Things you dislike about 4th edition.

[Xion_Anistu-san]

The fact that it's not out yet, thus leading to speculative threads like this one cluttering up the forums filled with people complaining about stuff with no context.
I'd say that the D&D Experience primer and 4E characters being released makes this point null and void. That and the myriad of articles on the D&D pages.

My beefs with 4th Edition are:
- No conversion. Yes, it may have taken a bit to recalculate things, but you could take your 2nd Ed. characters to 3.0 and 3.5 characters.
- No fear of dying. Adding the entire Con score to HP at first level!? No death until negative 1/2 maximum HP!? Healing surges and no real need for clerics.
- Total revamp of spells. What is wrong with a spellcaster running out of spells? No on complains when the archer runs out of arrows. The "at-will", "per encounter" and "daily spell" classifications smack of video games, one of which already created their own D20 version of the MMO.
- How do I put this constructively? I know. . . . Blatant contradictions made by D&D 4E creators. Comments like "The future ... contains the same D&D we all play" (Ampersand, B. Slavicsek, 08/16/2007) and… "... this is a new game." (Ampersand, B.Slavicsek, 09/18/2007). Same guy, same column. This isn't the only case, it is one of the earliest and most obvious in black and white.
- There are no repercussions for poor choices. One of the first things writers keyed on when 4E was first announced was game knowledge or the ability to know which classes and feats work best together (i.e. a Wizard taking Power Attack not being as good a choice as taking Improved Initiative or Great Fortitude). Another point to this is a spell-happy mage blowing all his spells in the first room of a dungeon and not having any left for the climactic battle. Finally, the dumb (insert character class here) that runs into melee against a dragon and dies (also see 'No fear of dying' above). 4E is looking more and more like a video game--and worse--one where the players have unlimited HP and unlimited spells.

[horseboy]

(edit) come to think of it, as I recall earlier editions didn't have sunder either, no other RPG I can think of has rules for sundering, and "breaking the other guy's stuff" can't have been all that feasible a strategy in the real-life middle ages either.Earthdawn has rules for shattering shields. It's just a quick extrapolation from there if the players want to break something else.


- Total revamp of spells. What is wrong with a spellcaster running out of spells? No on complains when the archer runs out of arrows. Well, since you asked. The archer is carrying 60+arrows. If he runs out of 60+ arrows between stops at town then next time he buys 100+ arrows.

[Tetsubo 57]

Things you dislike about 4th edition...?

It's existence.

4E: The Unwanted.

[Oslecamo]

LOTR bashing and some other stuff

Well, aparently, I'm one of the few persons on the world who enjoyed reading the novels. 4 times over the years actually. And the long introductions. And collected and readed the entire Tolkien collection.

However, I may not have expressed my point clearly, because you keep acusing me of being an overcontroling DM, wich I've never been.

What I'm saying is that sometimes the DM needs to adjust the dices so the game can keep running smoothly.

Examples:

If my party just finished an ecounter and gets uber loot due to sheer luck with the treasure tables, I'll close my eyes and let it pass.
But if in the next battle the party again gets uber lucky with loot and will have much more wealth than they are suposed to have at that level just because of luck, I'll ignore the result and roll again.
Same if the party is geting too few treasure.

I'll not throw them rust tarrasques wich throw quickened mormekdain's disjuctions just because they got a little lucky with treasure however.

The DM's job is to keep the game fun for everyone. Now what passes for fun is diferent from people to people. My group likes an harsh game. Knowing that we can die if we screw up or just if we go unlucky thrills us. We had a fighter lv11 charge in a cult of demons wich we were suposed to just spy, and get slaughtered by a pit fiend. We had our sorceror killed in the sleep by an enemy rogue because we killed the rest of his band the day before but had let said rogue escape alive in the middle of the confusion. The watchmen screwed his spot and the DM rolled sick damage. And none of the players blamed the DM for these things, because we all knew what we were playing.

And well, if you're going to say every time someone save's Ed ass, it is simply backstory or character development, then I don't know what to say. And the powerfull NPC's do save him several times. Mustang himself appears out of nowhere and blasts things to suport Ed a couple of time, Armstong literally bursts trough a wall to repeal Scar and later helps him against Greed's minions, etc, etc. I'm not saying that they appear every fight, but they do appear here and there.

[fendrin]

4E does not support my preferred playstyle, because it starts PCs off at a higher power level than I prefer to start my games at. Hence, I do not like the increased HP at first level.

Fallacious argument.

Power level is, and has always been, a relative matter. If the DM is worth playing with, they can tailor the encounters to create the desired feel. I often HAD to do that with 3e, because I had 3 or 5 players, and rarely the assumed 4. It's actually EASIER now. One enemy per PC is easier than the math that has to be done in 3e, and (hopefully) more accurate.

What you are complaining about is really not an issue. Not deadly enough at low levels? Try building encounters for a level or two higher than the party. Not too difficult, and if that's not deadlier, nothing will be.

Still want to use weak orc grunts? Put more of them in. I don't care what it may seem like, the more enemies there are, the harder the fight. PCs may get more HP, but it's not infinite, and neither is the healing.

[GammaPaladin]

I am not saying you should try 4e, it matters little to me what any of you guys does or doesn't do. From a general point of view I would suggest it is preferable to regret something you have done rather than something you haven't done.
This logic fails when there is a price of entry involved. In other words, I'm not paying money to try something I an 98% sure I won't like due to the ingredients list.

I might leaf through the book at the FLGS, but I'm almost certainly not going to spend any of my hard-earned money on it, especially when that would send a message to WotC that I like the direction they've taken things in.

[LibraryOgre]

Fallacious argument.


Not necessarily; he may prefer the fragility of characters who do have to fear a single axe-blow, or a goblin's lucky critical.

[fendrin]

Not necessarily; he may prefer the fragility of characters who do have to fear a single axe-blow, or a goblin's lucky critical.

Aye, but higher level monsters should be doing more damage, and thus it works out the same. If a character has 20 hp and the monster does 40, it's the same as a 3e character having 10 hp and the monster doing 20.

[Indon]

Aye, but higher level monsters should be doing more damage, and thus it works out the same. If a character has 20 hp and the monster does 40, it's the same as a 3e character having 10 hp and the monster doing 20.

Except that the 4'th edition monster that does 40 damage is also going to have 300 health.

Heavy houseruling of the PC/NPC leveling system, or of the health system overall, will be required to simulate combat in which combatants are more vulnerable to each other's blows at any level in 4'th edition.

[fendrin]

Except that the 4'th edition monster that does 40 damage is also going to have 300 health.
This is true.
EDIT: Excepting potential hyperbole. I am unsure of the details of monster HP.


Heavy houseruling of the PC/NPC leveling system, or of the health system overall, will be required to simulate combat in which combatants are more vulnerable to each other's blows at any level in 4'th edition.

This is not true. Doubling all damage or halving all HP and healing are not what I would consider to be 'heavy houseruling'.

My opinion, of course. I also happen to not like OHKOs but prefer low level play.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Fallacious argument.

Power level is, and has always been, a relative matter. If the DM is worth playing with, they can tailor the encounters to create the desired feel. I often HAD to do that with 3e, because I had 3 or 5 players, and rarely the assumed 4. It's actually EASIER now. One enemy per PC is easier than the math that has to be done in 3e, and (hopefully) more accurate.

I'm not sure what you mean about "tailoring the encounters". The reason I *prefer* 4th ed to 5th ed is that you don't have the awkward situation where a CR-appropriate challenge involves four level 1 PCs "heroically" ganging up on a single level 1 NPC.

The DM could deal with this by jiggering around the stats for monsters, but basically you aren't going to make "Four Orcs" a CR1 encounter unless you take away all their weapons and tie them up.

[fendrin]

I'm not sure what you mean about "tailoring the encounters". The reason I *prefer* 4th ed to 5th ed is that you don't have the awkward situation where a CR-appropriate challenge involves four level 1 PCs "heroically" ganging up on a single level 1 NPC.

The DM could deal with this by jiggering around the stats for monsters, but basically you aren't going to make "Four Orcs" a CR1 encounter unless you take away all their weapons and tie them up.

Presuming that you mean 3rd where you said 5th, then I completely agree with you.

What I was talking about is that in 3rd ed, the CR system was balanced against a party of four. So if you have a party of 3 or 5 you have to tweak the encounters, and that is usually complicated and doesn't always work well. Not that the CR system ever really worked well.

In 4th, encounters are balanced around 1 enemy per PC. That means if you have 3 or 5 PCs, you use 3 or 5 monsters. Easy.

The point I was trying to make is that the DM has always had the ability to tailor the difficulty of an encounter. You want an easy, low risk encounter? make the encounter as if the party were one level lower. Want a tough, challenging, really dangerous encounter? Treat the party as if it were a higher level than it is.

Alternately, you can use more or less monsters to add difficulty, or if you want even a single attack to be deadly, just double the damage on every attack.

Piece of cake.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Presuming that you mean 3rd where you said 5th, then I completely agree with you.

Ah yes, those numbers, damned tricky things.


What I was talking about is that in 3rd ed, the CR system was balanced against a party of four. So if you have a party of 3 or 5 you have to tweak the encounters, and that is usually complicated and doesn't always work well. Not that the CR system ever really worked well.

In 4th, encounters are balanced around 1 enemy per PC. That means if you have 3 or 5 PCs, you use 3 or 5 monsters. Easy.

Yeah, I don't know why they didn't set it up like that to begin with.


The point I was trying to make is that the DM has always had the ability to tailor the difficulty of an encounter. You want an easy, low risk encounter? make the encounter as if the party were one level lower. Want a tough, challenging, really dangerous encounter? Treat the party as if it were a higher level than it is.

Alternately, you can use more or less monsters to add difficulty, or if you want even a single attack to be deadly, just double the damage on every attack.

Piece of cake.

Oh absolutely, but the thing is that the "power level" of the party isn't changed. A party that fights four orcs and wins is quantifiably more powerful than one which fights one orc and loses. Personally, I much prefer the higher power level, because the "beating up rats" stage of the game doesn't really do it for me.

[fendrin]

Oh absolutely, but the thing is that the "power level" of the party isn't changed. A party that fights four orcs and wins is quantifiably more powerful than one which fights one orc and loses. Personally, I much prefer the higher power level, because the "beating up rats" stage of the game doesn't really do it for me.

Ah, but "power level" is relative.

Imagine a 4 PC level 1 party fights a level 1 orc barbarian. Standard 3e CR setup.
4e equivalent would be four level 1 orcs. PCs are more powerful, because they are challenged by a 4 orc encounter instead of a one orc encounter.

If you want the 3e style power ratio, use an orc 'solo' monster. In 3e terms, for instance, a level 31 orc barbarian2.

If you use level 3 orc barbarians whenever you would have used level 1 orc barbarians in 3e, the power level ratio remains (roughly) the same.

Similarly, if your rats are ROUSs...

1. I picked level 3 semi-randomly.
2. I picked barbarian because that was the standard orc class in 3e. Please no one flame me saying barbarians won't be in 4e or you can't give monsters class levels in 4e, because that's completely not the point.

I hate feeling like I need to put disclaimers on my posts.

EDIT: Just to be clear, Dan, I agree with you about not liking having PCs gang up on single orc. That's one of several reasons I rarely start my 3e PCs at level 1. I like level 2 better as a starting point. I'm looking forward to starting 4e PCs at level 1.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Ah, but "power level" is relative.

Imagine a 4 PC level 1 party fights a level 1 orc barbarian. Standard 3e CR setup.
4e equivalent would be four level 1 orcs. PCs are more powerful, because they are challenged by a 4 orc encounter instead of a one orc encounter.

I think we're talking past each other, because that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying. The point is that 1st level in 4E is higher-powered than 1st level in 3E. Which I personally think is a very good thing.

[Indon]

This is true.
EDIT: Excepting potential hyperbole. I am unsure of the details of monster HP.

The dragon had a bit under 300 health (I believe 280 was the most common estimate). I dunno if the dragon did 40 damage a round, though.


This is not true. Doubling all damage or halving all HP and healing are not what I would consider to be 'heavy houseruling'.

Sure, if I want level 1-3 3'rd edition D&D play for levels 1-30 (maybe. can't really say for certain how the system will scale, except that it'll scale _less_). What if I want 1-3 3'rd edition D&D play for levels 1-6? Should I calculate a scaling slide of hp reduction by level, perhaps? It may indeed be as easy as you say - but I suspect it may be more difficult than that.

[fendrin]

I think we're talking past each other, because that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying. The point is that 1st level in 4E is higher-powered than 1st level in 3E. Which I personally think is a very good thing.
As written, yes. I agree as well.


Sure, if I want level 1-3 3'rd edition D&D play for levels 1-30 (maybe. can't really say for certain how the system will scale, except that it'll scale _less_). What if I want 1-3 3'rd edition D&D play for levels 1-6? Should I calculate a scaling slide of hp reduction by level, perhaps? It may indeed be as easy as you say - but I suspect it may be more difficult than that.

Just to annoy Matthew (just kidding! :smalltongue:) I'm going to label this as a strawman.

Trying to maintain a low level feel over multiple levels would be difficult in 3e as well as in 4e.

I haven't the foggiest idea how to do so effectively.

[Indon]

Trying to maintain a low level feel over multiple levels would be difficult in 3e as well as in 4e.

I haven't the foggiest idea how to do so effectively.

Well, obviously 3e has a low-level feel for at least a few levels, by default. Wizards is making a lot of pretty fundamental changes to the system to get rid of that so they can make that range into their 'sweet spot'.

From what I can tell from the system so far, changing the HP calculation might really help - going away from con+level towards a more 3.5 level+con-derived number every level might help. Perhaps <Level HP>+Con mod each level until you've gained health equal to your con from your con mod.

[osyluth]

I am disgusted that they are making the cosmology so that evil doesn't fight evil any more. This makes no sense, as evil creatures have a natural tendency to fight anyone who gets in their way, regardless of alignment. They didn't even really explain the reason for this ridiculous change.

[Artanis]

I am disgusted that they are making the cosmology so that evil doesn't fight evil any more. This makes no sense, as evil creatures have a natural tendency to fight anyone who gets in their way, regardless of alignment. They didn't even really explain the reason for this ridiculous change.
Oh FFS, didn't we just have like 20 pages explaining why this is nowhere near the actual case?

