching Ray: It deals damage. It might deal damage to either multiple targets, or a single target. Regardless, it is pure damage. Just as 3.5's Disintegrate when used against enemies. Sure, there's the multiple targets thing, but for every Scorching Ray there are a dozen single target damage dealing rays.

So yes, maybe Disintegrate is just an over-leveled Scorching Ray in 4e. Thing is, it is effectively an over-leveled Scorching Ray in 3.5 too, when it comes down to it.

[Vanitas]

Disintegrate's fluff says it reduces things to grey dust. That's about the same here. No real differences to be honest.
Oh, really? So I'm guessing a disintegrated creature can't be brought by Raise Dead in 4e, that it leaves no loot behind, that you can't communicate with it using Speak With the Dead. I'm guessing there is some errata that allows you to disintegrate part of a wall with this spell, because you can't with the statblock presented.

Also, I just noticed you can destroy the Earth in 4e by casting Disintegrate at it. It affects the whole object and there is no save.

[Snowbluff]

You should try using scorching ray to burn through rock sometime.

[Actana]

Oh, really? So I'm guessing a disintegrated creature can't be brought by Raise Dead in 4e, that it leaves no loot behind, that you can't communicate with it using Speak With the Dead. I'm guessing there is some errata that allows you to disintegrate part of a wall with this spell, because you can't with the statblock presented.

Also, I just noticed you can destroy the Earth in 4e by casting Disintegrate at it. It affects the whole object and there is no save.

Raise dead requires "a part of the corpse of a creature" in 4e. Whether or not that part can be acquired with Disintegrate is up to the DM. Same with loot, it can be gone or not gone. 3.5 explicitly says it's unaffected, and I see no reason you would affect the equipment in 4e (though generally creatures don't use that fancy equipment in the first place, so losing them isn't that big of a fret on a general basis).

For the wall, Disintegrate clearly says you can attack an object. A wall would be an object. A reasonably sized hole in the wall wouldn't be out of place. Of course, this is an out-of-combat use for Disintegrate, and exactly how large a hole the spell makes eventually is up to the DM (though the damage dealt still applies. A conservative and quick estimate would give a "wall" around 80 hit points (40 for being large and x2 for being stone) but it could be up to 200 or more depending on the size of the wall). So yeah, 5d10+bonuses would be enough to demolish a significant part of the wall, and the ongoing damage would chip away the rest of that part of the wall.

As for the earth being disintegrated, that is just silly and hardly an argument against 4e. Do you want me to bring up every dumb thing you can do in RAW 3.5? Because that's just about the same thing.

I think there's a misconception between 3.5 and 4e about the DM's role. 4e gives the DM far greater control over the specifics of non-combat things, like what happens to a disintegrated body afterwards or how large an object can be affected. 3.5 has a lot of rules on this matter, 4e doesn't. Neither approach is wrong. They're just different with different goals.

[Vanitas]

I think there's a misconception between 3.5 and 4e about the DM's role. 4e gives the DM far greater control over the specifics of non-combat things, like what happens to a disintegrated body afterwards or how large an object can be affected. 3.5 has a lot of rules on this matter, 4e doesn't. Neither approach is wrong. They're just different with different goals.
No, 4e does not give "far greater control". It gives as much control as 3.5 because DM fiat is a thing in both. 4e gives the DM more work, because he has to figure out more stuff since he has nothing to measure it against.

Also what Snowbluff said about rocks - energy damage only deals half damage against objects, but disintegrate is not energy damage. Disintegrate is a crappy combat spell with a lot of utility in 3.5 and in 4e it's... I don't know, it's probably an okay damage spell.

[Snowbluff]

Don't forget hardness! :smalltongue:



As for the earth being disintegrated, that is just silly and hardly an argument against 4e. Do you want me to bring up every dumb thing you can do in RAW 3.5? Because that's just about the same thing.

Yes, everything. 100%. That's what you get with 3.5, and we can't expect less from the now complete 4e, correct?

[Actana]

No, 4e does not give "far greater control". It gives as much control as 3.5 because DM fiat is a thing in both. 4e gives the DM more work, because he has to figure out more stuff since he has nothing to measure it against.