"Evil doesn't fight evil" is a statement with neither supporting evidence nor basis in reality. What they said was that they're putting less focus on evil vs. evil conflicts so that they can put other, more useful stuff in the books (like an actual use for social skills).

Please do note that "less focus" does NOT, in any way, shape, or form, come even remotely close to meaning "evil no longer ever fights evil".

[Disdain]

I'm angry about the definition of party roles by class. I liked it better when everyone could occupy a number of roles. Particularly, I enjoyed out single-target damaging the artillery sorceror as the group fighter.

This is somewhat balanced by the fact that everyone basically has SR now.

As you can tell, I like martial combatants a LOT more than spellcasters.

[Artanis]

I'm angry about the definition of party roles by class. I liked it better when everyone could occupy a number of roles. Particularly, I enjoyed out single-target damaging the artillery sorceror as the group fighter.
Characters still can fulfill a number of roles. Fighters may be "defenders", but they do their job by inflicting a whole lotta pain on the enemy. Wizards might be "controllers", but they still have plenty of ways to make with the blasting. Warlords might be "leaders", but they do their thing by beating the tar out of the enemy. And so on. :smallsmile:


Now, while the Fighter class might not quite outdamage a dedicated striker like a Warlock, there are non-magic strikers, namely the Ranger and Rogue. If you're looking for a striker that's a little more "Fighter-ish" in feel than those two, there will undoubtedly be classes later on that fulfill that assignment, such as a Barbarian or something.

[Disdain]

Characters still can fulfill a number of roles. Fighters may be "defenders", but they do their job by inflicting a whole lotta pain on the enemy. Wizards might be "controllers", but they still have plenty of ways to make with the blasting. Warlords might be "leaders", but they do their thing by beating the tar out of the enemy. And so on. :smallsmile:


Now, while the Fighter class might not quite outdamage a dedicated striker like a Warlock, there are non-magic strikers, namely the Ranger and Rogue. If you're looking for a striker that's a little more "Fighter-ish" in feel than those two, there will undoubtedly be classes later on that fulfill that assignment, such as a Barbarian or something.

The thing is, nothing should beat a straight fighter in open melee. Fighters are fighters because they have honed their entire lives to dominate on the battlefield, not to find their ends at the pointy end of some street urchin's dagger (yeah, because those are totally better than swords) or a woodsman's scimitar (against plate armor.....?).

I would play a barbarian, but I dislike the concept behind why they are effective combatants. Raw strength trumping skill and correctly applied strength? Nonsense.

All this may be simply my not reading enough on the topic of 4th ed, but it seems more shut in than 3.5.

[Artanis]

The thing is, nothing should beat a straight fighter in open melee. Fighters are fighters because they have honed their entire lives to dominate on the battlefield, not to find their ends at the pointy end of some street urchin's dagger (yeah, because those are totally better than swords) or a woodsman's scimitar (against plate armor.....?).
Well yeah, who says anybody does beat them in open melee? The only melee Striker is the Rogue*, and he does his damage by being a sneaky bastard, not a powerful open combatant :smallwink:




*As far as we know, the Ranger seems to be...well...Ranged.

[Disdain]

Well yeah, who says anybody does beat them in open melee? The only melee Striker is the Rogue*, and he does his damage by being a sneaky bastard, not a powerful open combatant :smallwink:




*As far as we know, the Ranger seems to be...well...Ranged.

Hah, that's a misapplication of entymology if I've ever seen it. Rangers are rangers because they travel over ranges, or 'range'. Not because they shoot bows. Both rangers I've played have been melee specced.

As to your first question, apparently barbarians do. And melee specced rangers.

[Vortling]

The thing is, nothing should beat a straight fighter in open melee. Fighters are fighters because they have honed their entire lives to dominate on the battlefield, not to find their ends at the pointy end of some street urchin's dagger (yeah, because those are totally better than swords) or a woodsman's scimitar (against plate armor.....?).


Not trying to be snarky, but anyone expecting their favorite class to be all that and a bag of chips in 4e will be disappointed.

The trouble with your above statement is that the designers won't be seeing it the way you do. They'll be making all the defenders of equal melee capability so that everyone can have fun, not just the people who choose fighters. Paladins, Barbarians, Fighters, Knights, etc. will all have equal melee capabilities enabled by different powers.

In continuation with the need for everyone to have fun, the strikers will likely do more damage in bursts than fighters and defenders do while the defenders and fighters have more steady damage output.

[Artanis]

Hah, that's a misapplication of entymology if I've ever seen it. Rangers are rangers because they travel over ranges, or 'range'. Not because they shoot bows. Both rangers I've played have been melee specced.

As to your first question, apparently barbarians do. And melee specced rangers.
I meant in 4.0. As far as we know, the 4e Ranger is a ranged attacker...which has the side effect of creating a convenient coincidence of terminology :smallwink:

[Disdain]

Not trying to be snarky, but anyone expecting their favorite class to be all that and a bag of chips in 4e will be disappointed.

The trouble with your above statement is that the designers won't be seeing it the way you do. They'll be making all the defenders of equal melee capability so that everyone can have fun, not just the people who choose fighters. Paladins, Barbarians, Fighters, Knights, etc. will all have equal melee capabilities enabled by different powers.

In continuation with the need for everyone to have fun, the strikers will likely do more damage in bursts than fighters and defenders do while the defenders and fighters have more steady damage output.

I understand, I was saying that from a purely fluff perspective.... because historically it was true. And logically.

Paladins I really don't care about because when I DM and whenever I play I never allow for their existance, since gaining power based on morality is objectivist and childish. Barbarians I can understand, but rogues? Rogues are skill-monkeys, something fighters can't really do, something that should be counterbalanced with overall worse combat capability. Also, I don't understand why a fighter can't catch someone off guard.... they'd definately teach you that.

[fendrin]

I understand, I was saying that from a purely fluff perspective.... because historically it was true. And logically.

Paladins I really don't care about because when I DM and whenever I play I never allow for their existance, since gaining power based on morality is objectivist and childish. Barbarians I can understand, but rogues? Rogues are skill-monkeys, something fighters can't really do, something that should be counterbalanced with overall worse combat capability. Also, I don't understand why a fighter can't catch someone off guard.... they'd definately teach you that.

From the information that has been released, it seems that there will be several ways to customize each class. I will be surprised if you are completely unable to make a striker-type fighter. Probably not as damaging as a true striker, but I bet it'll still be at more effective than a core 3.5 fighter. :smallyuk: If nothing else, you could probably multi-class fighter/rogue to make an effective fighter-striker.

Besides, as someone who has trained in both weapon and unarmed martial arts, eastern and western, a trained fighter is much more interested in dominating the battlefield than necessarily hitting really hard. From what I've seen, the 4e fighter is much better at that than the 3.X fighter.

[Disdain]

From the information that has been released, it seems that there will be several ways to customize each class. I will be surprised if you are completely unable to make a striker-type fighter. Probably not as damaging as a true striker, but I bet it'll still be at more effective than a core 3.5 fighter. :smallyuk: If nothing else, you could probably multi-class fighter/rogue to make an effective fighter-striker.

Besides, as someone who has trained in both weapon and unarmed martial arts, eastern and western, a trained fighter is much more interested in dominating the battlefield than necessarily hitting really hard. From what I've seen, the 4e fighter is much better at that than the 3.X fighter.

That's certainly comforting. I'm not particularly interested in strength as compared to previous incarnations as I am about strength compared to other classes, those thrice-damned arcane types in particular.

As for actual martial arts, while I am certainly no fighter I am an avid reader on the topic, one of my favorite informational sites being ARMA's. According to them, at least, killing someone fast is certainly an integral part in dominating the battlefield. Well, dropping them, anyway.

[fendrin]

That's certainly comforting. I'm not particularly interested in strength as compared to previous incarnations as I am about strength compared to other classes, those thrice-damned arcane types in particular.You'll be happy to know that the arcanists have been weakened significantly.


As for actual martial arts, while I am certainly no fighter I am an avid reader on the topic, one of my favorite informational sites being ARMA's. According to them, at least, killing someone fast is certainly an integral part in dominating the battlefield. Well, dropping them, anyway.They also talk about shield strikes, kicks, and even wrestling (and that's just a cursory scan of their articles page). Yes, killing fast is good, but often it is much more effective to control your opponent (to prevent them from killing you) until you get them into position for a deathblow.

[warmachine]

I'm reading the 4e describes movement in squares, rather than feet, and diagonal movement always costs 1. 3e already has a simple, workable system. What changed? WotC think people can't count in increments of 5 or 1.5 now? They create a tactical simulation with contingent bonuses and think we can only count in increments of 1? They are aware they're selling in an industrialised culture with mandatory education and to the super-numerate nerd population in particular?

They've also gotten rid of Hieroneous and expect the Paladins to worship a dragon. It seems they've gotten rid of the humanism and expect worship of a powerful being. That offends me.

[Kurald Galain]

What changed? WotC think people can't count in increments of 5 or 1.5 now?

Nope.

And people can't subtract either (no negative modifiers allowed anywhere), nor multiply (no double or triple damage on criticals). You know, because math is hard, and stuff.

Instead they should have simply marketed the Official D&D Calculator.

[Rachel Lorelei]

I'm reading the 4e describes movement in squares, rather than feet, and diagonal movement always costs 1. 3e already has a simple, workable system. What changed? WotC think people can't count in increments of 5 or 1.5 now? They create a tactical simulation with contingent bonuses and think we can only count in increments of 1? They are aware they're selling in an industrialised culture with mandatory education and to the super-numerate nerd population in particular?
I just played some D&D this Friday.

Calculating where on the map we can move to--especially those of us with a 90-foot move speed--is never *convenient*, but it's at its worst when diagonals are involved. It takes a while, and that's if you don't have to recount.


They've also gotten rid of Hieroneous and expect the Paladins to worship a dragon. It seems they've gotten rid of the humanism and expect worship of a powerful being. That offends me.
That's racist.

It's not that math is hard. It's that math is like a third of each player's turn.

[Oslecamo]

I just played some D&D this Friday.

Calculating where on the map we can move to--especially those of us with a 90-foot move speed--is never *convenient*, but it's at its worst when diagonals are involved. It takes a while, and that's if you don't have to recount.


That's racist.

It's not that math is hard. It's that math is like a third of each player's turn.

And who doesn't like math? I have collegues in university who have trouble doing simple math by head because they've been using machines for years.

D&D helps our group to keep their math capacities sharp.

But now they seem to want to atract everybody from 8 to 88, like that playstastion slogan.

I'm so gonna don't buy a single book from 4e and get free pirate pdfs from everything.

[Rachel Lorelei]

And who doesn't like math? I have collegues in university who have trouble doing simple math by head because they've been using machines for years.

D&D helps our group to keep their math capacities sharp.

But now they seem to want to atract everybody from 8 to 88, like that playstastion slogan.
Who doesn't like math? People who want to play the game rather than doing math and counting squares.

Seriously, how is cutting the time it takes everyone to take their turn to 2/3s or 1/2, say, a bad thing?
I also have a hard time understanding the mentality that making the game more accessible is somehow bad. It's obviously still just as tactically involved; in fact, it's more about play tactics than builds now, as we've heard.


I'm so gonna don't buy a single book from 4e and get free pirate pdfs from everything.
Because if you don't like what WotC is doing, you're ENTITLED to FREE STUFF! Wheeeeeee!

[Mr. Friendly]

{Scrubbed}

[Indon]

nor multiply (no double or triple damage on criticals).

In their defense, I'm pretty sure Wizards removed multiplication on criticals to help make combat more predictable, not because they don't think people can't multiply.

Subtraction, though...

[EvilElitest]

I meant in 4.0. As far as we know, the 4e Ranger is a ranged attacker...which has the side effect of creating a convenient coincidence of terminology :smallwink:

Like a Hunter. Sorry


That's racist.
at the risk of pissing off the united Dragon civil rights front, WTF?
from
EE

[fendrin]

EE, you're right. It's ot racist... or even speciesist. It's class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_%28biology%29)ist.

[warmachine]

4e is going to be even more of a tactical game where each class has many options offering various bonuses and the player must decide the best one each turn. Even the previously simple Fighter will have tactical maneuvering options. Yet people cannot work out that 90ft equals 18 5ft squares and count in 1s and 1 1/2s as they move along. 4e is screwed.

[fendrin]

Yet people cannot work out that 90ft equals 18 5ft squares and count in 1s and 1 1/2s as they move along. 4e is screwed.

That is a straw man argument- the developers never said that people couldn't do the math you presented.

It's not that they can't, it's that it's faster if they don't have to.

[Mr. Friendly]

That is a straw man argument- the developers never said that people couldn't do the math you presented.

It's not that they can't, it's that it's faster if they don't have to.

It's also as countless others have pointed out many times over, that by setting the system in "squares" instead of "feet" they can have a more international audience for those weirdos (like the whole world, basically) that use meters.

I have also been considering that it may be useful for unusual situations that *could* come up, like the party being shrunk down to molecule size or something. (a semi-common fantasy trope)

[fendrin]

It's also as countless others have pointed out many times over, that by setting the system in "squares" instead of "feet" they can have a more international audience for those weirdos (like the whole world, basically) that use meters.

I have also been considering that it may be useful for unusual situations that *could* come up, like the party being shrunk down to molecule size or something. (a semi-common fantasy trope)

"Honey, I shrunk the PCs!"

I like that idea... makes so much more sense than bugs so big that they can't get enough oxygen to survive.

[warmachine]

That is a straw man argument [not being able to count in 1s and 1 1/2s] - the developers never said that people couldn't do the math you presented.

It's not that they can't, it's that it's faster if they don't have to.

Calculating where on the map we can move to--especially those of us with a 90-foot move speed--is never *convenient*, but it's at its worst when diagonals are involved. It takes a while, and that's if you don't have to recount.
This is a real player with difficulty in counting the one and a halves of diagonals. Yes, technically, not the same thing as being unable to do so but difficult enough that a simple piece of realism has to be dropped for gameplay. It amounts to the same thing. Some players can't handle this? Imagine dealing with multiple buff and option bonuses and anti-buff penalties where changing tactical situations calls for changing options every turn. 4e is screwed.

[fendrin]

This is a real player with difficulty in counting the one and a halves of diagonals. Yes, technically, not the same thing as being unable to do so but difficult enough that a simple piece of realism has to be dropped for gameplay. It amounts to the same thing.
No, it really isn't the same thing. There is a huge difference between not being able to do something and not doing it quickly and effortlessly. They did not have to simplify diagonal movement, they chose to simplify it. Not because people couldn't handle it (otherwise 3e would have been 'screwed'), but because the problems it caused outweighed the benefits (in the designers opinion). If your opinion differs, feel free to change it.