I disagree. 3.5 gives a lot of rules on the matter, and 4e doesn't. In 3.5 there's an expectation that these rules will be adhered to generally, and if someone forgets the rules the best course would be to find the rules and apply them. Because if the small obscure rules (that I really do hold a fondness for in theory) shouldn't be used, why would they be there?

Now, I know that there's a thing as DM fiat. And yes, it should be used appropriately. The point still is that there are the rules for these things, whereas in 4e there aren't rules for these things, freeing the DM to make stuff up on the fly without DM fiat, thus making the expectation for 4e that the DM can and should make these things up (as for bad DMs making dumb choices, there will always be bad DMs and dumb choices in whatever system, so a bad DM in 4e is likely a bad DM in 3.5).

What you see as more work to me is more freedom. There are the general tables of hit points and HP multipliers for objects and such, so there is a basis for these things, but 4e lacks the more detailed approach to specific situations. You might not like it, and that's okay, but personally I see it as a benefit for GM freedom.


Also what Snowbluff said about rocks - energy damage only deals half damage against objects, but disintegrate is not energy damage. Disintegrate is a crappy combat spell with a lot of utility in 3.5 and in 4e it's... I don't know, it's probably an okay damage spell.

Eh. 4e explicitly says that the DM should assign resistances for different damage types as he sees appropriate, then gives some examples, like stone having resist to fire and vulnerability to acid, etc. And the 4e Disintegrate does have as much utility as the 3.5 one, as I already showed with the object attacking.

On a final note, 4e does suffer from the expectation of restricted use of powers. That's very true, and the PHB does not really support the kind of creativity 3.5 does, and even then doesn't provide half the means to do creative things. But still, saying that you can't use 4e powers in creative ways is extremely limited thinking, and is something that should be eliminated.

I respect both systems, though I've grown a bit too disillusioned with 3.5's balance issues when actually playing. Neither system is perfect, but I just think 4e gets a far worse reputation than it deserves.


Yes, everything. 100%. That's what you get with 3.5, and we can't expect less from the now complete 4e, correct?
Sarcasm? :smallconfused:

[Snowbluff]

Sarcasm? :smallconfused:

Sincerity. I mark my sarcasm in blue since I can't use vocal intonations to express it. The dumb RAW stuff is the best part of 3.5. It also gained more flexibility and variety in its run than 4e did. I am sure people who are more frustrated than I will bring it up. The short way way to get someone who prefers 3.5 to play 4e over 3.5 is to convince them that they can do everything in 4e. Let's start with simulacrum, and then move onto costless simulacrum. That's my favorite part of 3.5.

[Drachasor]

I disagree. 3.5 gives a lot of rules on the matter, and 4e doesn't. In 3.5 there's an expectation that these rules will be adhered to generally, and if someone forgets the rules the best course would be to find the rules and apply them. Because if the small obscure rules (that I really do hold a fondness for in theory) shouldn't be used, why would they be there?

Now, I know that there's a thing as DM fiat. And yes, it should be used appropriately. The point still is that there are the rules for these things, whereas in 4e there aren't rules for these things, freeing the DM to make stuff up on the fly without DM fiat, thus making the expectation for 4e that the DM can and should make these things up (as for bad DMs making dumb choices, there will always be bad DMs and dumb choices in whatever system, so a bad DM in 4e is likely a bad DM in 3.5).

What you see as more work to me is more freedom. There are the general tables of hit points and HP multipliers for objects and such, so there is a basis for these things, but 4e lacks the more detailed approach to specific situations. You might not like it, and that's okay, but personally I see it as a benefit for GM freedom.

This is a bad part of 4E's design overall though. The DM has more work to do. It's not just one decision or separate decisions for each spell. He has to decide on an entire framework for handling magic if he wants to be consistent. The game provides no guidelines for this in any way. Heck, the rules help with creative combat actions*, but AFAIK there's nothing on using powers for creative non-combat actions. The DM is totally on his own. There's an additional problem, as I talked about above. Players read these entries and think "ok, I can't be creative, the spell does only what it says it does and no more". The DM is given the same impression, as far as I remember. And unlike 3.X there are very few basic facts about physical objects or phenomenon to work with. So there's very little starting point for a 4E DM in figuring out how to do this in a sensible and balanced way.**

You might as well say having NO system is better than having a system. Then the DM can make up everything! Pure freedom!

Though, don't misconstrue me as saying 3.X is remotely perfect. It has tremendous problems of its own. Balance issues are its major problem and it takes immense amount of knowledge and experience to handle them. You can easily end up with characters of wildly varying power levels, which is often not fun for the players of weaker characters.

*Though like I said, the PHB doesn't bother to even HINT to players about this.

**I am not saying there is no starting point. Just that there is a lot less than 3.5 provided.

[Gemini476]

I feel strangely compelled to post earlier versions of Disintegrate. I don't know why.

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
Disintegrate
(Alteration)

Range: 5yds./level
Duration: Instantaneous
Area of Effect: 1 creature or 10 x 10 x 10 ft. cube
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 6
Saving Throw: Neg.

This spell causes matter to vanish. It affects even matter (or energy) of a magical nature, such as Bigby's forceful hand, but not a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic shell. Disintegration is instantaneous, and its effects are permanent. Any single creature can be affected, even undead. Nonliving matter, up to a 10-foot x 10-foot x 10-foot cube, can be obliterated by the spell. The spell creates a thin, green ray that causes physical material touched to glow and vanish, leaving traces of fine dust. Creatures that successfully saved vs. spell have avoided the ray (material items have resisted the magic) and are not affected. Only the first creature or object struck can be affected.
The material components are a lodestone and a pinch of dust.

AD&D Raise Dead requires the corpse to be whole. Or rather, if you cast it when the corpse has missing parts then the parts will still be missing when the creature is resurrected.
Elves cannot be resurrected.

Rules Compendium
Disintegrate
Range: 60'
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: Destroys one creature or object

This spell causes one creature or nonmagical
object to crumble to dust. A victim may make a
saving throw vs. death ray to avoid the effect.
(The spell can disintegrate a dragon, a ship, or a
10' section of wall, for example.)
The spell does not affect magical items or spell
effects.
Raise Dead in the RC has the same missing parts clause as the AD&D version.
Elves can be Raised, however.
It also kills undead, unsurprisingly. Where do you think Final Fantasy took that from?
It also has a really short time limit. As in, "the body has been dead for up to four days" short. +1 day for each level above eighth. AD&D at least had it measured in years.


Hey, where in the 4E DMG (I presume) is there a table and/or text on how to handle object damage? I'd be very interested in finding it.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd also point out that not everyone necessarily views 4e's flavor/mechanics disconnect as a good thing. In games with strong a flavor/mechanics connection, players (and characters) can infer a lot from what they see and experience in game. Encounter an enemy who casts a black tentacles spell? You can roughly judge its power level and guess at some of its other capabilities. Encounter a dragon? You can be fairly sure it can fly, breath energy of some sort, cast a few spells, and rip you apart in melee. If you run into a monster that doesn't meet your expectations (like a red dragon that can't fly or a black tentacles caster with a terrible Will save), it's most likely because of a polymorph effect, a disguise, or some other in-game reason why that might be so.

In an effects-based game with a flavor/mechanics disconnect like 4e, Fate, GURPS, or the like, you can't really infer much from what you experience. There are rarely abilities like identifying spells based on verbal components or other things involving flavor like that, a "dragon" could be practically anything reflavored to look like a dragon, you can't make judgments like "Oh, he can use [ability X], he's probably this tough and can also do Y and Z" because X could be anything else reflavored into X, and so forth.

Hey, I wanted to post that :smallamused:

[Actana]

Sincerity. I mark my sarcasm in blue since I can't use vocal intonations to express it. The dumb RAW stuff is the best part of 3.5. It also gained more flexibility and variety in its run than 4e did. I am sure people who are more frustrated than I will bring it up. The short way way to get someone who prefers 3.5 to play 4e over 3.5 is to convince them that they can do everything in 4e. Let's start with simulacrum, and then move onto costless simulacrum. That's my favorite part of 3.5.

Oh! Don't get me wrong, I have never said that 4e has the same amount of flexibility that 3.5 does. It doesn't and never will, and can never have with the structure it has. I'm just saying that Disintegrate is a bit of a poor example, as the versions are actually remarkably similar in how they work. If you want I can try finding you a better example to use on the differences between the systems.