Some players can't handle this? Imagine dealing with multiple buff and option bonuses and anti-buff penalties where changing tactical situations calls for changing options every turn. 4e is screwed.

Another straw man, perhaps coupled with exaggeration.
Having multiple bonuses/penalties all applied at once existed in 3e as well, and obviously did not 'screw' it.

From the arguments you are making, 3e would have been 'screwed'. That obviously was not the case, which means that there must be a flaw in one of the premises (as the argument is valid, but not sound).

Note that I am using 'valid' and 'sound' in a technical sense, so if anyone is going to respond based on those terms, please make sure you are using them correctly.

[Koga]

I miss massive damage and am going to try to reintroduce it.


My version will be your massive damage threshold is equal to your con-score (and sense all creatures have a con-score now I don't have to think ahead what replaces it..)

When you are dealt more damage then your con-score, make a percentile die roll (try to roll equal to or below your con-score on a d100)

If you fail, you drop to 0hp (not die, but you are dying..)

If you were already at 0hp or in the negatives nothing happens, there's no need too.

[Reel On, Love]

I miss massive damage and am going to try to reintroduce it.


My version will be your massive damage threshold is equal to your con-score (and sense all creatures have a con-score now I don't have to think ahead what replaces it..)

When you are dealt more damage then your con-score, make a percentile die roll (try to roll equal to or below your con-score on a d100)

If you fail, you drop to 0hp (not die, but you are dying..)

If you were already at 0hp or in the negatives nothing happens, there's no need too.

Why would you do that? Massive damage is one of the worst rules ever. It's arbitrary (1 point damage), nonsensical (HP is abstract), and punishes melee characters (who trade big hits more often).

[Koga]

Why would you do that? Massive damage is one of the worst rules ever. It's arbitrary (1 point damage), nonsensical (HP is abstract), and punishes melee characters (who trade big hits more often).
Because it's the great equalizer.

Without it D&D becomes Final Fantasy. And I don't feel like wandering around outside for five hours leveling up.


EDIT: My girlfriend proposes massive damage be triggerd whenever you roll a 20 on an attack roll. Then you make a flat fort save 15. If you fail, 0hp. This would balance warriors with casters as spells don't make attack rolls. (Atleast not in 3.5, they might in 4th edition, but if so, we'll only apply it to weapons)



The differance in our plans mine scales (very slowly) as you can raise your con-score.

Her's is very random, relying tottaly on rolling 20s and 1s to live or die.


I think I know why we're together now lol! Great minds think alike...


James claims our basic idea of D&D is the cardgame war.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Because it's the great equalizer.

Between what and what does it equalize, precisely.

It doesn't equalize high levels versus low levels, because low levels can't do 50 points of damage at a time anyway. It doesn't equalize fighters versus casters, or players versus monsters, or anything versus anything else that I can see. It's an awkward compromise designed to placate those who complain that the Hit Point system isn't "realistic" and it works because that sort of person always confuses "random chance of killing you" with realism.

[Koga]

Between what and what does it equalize, precisely.

It doesn't equalize high levels versus low levels, because low levels can't do 50 points of damage
Hense the rule zero obviously.

Which would you prefer?

Koga's Massive Damage Rule:
Constituion is paramount to your abilitiy to live or die. If someone hits you for more damage then your constitution score (possible even at low levels) you need to roll a d100 and roll equal to or under your con-score or drop to 0hp.

The possibility is there to scale and have a higher threshold. Bear's Endurance for example.


Amaya's Massive Damage Rule:
20s are epic win. To bring balance toward non-casters, whenever you roll a 20 on a non-magic related attack roll (so weapons, unarmed, and natural attacks) it triggers massive damage. You then have to make a flat 15 fort save or drop to 0hp.

The only scaling is the idea you have better saving throws as you level. But the randomness is nesscary to keep D&D exciting, authentic, and not make combat a lame thinking game and let luck play a factor.

[Reel On, Love]

Because it's the great equalizer.

Without it D&D becomes Final Fantasy. And I don't feel like wandering around outside for five hours leveling up.

What? How does D&D become Final Fantasy without it? And what does it equalize? In 3.5, the rule PUNISHES MELEE CHARACTER. In 4E, it would... still punish melee characters (everyone makes attack rolls, but you want to restrict it), except they're supposed to be decently balanced, so you'd be punishing them for no reason.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Hense the rule zero obviously.

Ah, you mean "it's okay if this rule doesn't work, because no sane DM would use it anyway"?


Which would you prefer?

Koga's Massive Damage Rule:
Constituion is paramount to your abilitiy to live or die. If someone hits you for more damage then your constitution score (possible even at low levels) you need to roll a d100 and roll equal to or under your con-score or drop to 0hp.

The possibility is there to scale and have a higher threshold. Bear's Endurance for example.


Amaya's Massive Damage Rule:
20s are epic win. To bring balance toward non-casters, whenever you roll a 20 on a non-magic related attack roll (so weapons, unarmed, and natural attacks) it triggers massive damage. You then have to make a flat 15 fort save or drop to 0hp.

The only scaling is the idea you have better saving throws as you level. But the randomness is nesscary to keep D&D exciting, authentic, and not make combat a lame thinking game and let luck play a factor.

That's a "would you rather be stabbed or shot" question.

I'd rather not have massive damage at all because, like Reel On, Love (dude, commas in your handle are really confusing) I think it's a stupid pointless rule designed, as I say, to placate people who complain that D&D is unrealistic by saying "No it isn't! Because now an arbitrary quantity of damage has a chance to kill anybody!"

I don't like Massive Damage.

[warmachine]

The bizarre thing is that fendrin's arguments are correct: if players couldn't handle diagonal counting, 3e would have been 'screwed' by that rule alone, let alone the various buff, anti-buff and feat modifiers that go around. So, the designers of 4e, presumably, thought diagonal counting caused more problems than benefits. Except there are no problems. Rather, it's only a problem for players who shouldn't be playing a tactics-heavy system in the first place. So the designers weakened accuracy to eliminate no problem.

You can guess what I don't like about 4e.

[fendrin]

I think what Koga is trying to say is that without massive damage, characters could just wander around killing random encounters to level up before moving on to the theoretically more challenging plot encounters. This is a typical tactic when playing video-game RPGs such as Final Fantasy (though it doesn't always work*).

However, this is inaccurate, because unlike in static VG-RPGs, D&D has a DM that can ramp up the difficulty of plot (or more likely, have the PCs be massively punished for failing to engage the plot: like having the BBEG slaughter their friends and/or family)

*In my favorite of the FF series, FF5, the final fight ramps up significantly as you gain levels. It's a fairly easy fight (for me, anyway) if I don't actively seek to level up my characters as I go through the game. However, I once made it a point to have all of my characters master all of the jobs, and hit lvl 99. No matter how much I tried, I could not beat the final boss. And believe, me I tried obsessively for a while. I have been told that some encounters in other FF games work this way, such as Warmech in FF 1, but I have not confirmed them.

EDIT:

The bizarre thing is that fendrin's arguments are correct: if players couldn't handle diagonal counting, 3e would have been 'screwed' by that rule alone, let alone the various buff, anti-buff and feat modifiers that go around. So, the designers of 4e, presumably, thought diagonal counting caused more problems than benefits. Except there are no problems. Rather, it's only a problem for players who shouldn't be playing a tactics-heavy system in the first place. So the designers weakened accuracy to eliminate no problem.
Wow, I guess slowing down combat is 'no problem' to you. I disagree.

David Noonan reported a massive battle in his play test campaign (http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=47694&pagemode=2&blogid=2132). It took more than 20 rounds. It lasted a little over an hour.

Now, I can't remember the last time 20 rounds only took an hour in 3e. Oh wait, that's because it's never happened (in any game I have heard about, anyway). Most fights don't last that many rounds, and even if they do, they take multiple hours.

I prefer to sacrifice a little bit of verisimilitude for streamlined (yet still dramatic) combat.

[EvilElitest]

EE, you're right. It's ot racist... or even speciesist. It's class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_%28biology%29)ist.

there we are, right word

Really through, i don't really care about human supremacy ether way, but how could that be racist in any way?

from
EE

[Rachel Lorelei]

The bizarre thing is that fendrin's arguments are correct: if players couldn't handle diagonal counting, 3e would have been 'screwed' by that rule alone, let alone the various buff, anti-buff and feat modifiers that go around. So, the designers of 4e, presumably, thought diagonal counting caused more problems than benefits. Except there are no problems. Rather, it's only a problem for players who shouldn't be playing a tactics-heavy system in the first place. So the designers weakened accuracy to eliminate no problem.

You can guess what I don't like about 4e.

It's not that players can't handle it. It's that it slows each turn down a bit. Eliminating it frees up a bunch of play time--you'd be surprised at how it adds up (especially when you have to recount, figure out 3-d movement, etc).

[EagleWiz]

Well one thing that made me stop and go :smallconfused: :smalleek: :smallmad: was the changing succubi to devils. I could understand if it was because of the typical tactics used by them or something but no. Its because " They look like humanoids."
.... So wait. 4th edition assignes outsiders to a plane by what they look like? That does not bode well for 4th edition

[Cuddly]

Well one thing that made me stop and go :smallconfused: :smalleek: :smallmad: was the changing succubi to devils. I could understand if it was because of the typical tactics used by them or something but no. Its because " They look like humanoids."
.... So wait. 4th edition assignes outsiders to a plane by what they look like? That does not bode well for 4th edition

Well, as far as primordial scions of chaos, I've never thought Wizards had a very good handle on what primordial chaos looks like: "It's spiky and looks like a person! An angry person! An angry mean person! And this one looks like a bug that has spikes!"

Right. Because chaos looks just like stuff from the material plane, but grosser.

The succubus doesn't make any sense at all, as a demon. Why would any demons be at attractive, ever? Chance. That's it. Yet every single female demon is lugging around a huge set of tits, a tiny waist, and wide hips. If you squint, they look like every other female character Wizards has put in their books.

[Scintillatus]

The new Tieflings look like crab people.

CRAB PEOPLE.

[EvilElitest]

The new Tieflings look like crab people.

CRAB PEOPLE.

they look more like freaky lizards to me, with the oversize tails and all
from
EE

[fendrin]

Red skin, spade-tipped tail, horns...
Sounds like, well, the devil (http://www.devilspice.com/Devil.gif) to me.

Tiefling Warlock Sketch (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4e/20071012a_drdd.jpg)
Tiefling Cleric Mini (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/dod_gallery/Tiefling_Cleric.jpg)
Tiefling Rogue Mini (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/dod_gallery/Tiefling_Rogue.jpg)

Or, for that matter, Hellboy (http://www.sjgames.com/hellboy/img/hb1152_864.jpg_1.jpg).

[Tetsubo 57]

Red skin, spade-tipped tail, horns...
Sounds like, well, the devil (http://www.devilspice.com/Devil.gif) to me.

Tiefling Warlock Sketch (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4e/20071012a_drdd.jpg)
Tiefling Cleric Mini (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/dod_gallery/Tiefling_Cleric.jpg)
Tiefling Rogue Mini (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/dod_gallery/Tiefling_Rogue.jpg)

Or, for that matter, Hellboy (http://www.sjgames.com/hellboy/img/hb1152_864.jpg_1.jpg).

Because, you know how original *that* idea is...

[Tetsubo 57]

The new Tieflings look like crab people.

CRAB PEOPLE.

Crab people would have been *way* cooler then what they came up with. Armoured, with maybe multiple arms and claws. Now that would be nifty.

[horseboy]

they look more like freaky lizards to me, with the oversize tails and all
from
EENah, freaky red lizards look more like this. (http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/4894/tetrickcolor600iu4.jpg)

[EvilElitest]

1. Did you see them in Races and Classes, there tails are almost as huge as their bodies
2. Hey hellboy. Yet again, i wish they just came up with their own race instead of altering an already existing one
from
EE

[Tetsubo 57]

1. Did you see them in Races and Classes, there tails are almost as huge as their bodies
2. Hey hellboy. Yet again, i wish they just came up with their own race instead of altering an already existing one
from
EE

Maybe they store fat in the tails like some lizards.

[EvilElitest]

Maybe they store fat in the tails like some lizards.

would there be mechanical effects of that? That would be sweet
from
EE

[Bleen]

The new Tieflings look like crab people.

CRAB PEOPLE.

CRAAAAB PEEEEOPLE
CRAAAAB PEEEEOPLE

Ahem.

Kind of a minor peeve, but a lot of the art doesn't really jive with me.

I think I read there wouldn't be a Law/Chaos axis on the alignment system, but I'm not sure. If this is true, give me my ethical axis back you jerks it was more interesting than good/evil. :smallfrown:

[Rutee]

I think I read there wouldn't be a Law/Chaos axis on the alignment system, but I'm not sure. If this is true, give me my ethical axis back you jerks it was more interesting than good/evil. :smallfrown:

I believe I've seen that. I doubt it'll be hard to houserule in, right up til you get to the "Making monsters" part. Maybe.

But yes, it does put me in the ANGRY DOME.

[Reel On, Love]

CRAAAAB PEEEEOPLE
CRAAAAB PEEEEOPLE


Reminded me of this. (http://www.feanor.net/z0r/shock/whiteblack.swf)

[Arcane_Secrets]

Well, as far as primordial scions of chaos, I've never thought Wizards had a very good handle on what primordial chaos looks like: "It's spiky and looks like a person! An angry person! An angry mean person! And this one looks like a bug that has spikes!"

Right. Because chaos looks just like stuff from the material plane, but grosser.

The succubus doesn't make any sense at all, as a demon. Why would any demons be at attractive, ever? Chance. That's it. Yet every single female demon is lugging around a huge set of tits, a tiny waist, and wide hips. If you squint, they look like every other female character Wizards has put in their books.

Some demons would be attractive in order to more successfully infiltrate the prime material plane, and rip societies apart from the inside out.

[Trog]

Maybe they store fat in the tails like some lizards.

Does this vest make Trog's tail look fat? Tell Trog the truth.

[Rutee]

Some demons would be attractive in order to more successfully infiltrate the prime material plane, and rip societies apart from the inside out.

That's a plan. Coming from the /primordial spawn of chaos/.