This is a bad part of 4E's design overall though. The DM has more work to do. It's not just one decision or separate decisions for each spell. He has to decide on an entire framework for handling magic if he wants to be consistent. The game provides no guidelines for this in any way. Heck, the rules help with creative combat actions*, but AFAIK there's nothing on using powers for creative non-combat actions. The DM is totally on his own. There's an additional problem, as I talked about above. Players read these entries and think "ok, I can't be creative, the spell does only what it says it does and no more". The DM is given the same impression, as far as I remember. And unlike 3.X there are very few basic facts about physical objects or phenomenon to work with. So there's very little starting point for a 4E DM in figuring out how to do this in a sensible and balanced way.**

You might as well say having NO system is better than having a system. Then the DM can make up everything! Pure freedom!

Though, don't misconstrue me as saying 3.X is remotely perfect. It has tremendous problems of its own. Balance issues are its major problem and it takes immense amount of knowledge and experience to handle them. You can easily end up with characters of wildly varying power levels, which is often not fun for the players of weaker characters.

*Though like I said, the PHB doesn't bother to even HINT to players about this.

**I am not saying there is no starting point. Just that there is a lot less than 3.5 provided.

I've never really found too much trouble with creative uses, and most of the time it's the players asking me if they can use a power in a certain way, and me okaying it. It's a flaw, definitely, that the game doesn't encourage creative use, but as long as you recognize that you can use them a bit more creatively and then advocate that, a large part of the problem is eliminated.

4e is structured enough that creating new things is not terribly difficult, especially since there are very few rules that interact with each other (no scaling DCs, HD or caster levels for example). It can get a bit cumbersome at times when you're creating a lot of new stuff, but I actually find that rather enjoyable. For out-of-combat uses, it's mostly an issue of "eh, why not?" when allowing unorthodox PC actions, as I think it might be cool at the moment. I do my best to be consistent, but I might falter at times since I need to come up with stuff on the spot. But I don't see coming up with stuff in the middle of the game as too big of a problem.

[Snowbluff]

Oh! Don't get me wrong, I have never said that 4e has the same amount of flexibility that 3.5 does. It doesn't and never will, and can never have with the structure it has. I'm just saying that Disintegrate is a bit of a poor example, as the versions are actually remarkably similar in how they work. If you want I can try finding you a better example to use on the differences between the systems.

I concur with this. Carry on. Only a slight weapons malfunction. We're fine.

[Gemini476]

I'd also point out that not everyone necessarily views 4e's flavor/mechanics disconnect as a good thing. In games with strong a flavor/mechanics connection, players (and characters) can infer a lot from what they see and experience in game. Encounter an enemy who casts a black tentacles spell? You can roughly judge its power level and guess at some of its other capabilities. Encounter a dragon? You can be fairly sure it can fly, breath energy of some sort, cast a few spells, and rip you apart in melee. If you run into a monster that doesn't meet your expectations (like a red dragon that can't fly or a black tentacles caster with a terrible Will save), it's most likely because of a polymorph effect, a disguise, or some other in-game reason why that might be so.

In an effects-based game with a flavor/mechanics disconnect like 4e, Fate, GURPS, or the like, you can't really infer much from what you experience. There are rarely abilities like identifying spells based on verbal components or other things involving flavor like that, a "dragon" could be practically anything reflavored to look like a dragon, you can't make judgments like "Oh, he can use [ability X], he's probably this tough and can also do Y and Z" because X could be anything else reflavored into X, and so forth.

...What? Isn't GURPS basically the posterchild for overly complicated simulationist games? Overly complicated simulationist games where someone can create a Portal-esque teleportation loop that can be magically tapped for unlimited kinetic energy?

I can kind of understand why you have 4E and FATE on that list (although I'd argue about FATE: Aspects are pretty good for giving mechanical effect to narrative things), but I really don't know why you lumped GURPS into that group.
Like, really. You took what are pretty much the perfect examples of Gamist, Narrative, and Simulationist games, and put them all into one group. I dunno.

[Brookshw]

.
. Disintegrate is a crappy combat spell with a lot of utility in 3.5 and in 4e it's... I don't know, it's probably an okay damage spell.

How is something "crappy" and "okay" simultaneously? :smallconfused:

[Actana]

How is something "crappy" and "okay" simultaneously? :smallconfused:

Different systems. In 3.5 it's a crappy combat spell, but in 4e it's an okay combat spell (don't know the truth of this, never got into 4e wizards that much).