[Arcane_Secrets]

That's a plan. Coming from the /primordial spawn of chaos/.

So you're saying that for chaos to be chaos, they have to be totally incapable of planning anything beyond how they put their next foot (or tentacle) in front of the other or others?

[Rutee]

So you're saying that for chaos to be chaos, they have to be totally incapable of planning anything beyond how they put their next foot (or tentacle) in front of the other or others?

To be /an incarnation/ of chaos? Probably.

[Bleen]

I never saw much of a methodology or order behind randomly going from Point A to point B siphoning the life out of Random Schmuck Y using your inborn powers of shapeshifting (Rarely having to maintain a consistent form is fairly chaotic in my opinion) and magical mindscrewing. It's seldom going beyond "Basic instincts", which is pretty Chaotic IMO.

[Tetsubo 57]

would there be mechanical effects of that? That would be sweet
from
EE

A quick and dirty idea is to allow the teifling to go a number of days equal to their Con without food.

[Werewindlefr]

What I dislike about 4e? (well, based on the assumption that it is going to be that way, at least)

-The new skill system. I'm okay with removing skills and merging others, although I liked the idea of being able to distinguish between visual and auditive perception. However, I don't like the almost binary "trained/untrained" system with all characters actually getting ranks every other level. A 15th level hero can be unable to swim, for instance if he hasn't ever been to the seaside. A character can be smart and wise but completely unable to detect the 1st level rogue's bluff. I liked 3.5's diversity and flexibility. If it came to a point where characters "had" to take some skills "maxed-out", then it's probably a flaw in how we play the game, not in how the system is.

-The new hit-points/healing system... well, it can make sense in a way (cf. Book of experimental might, grace points, etc.), but I like monsters and encounters that have consequences, at least more than forcing the players to take a 5-minutes break. Since my games are not too combat-heavy, it rarely comes to the point where the party sleeps just after a fight anyway.

-In general, as an "immersionist" (or what would be called a "simulationist" in the traditional GNS), I feel the game is going in a direction (gamist) that won't satisfy me. D&D 3.5 was somewhere between the two, and I really was satisfied. I don't really care about balance, and I'm afraid that they will sacrifice things that, in my opinion, are more important.
And it seems to me this approach is linked to this philosophy:


Addendum: The warlock is evidence of a philosophical shift within D&D R&D. When we did the 3.0 classes, we sort of asked ourselves "What would a barbarian be like?" and "What would a ranger be like?" The warlock arises from a different sort of question: "How can we design a class that provides this-or-that game experience for the player?" The warlock's not the only class like that, but it's a clear example.

I would rather see the "what should a X be like" considerations given the highest priority, not balancing.

-The starting races. I like the fairy tales or "Arthurian/Nibelungen/old saga" kind of atmospheres, and tieflings or dragonborns don't fit in.

-I haven't understood what this "taunting" stuff was all about, but I hope it has nothing to do with the standard "MMO-taunt" mechanics.

-I didn't like the tiled-battlemats mechanics in 3.5, and either used my imagination and some descriptions, or a gridless map (eyeballing or a ruler were good enough for me to calculate distances and movement). Apparently they're making 4e even worse. Firecubes? This is ridiculous.

[Thaos52002]

I have to admit I have had a complete opposite reaction to D and D 4th. Since i thought that 3.0 and 3.5 had many problems and only ever played it to appease friends I am loving the look of 4th edition.

Mostly I wanted to comment on the fact that while balance is important in my mind (balance between the different characters I mean) the comment you posted about the Warlock seems more inline with them trying to create different experiences with the different classes and this seems like a good thing. Creating classes specifically with certain people in mind feels like a major positive to me.

http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/

[Zanatos777]

I personally do not like the loss of spell-like abilities, spells, and non-combat abilities from monsters. I love those. Other issues include things like how pathetic the magic items are. Flight and other such powers only last a round or two at most. I can understand not wanting the wizard to fly all day, even it makes sense magically (does that?), but the ring of flying is effectively a ring of super jump. There, of course, is mourning for the lost dragons. Why does the MM have no good monsters? Are they no longer monsters? Why are templates not in the MM but the DMG?

While I do not mind the movement of the Tiefling I am sad about the gnome (I hate gnomes though), half-orcs, and the bard. The multiclassing is screwy. I do like making race matter more though.

The simplification of the alignment system irks me but I could live with that if not for the above. But for me the biggest thing is the emphasis on combat. Everything is about combat. Monster's have no other purpose, all class features are to aid in combat, no one has trouble hitting in combat...I just don't feel 4th. Oh well.

[Xion_Anistu-san]

(NOTE: I haven't slogged through all the posts yet, so I apologize for anything that may have already been said.)

Something I just remembered from an old article and the YouTube clip I saw from last year--"front-loading"! They griped about how 3.0 and 3.5 were alleged front-loaded, yet what did they do? Each and every class gets all of their abilities at 1st level, anywhere from 3 to 5 abilities depending on the class. Same as races; if you want to expand on your racial abilities, now you need to take them as feats later on instead of gaining abilities as you progress in levels like they said (pre-release information that is) the races would.

Another thing is reduction of damage output across the board. While this looks like it will put the warrior-types on the same power level as spellcasters (not that they have to be or really should be on the same power level, but that is beside the point), it really doesn't and I'll tell you why. Iterative attacks. A fighter could get up to 8 attacks per round at 20th level and didn't have to put all those attacks on one target. Granted, several of the new fighter powers/ exploits allow secondary and tertiary targets, the majority of them do not. Plus, with the whole power mechanic in 4E, every class is basically a spellcaster. This would make playing a "no magic" game nearly impossible in 4E.

The last thing I do not appreciate is this shift in the game that makes it difficult for myself, and others, to not equate the game to a MMORPG. (Warcraft, I'm looking at you!) The fact that spellcasters' powers are mostly attacks and only utility powers and rituals are non-attack. This seems to me that 4E is primarily a fighting RPG as opposed to just a RPG. No more hit die, just constant hit points as you progress in levels. "Nerfing" magic items to daily uses only. So much for my paladin who quested (long before it was a game mechanic) for Gauntlets of Ogre Power, then a Girdle of Storm Giant Strength and finally the famed Hammer of Thunderbolts to slay giants for his warrior-god, Thor.

And finally, I'd like to finish by saying that I think it was a bad move for Wizards to make the jump from 3.X to 4E. Instead of correcting problems from the old edition--like they did in the jump from AD&D 2nd to 3.0 D&D--they have created entirely new problems for themselves and the legions of established players around the world.

[Telok]

I did finally figure out what really bothered me about 4e. It feels cartoony to me.

The healing surges, the magic item identification, the tiefling and dragonborn inclusion, the inability to use the same non-at will power more than once. I look at 4e and think "He-Man?" I remember being seven years old and thinking then that the cartoon wasn't well done.

Of course it still bothers me that a fighter who dumps Int and Wis can take two feats, read a book, and cast Raise Dead as well as a cleric.

P.S. Can anyone point me to the mounted combat rules for 4e? I can't figure out how you're supposed to have a mounted character without getting a new monsterous or magical mount every two or three levels once you're past about sixth level. Once you're 10th level I think horses fall under the minion rules.

[Kurald Galain]

if you want to expand on your racial abilities, now you need to take them as feats later on instead of gaining abilities as you progress in levels like they said (pre-release information that is) the races would.

That's an interesting point... there appear to be several things mentioned in pre-release information that turn out to be contradicted by the actual rule books.

[Helgraf]

That's an interesting point... there appear to be several things mentioned in pre-release information that turn out to be contradicted by the actual rule books.

Yes, there are. And they warned us _from the start_ that everything they gave us peeks at could change. That the process was still in testing and development, and anything they released could be removed, altered, modified, et cetera.

In short, the fact that they actually did this should not be a surprise since they repeatedly warned us it might, could, and in some cases likely would happen.



Of course it still bothers me that a fighter who dumps Int and Wis can take two feats, read a book, and cast Raise Dead as well as a cleric.

Does Raise Dead require a skill check?

If so, then the answer to your statement is, in fact, no, he can't - because you can pretty much guarantee that the Cleric (with a pretty much guaranteed higher Wisdom) will make a higher Religion check result on the attempt to revive the dead.

If it does not require a skill check, then yes, he can. But then he's paid the cost for the ability/training/whathaveyou to enact a ritual that can raise the dead. Not every dead person, or even most dead people - just those that the DM permits. IIRC, in fact, the _majority_ of people in the game world will not return, so it's largely a ritual for PCs and those few NPCs the DM deems worthy.



(NOTE: I haven't slogged through all the posts yet, so I apologize for anything that may have already been said.)

Something I just remembered from an old article and the YouTube clip I saw from last year--"front-loading"! They griped about how 3.0 and 3.5 were alleged front-loaded, yet what did they do? Each and every class gets all of their abilities at 1st level, anywhere from 3 to 5 abilities depending on the class. Same as races; if you want to expand on your racial abilities, now you need to take them as feats later on instead of gaining abilities as you progress in levels like they said (pre-release information that is) the races would.

Yeah, except you don't get _any_ of that stuff from multiclassing in the same fashion, so the old '1 level dip' problem isn't an issue at all in this edition.



Another thing is reduction of damage output across the board. While this looks like it will put the warrior-types on the same power level as spellcasters (not that they have to be or really should be on the same power level, but that is beside the point),

Really? So it's okay for wizards to have phenominal cosmic power, but not for non-spellcasters because of what reasoning? Why does access to "magic" automatically give you a 'get better stuff for no real cost' coupon?

[erikun]

P.S. Can anyone point me to the mounted combat rules for 4e? I can't figure out how you're supposed to have a mounted character without getting a new monsterous or magical mount every two or three levels once you're past about sixth level. Once you're 10th level I think horses fall under the minion rules.
DMG, p. 46

Also, since we're talking about issues with 4e:


Everyone has the same powers/day. - This isn't a "wizards should be more powerful" complaint. It's a "why do wizards feel like ranged AoE fighters" complaint. The traditional feel of wizards were a bunch of spells each day (dailys) with possibly a few magical attacks anytime (at-will). Fighters should have considerably more at-will and a few encounter, while the rogue should have mostly encounter abilities (under the "enemy not falling for the same trick twice" logic). With everyone using the same powers/day, it feels like everyone's strategy is the same - slap minions with at-wills, dump encounters at the dregs, dump dailys at the solos.
Wizard Spellbook - They tried to include the old-fashioned spellbook with the new powers/day system, and I don't think the two mesh. Even with the "how many powers/day" question answered, there are numerous others that feel inadequate: why do wizards need to erase spells from their spellbook? Why can't they just write new ones in? If they write two spellbooks, do the spells erase from both? If they loose their spellbook, can they just re-write a new one? If they can do so from memory, why do they need the spellbook to memorize spells?
Skills and Feats - There seems to be a number of senarios that skills don't really cover. Yeah, I know: unlikely to happen, not dramatic, etc. However, simply rolling these situation into another skill, or a general ability check, or a "you succeed if it's in your background" feels less like a success for your character and more like DM fiat. Sure, some people don't like bothering, but some do.
For feats, it feels like some weapon/spell groups get all the love while others are completely ignored. You want to run a poison-focused warlock or something, you'll find that the feat selection doesn't love you anymore.
Equipment - So, a +1 magical increase to my scale armor not only spontaneously changes it into Wyrmscale, but it also increases the AC by +4?
Cost - The exponential increase in magical gear basically ensured that you need to find gear, not make it. You'd need to boil down 5x the magical weapons just to make one, and you'll be getting around +2 better than anything you can create. Heck, the game feels like it's discouraging players from creating stuff in-game.
Rituals - Sucktastic. I mean, the idea is great. But the execution? I can spend 10 minutes and 270 gp to see what is happening in the next room? But if I just waited 5 minutes and rested, I could just find out myself. Nevermind that if anything is waiting on the other side, they should have heard the PCs after 10 minutes of continuous muttering. What was the logic in this?
Monster Manual - No information about the monster's habitat? Movements? Appearance?! How am I supposed to use something if I don't know what it looks like?

[The New Bruceski]

Everyone has the same powers/day. - This isn't a "wizards should be more powerful" complaint. It's a "why do wizards feel like ranged AoE fighters" complaint. The traditional feel of wizards were a bunch of spells each day (dailys) with possibly a few magical attacks anytime (at-will). Fighters should have considerably more at-will and a few encounter, while the rogue should have mostly encounter abilities (under the "enemy not falling for the same trick twice" logic). With everyone using the same powers/day, it feels like everyone's strategy is the same - slap minions with at-wills, dump encounters at the dregs, dump dailys at the solos.
The natures of the powers vary wildly, affecting when you choose to use them. Some dailys are an encounter-long buff, not "thrown at the solos". Everyone has the same number of abilities, but not everyone's going to burn them in the same fights or in the same ways.

One *could* have changed the numbers of various powers gained (though utilities already have quite a bit of variation), but how would you balance it? You would get caught in the same issue as previous editions: wizards cannot go all day, but without an enforced number of encounters or anything they don't NEED to go all day. 4e tried to put everyone on the same system so that one class didn't dictate when the party stopped or not.


Skills and Feats - There seems to be a number of senarios that skills don't really cover. Yeah, I know: unlikely to happen, not dramatic, etc. However, simply rolling these situation into another skill, or a general ability check, or a "you succeed if it's in your background" feels less like a success for your character and more like DM fiat. Sure, some people don't like bothering, but some do.
For feats, it feels like some weapon/spell groups get all the love while others are completely ignored. You want to run a poison-focused warlock or something, you'll find that the feat selection doesn't love you anymore.
I think the main problem with backstory/flavor skills was that they were bought with the same pool of points as the more useful ones. In addition some classes (fighter) were woefully deficient in points to use in the first place. As long as the same system is used for both types of skills, I'm in favor of moving the fluff set of skills to the background, where you're trained or not (should it come up) without spending feats and such there.

As for feats, there are three Warlock powers that have poison as a keyword. I'm sure if they become more prevalent (either in expansions to the class or a class such as Assassin) a feat will develop. Any other types that were missed?


Equipment - So, a +1 magical increase to my scale armor not only spontaneously changes it into Wyrmscale, but it also increases the AC by +4?
It doesn't change your armor, you can't enchant it without it being Wyrmscale. Certain types of armor are inherently magical, and thus can hold more of an enchantment than lower-level armor. They also happen to be tougher and better-built.


Cost - The exponential increase in magical gear basically ensured that you need to find gear, not make it. You'd need to boil down 5x the magical weapons just to make one, and you'll be getting around +2 better than anything you can create. Heck, the game feels like it's discouraging players from creating stuff in-game.
Players get gold as well. They can get raw materials for making magical items without ripping others apart. It just gives them a way to recycle items they no longer need. Note that it is impossible to make an item above your level, and (by treasure packages) impossible to find an item of your level or below. That gives crafting and adventuring discrete areas of effectiveness.

Sure, adventuring items will be more effective, but you can melt down old gear and use the treasure you're finding to fill gaps. Two level 6 items and a bit of gold makes a level 4 item, and not every item exists at every level, so you might not get an upgrade to the level 4 one until level 9. If your party is willing to pool gold you usually get more than you do sell value of items (going off experience, I don't have the dmg), so it's not really hard to get enough for such things, even after keeping up on consumables.


Monster Manual - No information about the monster's habitat? Movements? Appearance?! How am I supposed to use something if I don't know what it looks like?


What it looks like? Every creature has a picture. Habitat and movements are up to you or to the campaign world. In one system goblins may be cave-dwellers in the mountains. In another they may live in swamps. They may be agressive or prefer to be left alone. Why should the MM pin them down?

[Pinnacle]

It doesn't change your armor, you can't enchant it without it being Wyrmscale.

Actually, that's the other way around. It can't be Wyrmscale unless it's enchanted. There's actually no rule that says you can't have non-masterwork armor enchanted higher, but the intent seems to be that creating powerful enough magic armor makes it masterwork.

[The New Bruceski]

Actually, that's the other way around. It can't be Wyrmscale unless it's enchanted. There's actually no rule that says you can't have non-masterwork armor enchanted higher, but the intent seems to be that creating powerful enough magic armor makes it masterwork.

Hmm, you're right.

[erikun]

Re: Powers/Day

Well, if your wizard blows all his spells in one fight, the fighter uses all her at-will powers in one fight, and the rogue uses all his encounter powers in one fight, then I suppose you could go back to town and rest... although I don't see how that is much different than what you could do with the current 4e rules.

Plus, what happens if they're ambushed on the way back to town? The fighter has all her powers, the rogue has all his powers, and the wizard has... ray of frost, as an at-will. Rendering him useless, and discouraging him from dumping all his spells in one sitting.

Re: Feats

Perhaps poison was a poor choice. Consider the feats available for acid damage compared to cold, or for warpicks compared to hammers. There are definitely certain "good" choices for weapons and spells, mainly because there are feats available for some weapon/spell types but not others.

Re: Equipment

You cannot have unenchanted Wyrmscale, and the rules aren't really clear on what happens if you try to enchant a suit of +5 regular scale armor.

Re: Cost/Crafting

The issue, though, is that crafting turns out to never be a good idea, unless you want something low-level that doesn't have a progression. (Wavestrider Boots, for example) Even if you could get the money to create a magic sword, you'll generally find one far better a short time later - assuming you haven't already.

Re: Monster Manual

The description helps, especially if I need the monster quickly and am not sure what are the important details. Opening the Monster Manual and saying "it looks like this" is horribly ineligant and ruins the mood, and forgetting to mention that the demon the party is fighting has a stinger-tail until it attacks with it again causes problems - that's something the PC's should've seen, but that I could miss on a quick scanover.

Yes, I could sit down and write out the description of each monster I feel like using... but that's a lot of work where I could be designing the encounter instead. Besides, this is the "Things you dislike about 4th edition" thread, not the "Things you feel you could have done a better job with 4th edition" one. :smalltongue:

[The New Bruceski]

Re: Cost/Crafting

The issue, though, is that crafting turns out to never be a good idea, unless you want something low-level that doesn't have a progression. (Wavestrider Boots, for example) Even if you could get the money to create a magic sword, you'll generally find one far better a short time later - assuming you haven't already.
Fair enough -- unless you particularly like a certain enchant (damage element), or use an exotic weapon that's hard to find without custom-making, weapons are not going to be a priority for making your own.

Armor though -- Exalted Armor +1 is level 5, and far more useful for a healer than an extra +1 defense on some other armor. If you're level 5 or higher and haven't found any, you're probably going to invest in making some instead of waiting for level 10. Other slots also have quite varied effects for their items. When we hit level 4 and get our hands on the ritual, if I haven't found a magic shield yet I'm not going to wait for the DM to drop one on us, I'm going to get the wizard to make one. If we do find one later that's better, oh well, money's there to be used. Especially given daily powers it can be handy to have another one around (no inherent bonus so no reason not to swap it after use).

I guess it really depends on the campaign. In some the DM picks items the players need most. In some campaigns the DM picks items that are useable by the players (random roll, reroll is plate and no paladin for example). In some campaigns it's the luck of the draw. The style of play will greatly affect the amount of use Enchant an Item sees.


Besides, this is the "Things you dislike about 4th edition" thread, not the "Things you feel you could have done a better job with 4th edition" one. :smalltongue:

True. But if somebody has an issue with 4e that I don't, is it fair for me to explore the issue, find out why we see it differently?

[Xion_Anistu-san]

Re: Powers/Day

Well, if your wizard blows all his spells in one fight, the fighter uses all her at-will powers in one fight, and the rogue uses all his encounter powers in one fight, then I suppose you could go back to town and rest... although I don't see how that is much different than what you could do with the current 4e rules.

Plus, what happens if they're ambushed on the way back to town? The fighter has all her powers, the rogue has all his powers, and the wizard has... ray of frost, as an at-will. Rendering him useless, and discouraging him from dumping all his spells in one sitting.

Well the only problem is that now the Wizard never runs out of spells. With at-will, encounter and daily spells, the only ones he could run out of would be daily spells since the rest either never run out in the case of at-will spells and recycle at the next battle in the case of encounter spells. So your arguement of being a useless Wizard isn't really the case.

This is one of the big reasons for the change to 4E, so the favorite classes of designers and fanboys would never run out of spells. The change to all classes having the same number powers allegedly balances all the classes so non-casters can't complain about being under-powered by comparison at higher levels. However, they seem to have fallen short of both marks. The casters got "nerfed" by reducing the number of spells they get as well as overall damage they do and the non-casters got "nerfed" by reducing the number of attacks per round to one. This is what I was speaking of Helgraf.


. . . So it's okay for wizards to have phenominal cosmic power, but not for non-spellcasters because of what reasoning? Why does access to "magic" automatically give you a 'get better stuff for no real cost' coupon?

Besides, who says that a person that can warp the fabric of reality with a mere thought or wave of a hand should be on the same power level as a person who can strike down dozens of attackers in the proverbial blink of an eye? Life isn't fair or balanced; where does it state that the different classes and their abilities are supposed to be fair and balanced?

I have never had a problem being the party front-line Fighter keeping the big baddies off the party casters. I have primarily played non-casters and never had a problem with the power curve. The main reason is because casters cast one spell per round (maybe two with quicken spells in 3.X) while I as the fighter-type got up to 8 attacks per round. That along with the lower AC, BAB, and HD of casters as opposed to my AC, BAB, and HD which makes me, the non-caster, heartier in battle. Casters cannot do everything no matter how you cut it. They need someone to keep the critters and such off their backs in order to warp the fabric of reality uninterupted.

[FoE]

Besides, who says that a person that can warp the fabric of reality with a mere thought or wave of a hand should be on the same power level as a person who can strike down dozens of attackers in the proverbial blink of an eye?

Life isn't fair or balanced; where does it state that the different classes and their abilities are supposed to be fair and balanced?

Conversely, show me where it says the classes are supposed to be unbalanced.

[Prophaniti]

Conversely, show me where it says the classes are supposed to be unbalanced.

Right there, where it says the wizard can use MAGIC. Though the the degree of the imbalance changes depending on where you see magic fitting in to your setting. In any case, as soon as you accept magic in a setting, you accept that magic-users have an advantage over non-magic-users. They go hand in hand. You can mitigate the advantage with penalties associated with magic use, which D&D has never really done beyond spell per day limits, but the advantage is inherent in the mere presence of a power source transcending the physical.

[FoE]

In any case, as soon as you accept magic in a setting, you accept that magic-users have an advantage over non-magic-users. They go hand in hand. You can mitigate the advantage with penalties associated with magic use, which D&D has never really done beyond spell per day limits, but the advantage is inherent in the mere presence of a power source transcending the physical.

I don't see it that way, Prophaniti. Magic is a deadly weapon, sure ... in a world where's it uncommon and there's little defence against it. And if you want to play in that kind of setting, fine.

But I've always viewed magic in the way Eberron and Fourth Edition have defined it: magic is fairly commonplace. It's less common among humanoid races like humans, but for races like fey, dragons, outsiders and the like, magic is part of their everyday lives.

Of course, magic still is an effective tool, but not significantly more than a sword in the hands of a warrior of an equal level to the spellcaster. That's because most people are no more adept at wielding weapons than they are at casting spells; most achieve basic competency with a weapon, or are at the most semi-skilled. But when a fighter or another martial class enters the high levels, that means their skill is verging on the unnatural. They're not just your average Joe Blow swinging a sword; they're frickin' Yoda wielding a lightsaber.

So yeah, high level warrior=high level magic-user in my books any day of the week/.

[Jerthanis]

Right there, where it says the wizard can use MAGIC. Though the the degree of the imbalance changes depending on where you see magic fitting in to your setting. In any case, as soon as you accept magic in a setting, you accept that magic-users have an advantage over non-magic-users. They go hand in hand. You can mitigate the advantage with penalties associated with magic use, which D&D has never really done beyond spell per day limits, but the advantage is inherent in the mere presence of a power source transcending the physical.

I don't agree. If there was a system by which magic could be represented as a tangential force in the world, a system by which gifted people could occasionally divine far off events, or the ability to converse with a spirit world... in that game system it would be harder to justify it being able to keep up with armored knights than anything.

I'd say that 3.5's view of magic, where mages wield world-crushing power at little or no cost to them is the outlier, where most fantasy magic is depicted as subtler or requiring sacrifices to work, and even then often being constrained within limited boundaries or spheres of influence.

The things I dislike about 4th edition are as follows:
Dragonborn seem like they fit too many roles in the game, making decent members of quite a few classes while some other races fit only one or two classes well. I dislike this because they're supposed to be rare, but I have a feeling lots of players will end up playing them, so they won't appear that rare in most peoples' games.

Monster Encounters are easier to plan, yet harder to run. It's hard to really convey this, but a poorly run group of consisting of +6 level enemies can get cleaned up by a group utilizing good teamwork.

It's almost impossible to plan for a group of all the same kind of monster to attack the party, because enemy groups need soldiers, brutes, Controllers and artillery... but that means you can't really run the party against ONLY Earth Elementals for a whole dungeon, because the battles will be far easier than otherwise. Also, Omitting a Controller from a group of villains removes far more danger from the battle than omitting any other single type of villain, so it seems like there's always got to be someone screwing with your player's minds or mobility.

Most of all though, I hate how 4th edition has essentially come between a community and fractured solid groups. Where once my group played and enjoyed 3rd edition when we did play D&D, now most of the group loves 4th edition, and the rest hates it, and those of us who like 4th edition will resent having to play in a game we don't like as much, and are sick of now that something better has come along, just to appease the 3rd edition faction, and the 3rd edition faction allows its dislike of 4th edition to leak out in the form of sarcasm during the game, undermining our ability to focus on that game.

Basically, when it was only 3rd edition, those of us who didn't really care for it could tough it out for the story and characters in between playing something more awesome, like Mutants and Masterminds, New World of Darkness, 3rd edition BESM or Exalted... now we actually want to play D&D too, but not the same D&D as those who actually really liked 3.5 do.

[Morty]

Right there, where it says the wizard can use MAGIC. Though the the degree of the imbalance changes depending on where you see magic fitting in to your setting. In any case, as soon as you accept magic in a setting, you accept that magic-users have an advantage over non-magic-users. They go hand in hand. You can mitigate the advantage with penalties associated with magic use, which D&D has never really done beyond spell per day limits, but the advantage is inherent in the mere presence of a power source transcending the physical.

To this, I raise you the entire section in 3ed DMG about creating new classes where it says several times that you have to be very careful not to create unbalanced classes, which sort of implies class imbalance is screw-up on WotC's part rather than intentional design, especially if you read the "No class should excel beyond another one overall" line. Also, if you can't think of a way to balance casters and non-casters you're not trying hard enough. And contrary to popular belief, it doesn't require turning higher-level warriors into Jedi. 3ed casters could be very well balanced if only spell lists were well thought out instead of apparently created ad hoc without thinking on how will it work in practice.
Your post is a great argument for all those who claim "people who don't like 4ed want warriors to be useless wizards' sidekicks" though.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Wizard Spellbook - They tried to include the old-fashioned spellbook with the new powers/day system, and I don't think the two mesh. Even with the "how many powers/day" question answered, there are numerous others that feel inadequate: why do wizards need to erase spells from their spellbook? Why can't they just write new ones in? If they write two spellbooks, do the spells erase from both? If they loose their spellbook, can they just re-write a new one? If they can do so from memory, why do they need the spellbook to memorize spells?[/LIST]
I recently house ruled this problem away. I gave my players [of any class] the option to retain powers and learn new ones from looted spell books and manuals, in exchange for not being able to retrain powers.

My only real gripe with 4e is the fact that alignment is meaningless. They wasted page space to describe five alignments, and yet they have zero effect on the game. So I wrote up a bunch of powers that operate off alignment and a 'how to' on using alignment in the game. (Book of Heroic Might, if anyone is interested.)

TS

[Prophaniti]

I'd say that 3.5's view of magic, where mages wield world-crushing power at little or no cost to them is the outlier, where most fantasy magic is depicted as subtler or requiring sacrifices to work, and even then often being constrained within limited boundaries or spheres of influence.

I would agree with that. I thought it was in this thread, but apparently it was another one, but I stated something very similar. Basically, I don't feel D&D has every done magic the way I want, as far as rules go. Wizards are given too much power with no cost, as you say, and that's not how I want magic to be in my settings. I almost always, when playing D&D, use some houserules to mechanically represent just why everyone doesn't become wizards. So, while I do feel that being able to use magic gives an undeniable and automatic advantage over those who can't, I do feel that balancing said advantage is fairly simple, and D&D (since 3.0, at any rate) has never put any effort into it. Even in 4e, they opted to gut casters entirely, while making every other class function in the same manner, instead of actually showing why the world isn't full of casters.