[Kurald Galain]

Oh! Don't get me wrong, I have never said that 4e has the same amount of flexibility that 3.5 does. It doesn't and never will, and can never have with the structure it has. I'm just saying that Disintegrate is a bit of a poor example, as the versions are actually remarkably similar in how they work. If you want I can try finding you a better example to use on the differences between the systems.

A better example, perhaps, is Finger Of Death. In both games, this is fluffed as a spell that kills someone. By the crunch, in 3E it does this by having the victim roll a saving throw and killing him if he fails; in 4E it does this by dealing damage comparable to other spells of the same level.

So here, without claiming that either game is superior, we can see two clear differences in design philosophy. First, for this spell, in 3E the crunch matches the fluff, whereas in 4E it does not (i.e. it is fluffed as an especially lethal attack, but the crunch is identical to other damage spells). Generally speaking, it is important in 3E design that the crunch matches the fluff, whereas in 4E it is not.

And second, 3E allows for certain effects that 4E does not. In this case, save-or-lose; but it's easy to find other mechanical effects that are common 3E but rare or nonexistent in 4E, such as low-level flight or invisibility, large-size characters, or long-lasting but dispellable buffs. Tying in with the first point, frequently 4E will have these effects in fluff but not in crunch (e.g. an ability fluffed as flying, but with the crunch of jumping and landing immediately).

Generally the debate then becomes whether these extra effects add versatility (the 3E point of view), or unbalance the game (the 4E point of view).

[Kurald Galain]

Different systems. In 3.5 it's a crappy combat spell, but in 4e it's an okay combat spell (don't know the truth of this, never got into 4e wizards that much).

Disintegrate is a very poor spell in 4E, generally considered bottom tier and not worth taking. This is because it deals low damage (for its level) to a single target, and does nothing else. Good spells would (a) deal high damage to a single target, or (b) deal low damage to multiple targets, or (c) inflict status conditions in addition to damage. FYI.

[Actana]

Disintegrate is a very poor spell in 4E, generally considered bottom tier and not worth taking. This is because it deals low damage (for its level) to a single target, and does nothing else. Good spells would (a) deal high damage to a single target, or (b) deal low damage to multiple targets, or (c) inflict status conditions in addition to damage. FYI.

I thought as much. Just wasn't sure on the matter and didn't want to make any assumptions. I also knew you are far more knowledgeable on wizards than I am and would correct any untrue statements. :smallredface:

[Deophaun]

They are also ignoring how the 4e beholder is under the arcane power source, which has mechanical interactions of its own. Refluffing leads to some funny mechanical consequences in either edition and it is not a 4e strength - it's just more necessary in 4e because there is a lot less diversity. It's not a feature - it's more of a bug.
It has mechanical interactions with feats and prerequisites, but there are precious few, if any, effects that target power sources. So it has implications for character building, but not for actual game play.

Well, it's not a feature or a bug. Refluffing isn't a part of how 4E works anymore than it is 3E, 2E, or 1E. You CAN refluff stuff if the DM allows, but you certainly don't have any right to do so
100% Wrong.

A power’s flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like. Your wizard’s magic missile spell, for example, might create phantasmal skulls that howl through the air to strike your opponent, rather than simple bolts of magical energy.

[georgie_leech]

What I meant is that your "beholder" is an arcane character, but a beholder monster is not.

And why shouldn't it be? Every class has a power source, and it impacts what feats it can take. 4E Monsters don't have to worry about them; they have the abilities they do, and the DM doesn't have to worry about splat diving if they want, say, a goblin to be more threatening than an orc in melee combat. PC's do though, and it would be a poor PC that locked itself out of a large portion of feats that should be able to apply. With that in mind, lets look at what power source it should be: It's certainly not Martial, as it involves no weapons skill at all; it's not channeling the power of ancestral and/or nature spirits, so Primal is out; Psionic is possible, but I don't see much in the text to imply the Beholder achieves its effects via mental discipline and control; it's not divine, because their powers aren't being granted by an outside source (whether directly as is the case with the Invoker or indirectly in the case of the Cleric and Paladin); that leaves Arcane, which is channelling magical energy.

[Boci]

And why shouldn't it be? Every class has a power source, and it impacts what feats it can take. 4E Monsters don't have to worry about them;

To many that's the issue: the artificial differences 4th has between PC and NPC.