Actually, in my setting, I'm using both subtle magic and costly magic, so I have fairly common but less powerful casters, and then the few who wield 'world-crushing power' but at huge cost to themselves. Still a work in progress, but I think it's coming along nicely, and my group thinks so too.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd say that 3.5's view of magic, where mages wield world-crushing power at little or no cost to them is the outlier, where most fantasy magic is depicted as subtler or requiring sacrifices to work, and even then often being constrained within limited boundaries or spheres of influence.

Oh, absolutely. Note how earlier editions frequently put up costs, constraints, or drawbacks to magic, and how 3rd edition made a point of removing pretty much all of those - because, you know, imposing limits on player characters in any way just wouldn't be fun.

[Charity]

The things I dislike about 4th edition are as follows:
Dragonborn seem like they fit too many roles in the game, making decent members of quite a few classes while some other races fit only one or two classes well. I dislike this because they're supposed to be rare, but I have a feeling lots of players will end up playing them, so they won't appear that rare in most peoples' games.

I think this is mostly due to the PHB being largely martial power source and DB getting a STR bonus and a handy dandy AOE racial.
Though there is an element of ooo look shiny to the newest of races, from the designers.

My gripe is that the races are not as defined as they were originally suposed to be, I know this has been mentioned already. I know they told us the previews were subject to change... blah blah time constaints... dooby doo playtest results, yadda yadda, but I was looking forward to races really impacting on classes. More than just a racial ability or two and some stat bonuses. I know this edition goes further than any other to differentiate between the races, but I still was hoping for Moar!

[AKA_Bait]

IMy gripe is that the races are not as defined as they were originally suposed to be, I know this has been mentioned already. I know they told us the previews were subject to change... blah blah time constaints... dooby doo playtest results, yadda yadda, but I was looking forward to races really impacting on classes. More than just a racial ability or two and some stat bonuses. I know this edition goes further than any other to differentiate between the races, but I still was hoping for Moar!

Well, there are pluses and minuses to each approach. I, for example, am happy that they made the races less defined than it seemed they originally planned. The more defined a race gets, the more fluff there is tied to the mechanics, generally speaking, and the more work I have to do when I want to set fire to the existing fluff.

[Charity]

Why does that make me think of this?

http://geekus.org/burningFAQ/burning_teddySM.jpg

[hotel_papa]

My wife brought this up, actually, having read 4E more deeply than I did. She mentioned hating the change in the general tone of the writing. She appreciated that up to 3.5, the game didn't pause to tell you what "preternatural" and "crenellated" meant. It assumed that if you were playing a game that requires you to read, do basic math and think, you probably didn't need your hand held. The new text is geared towards a younger and frankly less educated market.

[Charity]

Verily it doth affront personages of erudition when simplistic phraseology allows comprehension by the proletariat.

[AKA_Bait]

Verily it doth affront personages of erudition when simplistic phraseology allows comprehension by the proletariat.

Yer damn skippy!

[hotel_papa]

I see your point, Charity. I'm (we're) not trying to be arrogant, but there's a difference between "allowing comprehension by the proletariat" and "sounding like the rule's placard in the Monopoly Jr. box".

HP

[AKA_Bait]

I see your point, Charity. I'm (we're) not trying to be arrogant, but there's a difference between "allowing comprehension by the proletariat" and "sounding like the rule's placard in the Monopoly Jr. box".

HP

Honestly, as rules go, I'd prefer the latter. Clear, easily and broadly comprehended rules don't hurt anything so long as they remain comprehensive. If I wrote a ruleset that a 10 year old can understand and 40 year old can also use for complicated actions in play then I'd be proud of my self.

[SuperPanda]

My only beef with 4th edition (at this time) is how I've heard so many people sing praises of the "skill challenge" system and how people cheered the mechanical support for non-combat challenges...


...


I've been biting my tongue waiting to see if other people brought this up, but isn't that exactly the same as what just about every DM who ran a even slightly non combat encounter did in 3.X without a rulebook telling you to do it and what an appropriate number of success/failures was for the encounter?

I mean, honesty, the 3.X described an encounter as anything worth experience and mentioned that anytime there was a chance for a negative effect on the PCs it should be treated as an Encounter. In those situations I usually left it up to the players to work their way through it (sometimes they would up in a Skill Challenge like system and sometimes they just role-played through it without ever needing the dice).


So, since this has gained a discussion element to it... am I crazy and this is not something that every DM who ran games with a focus other than pure combat had been doing all along, or have I missed some layer of spark in the Skill Challenge system that is going to turn me around?


(as to anything fluff related with 4 ed, it doesn't bother me considering I've never run a canon setting using the DnD rules and only once used the fluff from the books for a setting and that one was using Oriental Adventures).

[Reinforcements]

I can appreciate your issue, HP. I mean, it's not like I think you're coming across as a big fat jerk or anything - far from it. That said, I'd have to agree with AKA_Bait - there's a sentiment that likes complicated or difficult to understand things because it keeps out the riff-raff, and that's one of the things I hate most about the community. I hate it so much.

[AKA_Bait]

So, since this has gained a discussion element to it... am I crazy and this is not something that every DM who ran games with a focus other than pure combat had been doing all along, or have I missed some layer of spark in the Skill Challenge system that is going to turn me around?


Yes. You are crazy. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, you are right in that something at core similar to the skill challenges system was used by pretty much every good and experienced DM. That however, is quite different from every DM, particularly new DM's who were just gettting used to the system.

I'm happy they included it, if not thrilled with the execution (the DCs seem like a cakewalk to me). Basically, if good DM's have been doing this forever, then including it in the actual DMG, where it hadn't been, is a good rather than bad thing.

[Kurald Galain]

I've been biting my tongue waiting to see if other people brought this up, but isn't that exactly the same as what just about every DM who ran a even slightly non combat encounter did in 3.X without a rulebook telling you to do it and what an appropriate number of success/failures was for the encounter?

Yup. Of course, selling common knowledge as the Next Best Thing is what marketing is all about.

Also, the system has a few flaws as written. Assuming a DM who doesn't know statistics all that well (which, in my experience, includes most of them), it's easy to end up with a success rate of under 10% or over 90%, neither of which really fits the term challenging.

The alexandria has a funny article that explains that if you take it literally, it doesn't work (then again, what does)? If the challenge is 4-before-2 to get into a castle, then you can make four rolls just asking around and doing knowledge checks, and if you pass all four you're suddenly in the castle despite not having done any climbs/bribes/lockpicking yet. It just goes to show that if you try to idiot-proof anything, people will invent a better idiot.

[hotel_papa]

I can appreciate your issue, HP. I mean, it's not like I think you're coming across as a big fat jerk or anything - far from it. That said, I'd have to agree with AKA_Bait - there's a sentiment that likes complicated or difficult to understand things because it keeps out the riff-raff, and that's one of the things I hate most about the community. I hate it so much.

I understand what you are saying. It does seem elitist, though that wasn't my intention. I guess my problem is that the text that feels patronizing. I remember the disclaimer on the reprinted 2nd Ed book that talked about how the pronoun "he" would be used exclusivly in the book, not to be sexist but because it had been effectivly neutered by common usage. Constantly being urged to "grab some dice, have some fun" by contrast sounds like a Nerf commercial. Parody. On Family Guy.

[Viruzzo]

Verily it doth affront personages of erudition when simplistic phraseology allows comprehension by the proletariat.
Aaargh! Thog smash!

Ahem. Anyway, a thing most of you English mother language people forget is that having a simpler language helps those who are not and don't have a localized version (of any or some books) available. Also while I do enjoy talking in as a convoluted manner as possible sometimes, rules are there to be understood. Complex language is best reserver for fluff and in-character talk. IMHO.

I mean, "legerdemain"? I've yet to found the etimology (my theory: french "leger de main")...

[Helgraf]

To this, I raise you the entire section in 3ed DMG about creating new classes where it says several times that you have to be very careful not to create unbalanced classes, which sort of implies class imbalance is screw-up on WotC's part rather than intentional design, especially if you read the "No class should excel beyond another one overall" line. Also, if you can't think of a way to balance casters and non-casters you're not trying hard enough. And contrary to popular belief, it doesn't require turning higher-level warriors into Jedi. 3ed casters could be very well balanced if only spell lists were well thought out instead of apparently created ad hoc without thinking on how will it work in practice.
Your post is a great argument for all those who claim "people who don't like 4ed want warriors to be useless wizards' sidekicks" though.

Thank you, thank you, somebody friggin gets that this is not a new or radical idea I'm talking about.


I think this is mostly due to the PHB being largely martial power source and DB getting a STR bonus and a handy dandy AOE racial.
Though there is an element of ooo look shiny to the newest of races, from the designers.

My gripe is that the races are not as defined as they were originally suposed to be, I know this has been mentioned already. I know they told us the previews were subject to change... blah blah time constaints... dooby doo playtest results, yadda yadda, but I was looking forward to races really impacting on classes. More than just a racial ability or two and some stat bonuses. I know this edition goes further than any other to differentiate between the races, but I still was hoping for Moar!

Personally I think what will likely happen is kind of like what happened with the warforged in Dragon. I expect _eventually_ you'll see more detailing, including Paragon Paths for racial aspects. I expect it got clipped from the PHB either for A) room or B) later sales incentive in another volume. Or both.

[Prophaniti]

I can appreciate your issue, HP. I mean, it's not like I think you're coming across as a big fat jerk or anything - far from it. That said, I'd have to agree with AKA_Bait - there's a sentiment that likes complicated or difficult to understand things because it keeps out the riff-raff, and that's one of the things I hate most about the community. I hate it so much.
I'm more with HP on this one. When I read a book, be it a novel, a rulebook, or whatever, and I come across a word I don't know (less and less common now, but it still happens), I don't feel like they're treating me as riff-raff and trying to keep me from enjoying it. I feel like, "Hey, I should look that word up so I know and understand it. It is, after all, part of the language I've spoken since I was old enough to talk, it would behoove me to learn it." The only time I come close to feeling ostracized is when someone peppers their speech with latin or french or other languages I don't know. As long as it's in english, there's nothing elitist about using more complex words or syntax, when the book is intended for people who's primary language is english. If anyone is at fault (and I'm not saying anyone is), IMO it would be the people unwilling to learn the intricasies of their own language. Of course, exceptions can be made for younger audiences, still learning. Although I know I have my bar set higher than the average even for them, as I've always been years ahead of the 'official' reading level for my age, and am constantly shocked at the pathetic vocabulary and comprehension skills of many of my peers.

So, yeah, I don't advocate using the most complex terms possible to keep out the less educated, but neither to I believe it should be 'dumbed down' to the lowest common denominator. A solid middle-ground approach is best. Use big words and comlex syntax where appropriate.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

Having played the game and several previous versions, I have few true complaints. But because I enjoy complaining I can harp on those few for a while. Let me start off:


The Alignment Changes. I've often seen arguments about Alignment, what the various classifications mean, their importance, whether they should be ignored or followed. It's one of the oldest and most long-standing discussions around. Heck, I remember reading a great 2nd Edition article on how to flesh out alignment so that it means something to the character and the player, and our DM at the time took it, applied it, and butchered it to pieces. Instead of clarifying alignment as is, or getting rid of it altogether, WotC simplified it. Though I don't like using the "dumbed down" terms for most of 4th Edition ("dumbed down" has been used so often in so many things that it's come to mean "some change I dislike"), I will say that the new rules for alignment seem "dumbed down" to me (and is a change I dislike :smallwink:). Rather than serving a complexity of values and impulses, it boils it down to "Good", "Evil", "Really Good", "Really Evil", and apparently "Swing Voters", that large coveted group the other parties all want to influence somehow. The system is merely polar, where before it was geometrical planar. Truly, I would have preferred alignment to be ditched in its entirety than to have seen the system in place that is there now.
Vancian Casting I honestly believe I'm in the minority on this one. One of my fellow players apparently reports that when it was announced that Vancian Casting was not making it to 4th edition, the crowds responded with cheers. I get that. It was complex, and not always in a good way. It involved bookeeping and table-referencing that most players just don't want to deal with. I didn't mind; I even enjoyed it. I've played plenty of clerics, druids, and magic-users (wizards). The other complaint was the imbalance of the classes. Wizards tended to be far more capable at any given task than most other classes. This, I find, was not so much a factor of D&D as a whole, but of 3.x. Magic use has always been somewhat imbalanced. However, many of the limiting factors in 1st and 2nd were stripped away with the simplification of systems in 3rd edition. Moreover, the Fighter, which had previous been the melee workhorse of the party, lost just about all his oomph in 3rd edition. He's still a good member of the party, sure, but he just can't take it as well as he used to be able. The changes in 4th seem to be addressing both the complexity and balance issues, but in ways I find that takes away too much from the Wizard over all.


This isn't to say I find 4th edition a bad game. It's not. As I've said, I've played it and I've found it enjoyable. Granted, it's hard to get into a game lately, as all my friends flat-out refuse to play it at all. C'est domage.

[Prophaniti]

Ahem. Anyway, a thing most of you English mother language people forget is that having a simpler language helps those who are not and don't have a localized version (of any or some books) available.

A valid point. I would counter by saying, if I lived in, say, France or Germany, and didn't have access to the english translation of a ruleset, be it locally published or not, I would not feel that the writing, however complex, was being used to single me out and stop me from enjoying it. It's simply written for native speakers, and I would need to expand my understanding of the language being used to fully enjoy and comprehend the writing. I would not expect them to use childishly simple speech merely to accommodate people who may not have a full grasp of the language yet. Why should people who do not yet have a full grasp of english expect such accommodation from manuals written and published in english, and marketed to english-speaking people?

[Viruzzo]

@Prophaniti (I'm growing tired of quoting everything)
True, it is a side effect that still could be considered. Anyway there is a difference between complex language and using obsolete, archaic or very rare words. Nonetheless you're right, the best approach is the middle one. Let's just hope they are using a "binary search" approach: aiming high, then low and look which one is the closest to the "best" one.

@Crazy_Uncle_Doug
I agree that they could have remove alignments instead of reducing them (something I look forward to), but probably this was the farthest they were allowed to go (I recall that being said in the podcast maybe). Anyway the 4e approach is not so bad if you consider "unaligned" for what it is, and not "neutral something".