[Deophaun]

With that in mind, lets look at what power source it should be...
The answer is whatever gives access to the abilities the player wants. Now arcane is the logical choice to start at, but a divine, psionic, or primal build might be able to pull it off as well. After all, once you hit the table, the power source goes away.

And there's also nothing stopping you from playing a beholder that has a defensive suite of eye rays instead of an offensive one, if that's a concept you're going for, so alternate power sources may be more appropriate.

[Ansem]

To many that's the issue: the artificial differences 4th has between PC and NPC.

Which only kills the concept of a fantasy realm and roleplay further.

[Deophaun]

To many that's the issue: the artificial differences 4th has between PC and NPC.
And if you had read earlier, this was already discussed, and the opposite is also said to be true: the differences between PC and monster is a strength of 4th.

This is what happens when you live in a world where people have differing opinions.

[Boci]

And if you had read earlier, this was already discussed, and the opposite is also said to be true: the differences between PC and monster is a strength of 4th.

This is what happens when you live in a world where people have differing opinions.

I'm well aware of that, hence why I started the statement with "to many" rather than presenting it as a universal truth, however, I am not so sure the difference between PC and monster a strength of 4e, rather the streamlining this approach to design allows is the strength. In a game where you can play monsters, a difference between PC and monster is rarely going to be a strength in of itself, however it can be viewed as a worthwhile trade.

[Deophaun]

In a game where you can play monsters, a difference between PC and monster is rarely going to be a strength in of itself, however it can be viewed as a worthwhile trade.
This statement is a product of (unintentional) equivocation.

You cannot play a monster in 4e, because PCs are, by definition, not monsters. That is, PCs play by a different set of rules, and monsters play by another. A beholder built by Joe to be run in Bob's campaign is not a monster to the game, even if we think of a beholder as a monster. A human soldier built by Bob to be an adversary for Joe is a monster to the game, even if we don't think of humans as monsters.

[Captnq]

OMG.

Is this still going on?

And now we are quibbling over fluff and disintegrate?

Alright, lets try and get back on track here.

All things being weighed, 3.0/3.5 is better then 4th.

Does that mean that You should stop playing 4th? Does that mean you won't enjoy playing 4th? No. Clearly not. but we can measure a wide number of OBJECTIVE evidence and compare the two.

How many books published under 3.0/3.5? How many under 4th?
3rd party support. How much for 3.0/3.5? How much for 4th?

Uh-huh. Thought so.

So does simply having more material make something better? No. but it is a strong factor.

After trying their level best to kill 3.0/3.5, how strong is the community who plays it? Is the 3rd party stuff still going strong?

Oh You BETCHA.

I've got a gift. My Gift is simple. I zone out. I absorb Data Sets. I spit them back out at you. I analyze data. It's what I do. I do it VERY well.

See my sig? I'm up to 80 files of Handbooks either finished, or in the process of being finished. Why? It's what I do. Better then helping banks destroy entire economies. Did I write all that? Hell no. But I am damn good at digging up information.

4th edition just doesn't have "it". People just don't care about it. 3.0/3.5 got the PLAYERS involved in the game. Horribly/Wonderfully involved, but we could give feedback. And if we disagreed, we could make our own rules. If Our rules sucked, the internet would judge us. If we had great ideas, the great ideas would prosper and spread.

Think of 3.0/3.5 as the untamed wilds. Feral magic systems dwelling in the shadows. Books like 101 feats, or 101 spells, or 101 ways to fart would crop up, spread like wild fire, then fall to the wayside. The ideas were mutable and changing. Wotc was like an outpost at the mouth of the Amazon. The lands of RAW/RAI were more like the wild west then civilization. A brave hunter could go forth and explore, or carve his own path.

Some people complained. People who could not stand the wild untamed system. The problem was, they were the only ones who hung out near the city of Wotc. Most of us were having too much fun in the badlands.

So Wotc made a "garden". They added safety bumpers. They made sure only approved foliage could be planted. Only safe, hypoallergenic animals were allowed in. Certainly nothing that came into contact with peanuts.

And when the players said, "To Hell With Your Garden. I like my Jungle." The Lords of Wotc grew angry. They said, "You like fluff? Here's what we think of your FLUFF." And then they sodomized Forgotten Realms Like Steven Spielberg making Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. And they made us PAY to watch them DO IT.