Most people in the world, and plenty of player characters, haven't signed up to play on any team - they're unaligned. Picking and adhering to an alignment represents a distinct choice.
This way "unaligned" represents most of the world's sentient races' population (I'd say 80-90%), since the other alignments only apply to those who have taken a decisive, (supposedly) permanent and active stance towards one of the "sides".
I still think though that alignment is a really poor way to simulate a character's beliefs, makes everyone much more bidimensional.

[Skaven]

No rules for centaurs in the MM.

class-forced weapon choices, players should be the ons to choose their weapon, not their class. (things like swordmaster is forgiven, but newly created things should not be written for a specific weapon, especially if the're the only choice for that playstyle in the paragon tier for that class)

Removal of dwarves and kobolds darkvision.

Wizards seem a little underpowered for their restrictions (low hp, no armor, little damage, little control)

Lack of spell lists (i hate vancian, but I dislike the limited spell choices for on the fly casting)

[Jade_Tarem]

Really, I'm going to have to go with everything in the OP. I mostly dislike what they did to the core classes. I can get used to the alignments system (by scrapping it). I can get used to the way they run NPCs. I can get used to a power system of some sort. What I can't get used to is how the classes seem to blur together now.

The thing is set up for fast and easy character making. Well, that's fine, but what if I wanted to do something that may not fit into an existing class? I have to just lie down and take it in 4e. There's no multiclassing, no prestige classes, and heck, you can't even try to make your character do anything outside of the slight deviations beyond what the much vaunted "paragon paths" allow. A great deal of broohaha is given to your "role" (meaning your role in combat) in the party, but little else.

In a great many cases, we could shuffle around all the powers for the various classes, rename them so that they match their new class thematically, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference as long as we took out the little [W] symbol that indicates which ones are weapon based.

And then there's the (over) compensation for caster 1337ness in the previous edition. I'll let you in on a little secret:

With the new edition, I was secretly hoping that they would balance casters by making magic even more powerful, but much harder to do. I'm not talking about percent failure chances, though.

Let me give you an example: I always felt that no ninth level spell should fail to end whatever combat you were in unless the enemy likewise had that kind of magical ability - but you shouldn't be able to just bust a 9th level spell out of nowhere! Take time stop, for instance. You could make it a party buff, and allow for attacks and interaction during the timestop - problem is, it takes, say, five rounds to cast and has a material component that's as expensive as a major magic item. That allows for the possiblity of interruption and will ensure that a wizard won't go around spamming it - they don't have that kind of cash even at level 20. Likewise, meteor swarm, which is/was just a suped-up fireball, should be a somewhat long-running spell requiring constant concentration, that can only be cast during certain celestial events/times of the month/etc - but it shouldn't fail to level a city. You can go down the list from there. Doing magic on that scale, and at that level, should have a number of added complications that make swinging a magic sword look pretty good by comparison - throw in some kind of extra penalty, such as some sort of draining effect on the wizard's body (in fact, the draining effect could replace Vancian limitations, as long as it wasn't curable by healing magic), and suddenly the wizard won't spam high-level spells at the speed of light anymore either. A wizard would be an invaluable ally with that kind of power - but a true glass cannon, something that would have to be protected in combat if you wanted to use him to his fullest potential.

4th edition does the exact opposite - not only can magic be spammed incessantly forever, but you're supposed to do it like that! What's more, magic (The defiance of physics and natural laws, right? The reshaping of reality) is no more powerful or even special than Joe Jim Bob over there swinging a great big stick - although I suppose it's ok because he swings it really hard. :smallyuk: Bleh. Also, they carved away pretty much every decent utility spell, hitting us in the face with the fact that by God, we're going to be punished for daring to employ batman wizards in 3x. It pretty much also carries over to clerics ("Who are now *going* to be healing in combat, dammit! You just didn't get the message in 3x, did you?"), druids ("Ahahahahahaha! Vaporized! We'll put 'em back if you ask real nice and buy lots of miniatures."), bards ("A class as goofy and fun as this has no place in a tactical simulation! Die! Die! Die!"), and Warlocks ("Do you think we could get away with giving them a pet demon?").

So yeah, that's what I dislike about 4th edition.

[FoE]

What's more, magic (The defiance of physics and natural laws, right? The reshaping of reality) is no more powerful or even special than Joe Jim Bob over there swinging a great big stick

Oh please. Magic may be impressive in a relatively mundane world, but in a D&D campaign where magic is as common as running water is in ours, it ain't that special.

[Matthew]

Honestly, as rules go, I'd prefer the latter. Clear, easily and broadly comprehended rules don't hurt anything so long as they remain comprehensive. If I wrote a ruleset that a 10 year old can understand and 40 year old can also use for complicated actions in play then I'd be proud of my self.

One caveat to that is that I want to be entertained by what I am reading. Far too often I find myself struggling through clearly written, but deadly boring, rulebooks or supplements. If something is "well written" [i.e. a pleasure to read] I will pretty much overlook any comprehension or clarity issues.

[Jayabalard]

I mean, "legerdemain"? I've yet to found the etimology (my theory: french "leger de main")...http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2002/09/28.html

not hard to find definitions including etymology.



Oh please. Magic may be impressive in a relatively mundane world, but in a D&D campaign where magic is as common as running water is in ours, it ain't that special.This hasn't always been the default assumption of D&D, so in many D&D campaigns magic is much less common.

Commonness of magic aside, many people expect magic > mundane regardless of how common magic is or isn't. Compare to an ultra high tech Sci-fi game: even though ultra-tech stuff is as common as running water in the real world, we expect the ultra-tech to trump mundane muscle.

[Jade_Tarem]

Oh please. Magic may be impressive in a relatively mundane world, but in a D&D campaign where magic is as common as running water is in ours, it ain't that special.

Only in Eberron and Faerun is it considered that utilitarian. Check the amount of money you make via profession. Go on, check it. It's not very much, is it? It might take quite a while for you to save up enough money while farming* or something to buy a decent bow, much less a magic item, much less an entire array of magical equipment! Recall that profession is how most people in DnD make money. Even in Eberron, the fact that you can send a magical telegram doesn't mean that you do it lightly - in fact, for your average family magic healing/messaging/transport is entirely out of reach. These things are possible - much in the same way that breaking the sound barrier is possible in RL - but that doesn't mean your average family in DnD can afford a magic carpet any more than your average family in RL can afford an F-22 Raptor, or even to fly one once. Hell, 92% of the people in the world don't own a car. A very large chunk of the population can't afford food. This is a massive improvement on Medieval times. Also note that not very many people in the world have the training or the time to learn how to fly complex aircraft - just as many in the DnD world don't have the time, money, or ability to learn how to manage the complexity of spellcasting. Magic in the DnD setting is common to the adventuring party in the same way that cars with ejector seats, missile launchers, and cloaking devices are common to James Bond. He gets them because he's an elite agent who risks his life all the time - normal people don't get toys like that. I trust I've made my point.


*Unless they're GOLD farming. (Rim shot)

[AKA_Bait]

One caveat to that is that I want to be entertained by what I am reading. Far too often I find myself struggling through clearly written, but deadly boring, rulebooks or supplements. If something is "well written" [i.e. a pleasure to read] I will pretty much overlook any comprehension or clarity issues.

Yeah, I think that's just a taste thing though. Personally, I'd rather my rule book be boring than unclear. But then, I wade through litigation every day so I have a pretty high tolerence for boring.

[FoE]

Only in Eberron and Faerun is it considered that utilitarian.

And I loves me Eberron. :smallbiggrin:


Check the amount of money you make via profession.

For me, the only profession in D&D is "adventurer."


It might take quite a while for you to save up enough money while farming* or something to buy a decent bow, much less a magic item, much less an entire array of magical equipment!

Sure, magic items cost a lot. That's to keep YOU adventuring. :smalltongue:

[Matthew]

Yeah, I think that's just a taste thing though. Personally, I'd rather my rule book be boring than unclear. But then, I wade through litigation every day so I have a pretty high tolerence for boring.

No doubt. Much like everything else, the quality of a rulebook is determined by the criteria on which we judge it. I was probably just overemphasising the point...

[Prophaniti]

*a post of awesomeness*
Totally agreed with that. I've been saying just that for a while now, most people ignore it or say that because you run a party of adventurers, it means the world is overrun with them. I also like the comparison of magic in D&D to cutting edge technology IRL. Sure, we can build partical accelerators and space shuttles. That doesn't mean every home has one, or that the average person on the street has been to space. Just because it is possible for a wizard somewhere to cast Teleportation Circle, or for a cleric to cast Create Food, doesn't mean that instant transportation is readily available or that hunger is a thing of the past.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

@Prophaniti (I'm growing tired of quoting everything)
True, it is a side effect that still could be considered. Anyway there is a difference between complex language and using obsolete, archaic or very rare words. Nonetheless you're right, the best approach is the middle one. Let's just hope they are using a "binary search" approach: aiming high, then low and look which one is the closest to the "best" one.

@Crazy_Uncle_Doug
I agree that they could have remove alignments instead of reducing them (something I look forward to), but probably this was the farthest they were allowed to go (I recall that being said in the podcast maybe). Anyway the 4e approach is not so bad if you consider "unaligned" for what it is, and not "neutral something".

This way "unaligned" represents most of the world's sentient races' population (I'd say 80-90%), since the other alignments only apply to those who have taken a decisive, (supposedly) permanent and active stance towards one of the "sides".
I still think though that alignment is a really poor way to simulate a character's beliefs, makes everyone much more bidimensional.

I can see this. Thank you!

Still, I don't find this to be a step in the right direction as much as I see it as a poor compromise between the two extremes. I like the nine-spoked alignment system. I like systems without alignment. The present system compromises between the two, and comes out lacking nuances of the first and freedoms of the latter.

[Prophaniti]

The present system compromises between the two, and comes out lacking nuances of the first and freedoms of the latter.

Such is often the way of compromises. Sure, they're supposed to make everyone happy, but in practice, they tend to make everyone the same degree of miserable.

[TheEmerged]

Now that I've played the system a bit more, I feel a bit more qualified to answer this. Overall, I'm liking it better than I liked 3.0 at first. I'm prepared to continue using it. But there are aspects of it I dislike.

0> I'm mentioning, but kinda not counting, two problems that very easy to correct. The first is the alignment issue; I'm not saying the old system was perfect but the new one isn't diverse or defining enough for my use. The second is the new language structure, which is easily corrected by adding back in the "extra languages for INT or WIS" rule.

1> I don't like the "coin toss" saves every round. Yeah, I know it's actually worse than this (55% chance to save most of the time). This is balanced by the fact that I like the new defense mechanism.

2> I don't like that there is STILL so much campaign-specific material in the PHB, even though there's probably less in here than any previous edition.

3> I'm growing into the bit about the multiclassing-via-feats method, but they're not properly balanced yet, and without being rude, in obvious ways that shouldn't have survived playtesting. It's not quite on the failure level of 3.0 psionic combat, but it's in that direction...

The initial multiclassing feats (like Warrior of the Wild) are too powerful relative to other feats (compare to Skill Training). The power swapping feats on the other hand are not powerful enough relative to other feats (effectively costing you a feat just to retrain). There is similarly a glaringly obvious problem with ranger paragon classes & multiclassing that should not have survived the first set of playtesting.

3.1> Further, the initial multiclassing feats are not well balanced against each other. Compare Warrior of the Wild (the ranger feat) with Soldier of the Fath (the paladin feat) and it becomes obvious why WotW is much more common. Yes, that means that once again Ranger is one of the most common multiclassing choices :smallbiggrin:

4> The lack of a second controller archetype is proving annoying in my efforts to create a psychic controller that is balanced against the current rules.

5> The fights start feeling too alike after a while, and this is not corrected as thoroughly at higher levels as it should. I've been toying with allowing characters, as a daily, to use a different encounter power of the same level instead of the one "known".

Now, there are things I know others don't like that are either features for me (tossing the Vancian magic system), work better in practice than theory (skill challenges), or are simple changes in intention I'm getting used to (skill functionality).

[Viruzzo]

On the "almighty magic" matter (first part)
The problem with the "uber spell but hard to cast" system is that sooner or later (but probably sooner) players will find a way to circumvent the limits, be them casting times, money or whatever. Also if a level 9 spell wins the day everytime it is cast, other classes should have a similar capability. Which is not the case in 3.x.

On the "almighty magic" matter (second part)
There is an unsormountable problem in a setting where magic is really powerful: casters will be overpowered, since by definition they have a really powerful ability. In Ars Magica magic has limitless possibilities, and a system that free is IMO the only kind of magic system that conveys the "arcane arts" feeling, and as such the whole games is centered on the mages themselves.
Anyway, I don't see why there should be a requirement of the "if there is magic, it must be powerful" kind: for what reason the superhuman abilities that are not "magic" should be less powerful than spellcasting? If magic is hard to master, most spellcasters will be weak, if it's not then anyone in the world should have at least some magic powers...

@Jade_Tarem
In 2e there were (almost) no skills, feats and useful multiclassing, and still we managed somehow to make different characters, or we didn't feel the problem. 3e introduced a (too much IMO) free multiclassing system that enhanced min/maxing, shifting quite some of the focus of the game to character building. Now it has been reduced, and many people have gotten so used to the 3.x system that they think they can't play without 3 classes and 2 PrCs...

[thegurullamen]

On the "almighty magic" matter (first part)
The problem with the "uber spell but hard to cast" system is that sooner or later (but probably sooner) players will find a way to circumvent the limits, be them casting times, money or whatever. Also if a level 9 spell wins the day everytime it is cast, other classes should have a similar capability. Which is not the case in 3.x.

Not entirely the case. Tome of Battle offered a glimmer of hope towards this end for melee classes. I mean, who could forget the uber-awesome "Five Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike"? I think the addition of such power capstones would make play more interesting at higher levels. I still play 3.5 and I intend to follow this same pattern with other lackluster classes.

Now, I only need some divine guidance on balancing this idea.

[Jade_Tarem]

On the "almighty magic" matter (first part)
The problem with the "uber spell but hard to cast" system is that sooner or later (but probably sooner) players will find a way to circumvent the limits, be them casting times, money or whatever. Also if a level 9 spell wins the day everytime it is cast, other classes should have a similar capability. Which is not the case in 3.x.