It's not that it's a bad system. It's not that it's horrible. The garden is quite nice. It's a little too... Disney for my tastes. But that's not a bad thing. The problem is, the system limits the players and the DM, yet at the same time making them work HARDER. It doesn't make you go, "WOW." It fails to impress.

3.0/3.5 does more work for you. And in the process they screw up more. So it's not quite right. So you have to tweek it, but do you have to create entire powers out of whole cloth? 4th is... It's like... It's like Hero System, but not as play tested or as well loved by those who work on it. Yes, in the end everything is special effect, but do you go to the movies to watch the wire work, or things go BOOM?

As for 3.0/3.5, they could have just come out with 3.6. Hell, what do you think I'm doing with the Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis? When I'm done, I hope to simply be able to say, "Okay, we're playing with X, Y and Z. This will be a normal level campaign, so nothing coded purple. We will be using alternate rules for all Red Entries, but all Orange entries will still be AS WRITTEN. So needless to say, all green and blue are RAW as well. Oh, No tier 1 Classes or Races as well. Get cracking, we start play on Thursday."

Here's the thing. I'm just ONE MAN. I've done what I've done in 2 years, while holding down a 60+ hour a week job, yet I got over 20 handbooks complied with all the data the internet has to offer. Another 50+ in various states of completion. I've had very little help up until the past month. Imagine if I had access to a whole STAFF of Writers with RAW control over the entire system...

I'd knock your socks off.

See, WotC thought the money was in getting us to buy the whole damn game again. It's not. Never was. Microsoft knew what they were doing. Incrimental Upgrades with the occational reintegration/streamlining/optimization. Get people hooked on the operating system, and everyone else will fall over themselves to write "programs" for you.

4th edition wasn't a new OS. It was an attempt to make us by an entirely new COMPUTER. It was naked greed and that naked greed was why 4th failed. Not the fluff. Not the Ease of play. The players did not cause this, they REACTED to WotC. We didn't force WotC to do ANYTHING. I know exactly what they did. I used to do it myself. 12 years of doing EXACTLY what they do. Oh, the company and product changes, but in the end, it's all the same thing.

They brought all this down on themselves.
I suspect they are gearing up to do it again.

[Boci]

This statement is a product of (unintentional) equivocation.

You cannot play a monster in 4e, because PCs are, by definition, not monsters. That is, PCs play by a different set of rules, and monsters play by another. A beholder built by Joe to be run in Bob's campaign is not a monster to the game, even if we think of a beholder as a monster. A human soldier built by Bob to be an adversary for Joe is a monster to the game, even if we don't think of humans as monsters.

I know how the rules work, I have played and DM-ed a 4ed game. I was referring to the difference between a MM minotaur and the PC race of a minotaur. The artificial divide is not a strength of 4th ed, but the streamlining such a divide makes possible is.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

...What? Isn't GURPS basically the posterchild for overly complicated simulationist games?

Yes, the system is famously fiddly, but keep in mind that "fiddly and simulationist" doesn't mean "like real life." Even in the most straightforward and realistic areas of the rules, there's some reflavoring going on; Brawling, Karate, and Boxing all give you various perks like parry bonuses, retreat bonuses, damage bonuses, training with unarmed strikes, and so forth, but the bonuses are generic enough that you could easily flavor them as Charging Bear Style, Flying Dragon Style, and Striking Snake Style for a wuxia game.

Even more so in its supers, sci-fi, and fantasy settings, which provide DIY powers like the following from the GURPS Wikipedia entry:
For example, to create a "dragon's breath" attack, a player would select the Innate Attack ability (the ability that allows a player to perform an attack most humans could not), and select burning attack 4D (normally 20 points). Then, the player would modify it as follows: cone, 5 yards (+100%); limited use, 3/day (-20%); reduced range, x1/5 (-20%). The final percentage modifier would be +60%, making the final cost 32 points
...which could also be flavored as a fire spell, a mutant power, or something else.

In fact, the game goes out of its way to say that you can't just say "Oh, the special effect for my unlimited-use 5-yard-line Innate Attack is a jet of water, so my character can create all the water he wants!" or "Oh, my Flash-like character runs super-fast without dying, so he must ignore friction, so he must be immune to heat!" You need to pay the points for any mechanical effects you want to get, no matter what the flavor is. Contrast this to 3e, where if a spell or item says it creates water, it creates water, and the effects of that are a consequence of creating water rather than the spell or item being a mechanical effect with the flavor of "creating water" slapped on top with no or limited in-world effects of the water being created.


I can kind of understand why you have 4E and FATE on that list (although I'd argue about FATE: Aspects are pretty good for giving mechanical effect to narrative things)

Just like many 4e powers are "XdY+Z plus W condition, attach your desired flavor," Aspects, stunts, and the basic moves are just a set of numbers with no flavor attached that you have to flavor yourself. The flavor has a lot more mechanical effect than 4e's flavor, but as far as reflavoring goes, neither game has the level of flavor/mechanics connection that 3e and similar games do and both games can handle (and expect you to do) a ton of reflavoring.

[Vanitas]

In fact, the game goes out of its way to say that you can't just say "Oh, the special effect for my unlimited-use 5-yard-line Innate Attack is a jet of water, so my character can create all the water he wants!" or "Oh, my Flash-like character runs super-fast without dying, so he must ignore friction, so he must be immune to heat!" You need to pay the points for any mechanical effects you want to get, no matter what the flavor is. Contrast this to 3e, where if a spell or item says it creates water, it creates water, and the effects of that are a consequence of creating water rather than the spell or item being a mechanical effect with the flavor of "creating water" slapped on top with no or limited in-world effects of the water being created.

We'll have to disagree on that, because 3.5 has several effects that work just like that if not worse - such as several fire spells that don't make things catch fire, grease (there is another version of grease that catches fire, why didn't base grease catch fire?), energy substitution + fireball (ball of ice that makes things catch fire).

[AlltheBooks]

And then they sodomized Forgotten Realms Like Steven Spielberg making Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. And they made us PAY to watch them DO IT.

This was my main disappointment with 4th.

They absolutely destroyed creatures and places that really haven't changed all that much since early 2nd, and 2nd had some great cosmology/creature fluff. FR not so concerned about but my beautiful, customized, intricate Great Wheel (really not a wheel)! They gutted it's workings and replaced them with KinderEgg toys. KinderEgg toys are awesome and all but don't hold my attention for long.

Angels, demons, devils, dragons everything they completely rewrote and imo for the worse.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

We'll have to disagree on that, because 3.5 has several effects that work just like that if not worse - such as several fire spells that don't make things catch fire

The rules for catching on fire (DMG 86) are that "Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire," emphasis mine. Instantaneous fire spells have their fire appear and disappear instantaneously, and if you've tried to light candles, a campfire, or other fires, you've probably noticed that it usually takes a few seconds of holding a fire to kindling for it to catch. You might disagree with the DMG's reasoning, and many do, but this isn't a case of "fire isn't actually fire and can't light things on fire" like you'd find in effects-based games.


grease (there is another version of grease that catches fire, why didn't base grease catch fire?)

It does; there's nothing in the spell description saying that it doesn't, and one of the spell components is butter which implies (though admittedly only implies) that the created grease is flammable. Incendiary slime is notable because it basically explodes when subject to fire damage (4d6 damage and the duration ends vs. 1d6/round for catching on fire), not that it reacts to fire at all.


energy substitution + fireball (ball of ice that makes things catch fire).

Fireball is something of a special case because instead of sticking the combustible materials text in the description of the [Fire] descriptor they stick it in the spell text; it's basically a legacy copy-paste error, just like how rope trick mentions that bringing extradimensional spaces into it can be hazardous even though all rules and guidelines on extradimensional space interactions were removed aside from the bag of holding+portable hole scenario in the AD&D/3e transition.

There are other wonky cases (like a fire-substituted freeze spell burning someone and encasing them in ice), but that's more of a comment on WotC's lack of forethought and/or errata when writing Energy Substitution than on the philosophy of the game itself, which is indeed that a fire spell makes actual fire, a grease spell makes actual grease, and so forth.

[Knaight]

Which only kills the concept of a fantasy realm and roleplay further.

This seems iffy. Take minions - it is genre convention for there to be large hordes of nearly identical enemies that protagonists in fantasy stories cut through. Modelling this is a good thing. 3e does this via high level characters just being capable of hacking through low level ones. 4e has a specific mechanic. Both of these methods are a decent way to model it, though the specific way 4e modeled them seems a bit clunky to me - I vastly prefer the way REIGN handled it, for example.