I think you may have missed the point. The idea I put forward is one where magic overcomes the abilities to circumvent the inherant limits placed upon it. No one found a way to circumvent Vancian casting limits until 20,000 splatbooks came out, and even then they didn't even manage it completely. Also, the level 9 spell doesn't win the day every time. Obviously, other measures would have to be taken to make you slightly more vulnerable when doing something like that, but the idea is that the team has to protect the wizard from being hit, grappled, or plastered with hostile magic for an extended period of time if he chooses to use a doomsday spell instead of rockin' out with a bunch of less obscene and faster spells. Even then, he can't keep it up for long, and can't do it in the next fight. And if he's so worn out that he can't do magic any more, then he can't teleport to safety in an extradimensional castle of awesome.


On the "almighty magic" matter (second part)
There is an unsormountable problem in a setting where magic is really powerful: casters will be overpowered, since by definition they have a really powerful ability. In Ars Magica magic has limitless possibilities, and a system that free is IMO the only kind of magic system that conveys the "arcane arts" feeling, and as such the whole games is centered on the mages themselves.

But this isn't Ars Magica, and the magic doesn't have limitless possiblilties because there is a heavy, heavy price associated with the more egregious aspects of it - indeed, the cost should be too high most of the time for the wizard to cast at the highest level available to him.


Anyway, I don't see why there should be a requirement of the "if there is magic, it must be powerful" kind: for what reason the superhuman abilities that are not "magic" should be less powerful than spellcasting? If magic is hard to master, most spellcasters will be weak, if it's not then anyone in the world should have at least some magic powers...

If you're not going to make magic magical, why have it at all?


@Jade_Tarem
In 2e there were (almost) no skills, feats and useful multiclassing, and still we managed somehow to make different characters, or we didn't feel the problem. 3e introduced a (too much IMO) free multiclassing system that enhanced min/maxing, shifting quite some of the focus 2of the game to character building. Now it has been reduced, and many people have gotten so used to the 3.x system that they think they can't play without 3 classes and 2 PrCs...

I can play fine without 3 classes and 2 PrCs. But if I do want to build a very complicated character, then I can in 3.5. Too bad that isn't an even close to an option in 4e.

[EvilElitest]

isn't this thread dead


It occured to me, that 4E is in some ways like the new star wars films. Pretty and advanced, but bloody silly
from
EE

[Prophaniti]

If you're not going to make magic magical, why have it at all?

My question, too. I'm not saying 3.5 did it right. I'm saying they opted for the powerful magic with no mitigating factor. 4e seems to have gone the opposite way, mitigating factor but no powerful magic. I'm looking for both at once. 4e strikes me as a glaring overreaction to the powerful cost-free magic of 3e. It's like, someone coming in their office and saying that athlete's foot is really unpleasant and annoying. So what did they do? They cut off their feet.

[Covered In Bees]

My question, too. I'm not saying 3.5 did it right. I'm saying they opted for the powerful magic with no mitigating factor. 4e seems to have gone the opposite way, mitigating factor but no powerful magic. I'm looking for both at once. 4e strikes me as a glaring overreaction to the powerful cost-free magic of 3e. It's like, someone coming in their office and saying that athlete's foot is really unpleasant and annoying. So what did they do? They cut off their feet.

You don't think Magnificent Mansion, Cloud, Chariot, flight, invisibility, and all the high-level rituals are powerful?

[Prophaniti]

You don't think Magnificent Mansion, Cloud, Chariot, flight, invisibility, and all the high-level rituals are powerful?

Eh, a few perhaps, I haven't played a high-level 4e game yet. But when compared with the abundance of powerful magic in 3.5, no, they're not powerful at all. While the idea that you can't use rituals in combat as a mitigating factor seems good at first, it feels very much like a meta-game restriction, the kind I hate the most (a better way, perhaps, would be something along the lines of Concentration checks, with higher DCs when people are screaming and dying around you). Add to that the fact that they take a ridiculous amount of time to cast (especially when you consider it takes almost no time at all to make the sky rain meteors, so why does it take so long to fly or turn invisible?) and the fact that anyone can learn them with a few feats (which removes the whole 'magic is hard to learn' idea, always my favorite approach)... You end up with all non-combat magic feeling very 'tacked-on' and half done. Which is largely the impression I get from everything non-combat related in all the rulebooks.

[EvilElitest]

was this thread dead at some point? Oh well, must have not noticed it

Anyways, it is worth noting that FR is specifically a high magic game. Ebberon takes it to another extreme, they aren't standards, through they both are examples of a mostly logical fantasy world.
from
EE

[Jade_Tarem]

Eh, a few perhaps, I haven't played a high-level 4e game yet. But when compared with the abundance of powerful magic in 3.5, no, they're not powerful at all. While the idea that you can't use rituals in combat as a mitigating factor seems good at first, it feels very much like a meta-game restriction, the kind I hate the most (a better way, perhaps, would be something along the lines of Concentration checks, with higher DCs when people are screaming and dying around you). Add to that the fact that they take a ridiculous amount of time to cast (especially when you consider it takes almost no time at all to make the sky rain meteors, so why does it take so long to fly or turn invisible?) and the fact that anyone can learn them with a few feats (which removes the whole 'magic is hard to learn' idea, always my favorite approach)... You end up with all non-combat magic feeling very 'tacked-on' and half done. Which is largely the impression I get from everything non-combat related in all the rulebooks.

Agreed. It almost feels as if they tried to stuff magic into a nonmagical combat model, and then slapped down a pitiful amount of utility when they realized how bad it was. People talk about 4e and losing the suspension of disbelief, and this is an example of exactly that. Wizards, a class/group of professionals devoted to learning have spent all of their study time learning how to blow things up in 31 flavors, and how to sometimes make it kinda hard for a hostile target to move in certain directions, but haven't made nearly as much progress on transportation, creation, building, transmutation, learning more than they could via mundane means, communication, visualization, art, deception, crafting, or exploring the mysteries beyond the grave? They have focused thier efforts nearly exclusively in the subject of artillery to the point where they have spells they can use to shoot at things all day long, doing any kind of damage imaginable in all forms of shapes and pretty colors, but they haven't bothered to look up more than a handful of ways to get around faster, explore areas where no one else can go, better their surroundings, coordinate, aquire what they desire in interesting ways, or look beyond the veil? That strains disbelief past the breaking point.

There's a very good mechanical reason why they aren't adding in all those spells - because it would take away from the shine of the other classes like it did in 3x, and because the players would just start building batman wizards again, which apparently really gets WotC upset - but unless there's some kind of universal law of magic along the lines of "it's faster and easier to rip holes in reality than it is to communicate with someone a mile away" then there's no explaining the wizard's repitoire of spells to the common man using anything like logic. "Yeah, we've spent our time since the ancient days learning how to make things go boom. Sorry we haven't figured out how to recover your missing daughter yet."

Note that in 3x, a DM had the option of saying that there was a universal law of magic called "Destruction is easier than creation" and then slashing as many batman-friendly spells as he wanted from the wizard spell list. Here, there's no reverse option.

[thegurullamen]

There's a very good mechanical reason why they aren't adding in all those spells - because it would take away from the shine of the other classes like it did in 3x, and because the players would just start building batman wizards again, which apparently really steams WotC's cheese - but unless there's some kind of universal law of magic along the lines of "it's faster and easier to rip holes in reality than it is to communicate with someone a mile away" then there's no explaining the wizard's repitoire.

Actually, haphazardly destroying something is a lot easier than creating something, but that still doesn't explain the wizard; he creates things to destroy creatures.

So, how long do people think it'll be before the split fanbase finally manages to get over these mechanoflavor inconsistencies?

Edit-ninja'd?

[Rockphed]

You don't think Magnificent Mansion, [is] powerful?

Magnificent Mansion is a 22nd level Utility Power, not a Ritual. The cost? No time stop or Mass Fly if you prepare MM.

[Jade_Tarem]

Actually, haphazardly destroying something is a lot easier than creating something, but that still doesn't explain the wizard; he creates things to destroy creatures.

So, how long do people think it'll be before the split fanbase finally manages to get over these mechanoflavor inconsistencies?

Ah, but lets say that you found out that you have the power, through careful study and interaction with the surrounding environment, to manipulate reality in ways that no one else can. Eventually you find out that it's easier to haphazardly toss energy around than anything else, but that more careful, delicate interactions with this mysterious force can produce virtually any kind of marvelous result. You then find that there are others with this gift who have the time to study it, and with them form an organization stretching across the land dedicated to the advancement of the arcane arts. Do you then:

A) Find out how to do grand and/or noble things like warp around the world at will, cure diseases, control the weather to make it favorable for your town, and locate valuable objects and points of data without having to look for them?

B) Engage in more reckless pursuits, such as exploring realms and dimensions that you were perhaps not meant to see, bringing forth fantastic creatures to study, attempting to reach from this life into the next, or fashioning amazing focuses for this mysterious energy you control that do marvelous things?

C) Begin to indulge in the simpler or petty pleasures, such as making food taste better, spying on hot lil' bridget from down the street, making yourself look better, inventing amusing pranks, finding out how to add 4-6 inches to certain body parts, or just creating art out of nothing for your own amusement?

D) Find 101 interesting ways to haphazardly toss energy around?

4e seems to suggest that almost all wizards that exist now or have ever existed are/were "D" type personalities. That's not realistic at all.

[thegurullamen]

Ah, but lets say that you found out that you have the power, through careful study and interaction with the surrounding environment, to manipulate reality in ways that no one else can. Eventually you find out that it's easier to haphazardly toss energy around than anything else, but that more careful, delicate interactions with this mysterious force can produce virtually any kind of marvelous result. You then find that there are others with this gift who have the time to study it, and with them form an organization stretching across the land dedicated to the advancement of the arcane arts. Do you then:

A) Find out how to do grand and/or noble things like warp around the world at will, cure diseases, control the weather to make it favorable for your town, and locate valuable objects and points of data without having to look for them?

B) Engage in more reckless pursuits, such as exploring realms and dimensions that you were perhaps not meant to see, bringing forth fantastic creatures to study, attempting to reach from this life into the next, or fashioning amazing focuses for this mysterious energy you control that do marvelous things?

C) Begin to indulge in the simpler or petty pleasures, such as making food taste better, making yourself look better, inventing amusing pranks, finding out how to add 4-6 inches to certain body parts, or just creating art out of nothing for your own amusement?

D) Find 101 interesting ways to haphazardly toss energy around?

4e seems to suggest that almost all wizards that exist now or have ever existed were or are "D" type personalities. That's not realistic at all.

Let's tackle this one at a time:

A) This is the pretty mundane option, and the one least likely to be chosen if only because it's D&D. The trademark is "We do things the hard way." Also, "noble"? Only if you mean aristocrat. High-mindedness is not appreciated in any D&D world (*thinks*don'tlookatthepaladindon'tlookatthepaladi n)

B) Someone had to have crafted all of those magic items. And the world is populated with a stupid number of creatures in need of death. Who's to say a mage isn't responsible for D&D's screwed up (suppressed laugh) ...ecology then sealed the responsible spell with some Epic magic before turning a Fireball-loaded finger on his own temple and click-BANG!!

C) Prestidigitation for the first and for the rest: who cares! It's D&D!!

D) Now this is why people have ALWAYS played wizards. I mean, no one in their right mind ever played anything but evokers in 3e. "Step off, cleric. I've got a fireball."

In all seriousness, though, the idea of some rituals appeals to me. I like the idea that a fighter or barbarian can use the long-preserved arts of his tribe or kin to bring loved ones back from the dead, so long as they are skilled enough in the arts and have made the appropriate sacrifices. What ruins this illusion is that it's not just a flavor thing. Nearly every utility spell is done this way. Some should have been saved for magic classes. It's thier schtick, you know?

[Jade_Tarem]

Let's tackle this one at a time:

A) This is the pretty mundane option, and the one least likely to be chosen if only because it's D&D. The trademark is "We do things the hard way." Also, "noble"? Only if you mean aristocrat. High-mindedness is not appreciated in any D&D world (*thinks*don'tlookatthepaladindon'tlookatthepaladi n)

B) Someone had to have crafted all of those magic items. And the world is populated with a stupid number of creatures in need of death. Who's to say a mage isn't responsible for D&D's screwed up (suppressed laugh) ...ecology then sealed the responsible spell with some Epic magic before turning a Fireball-loaded finger on his own temple and click-BANG!!

C) Prestidigitation for the first and for the rest: who cares! It's D&D!!

D) Now this is why people have ALWAYS played wizards. I mean, no one in their right mind ever played anything but evokers in 3e. "Step off, cleric. I've got a fireball."

A) It's not just high-minded - it's incredibly pragmatic, which wizards are touted as being, most of the time. I'm gonna have to use some modified lines from Wicked here, in order to get my point across.

And no one here,
In all of Oz,
No wizard that there is or was,
has ever found a use for a spell that controls the weather?

Come on. It seems to me that someone somewhere along the line would have invented a spell that could save his city from flooding before finding a way to call down meteors on it. Other kinds of spells fall into this category, too. Think of the abilities gained from something like telekinesis.

B) So why can't I do it? You'd think at some point before epic level there'd be a way to use the forbidden arcane arts to magically whistle up, say, a beaver, but there's not.

C) I'm not sure I understand. I wasn't endorsing all of that behavior, merely pointing out that at some point there's going to be a wizard out there decadent enough to get into that.

D) Not really. People in 3x played all kinds of wizards all the time. And the fact that your response is "because people think blowing things up is fun" is part of my point. Also, some people think that summoning a big freaking dragon or communicating with extraplanar entities would be cool, too, but the developers didn't want to add that because again, that might take us back towards batman.

[thegurullamen]

I was speaking tongue-in-cheek for the majority of that. For example, most people didn't want to be evokers in 3.5. I figured that would have been the sign. Oh, well. Text-only forums is a hard medium to use for satire.

Sure, there are some pretty good reasons for why wizards in 4e are horribly inconsistent, but, as much as I hate to say this, it's true for most other editions as well. I mean, imagine the kinds of mundane tasks you could accomplish with a ninth level spell in 3e? One high-level and decently minded enough individual could start the industrial revolution all on his own without the need for that whole Ford-union-wars-civil-war-reconstruction-era-previous-slaves-flooding-the-labor-market-dwindling-agricultural-society-Capitalism-and-the-Protestant-Ethic hubbub. Sociology and logical consequences of magic are not one of D&D's stronger points. (This is the reason I love Eberron.)

Of course, dealing with the issue in any manner, no matter how flawed so long as the end product incorporates it believably into the system, is preferable to a system that ignores it altogether. At least, to those of us who value verisimilitude. Many others have shown they could care less about this kind of thing and prefer a gamist's game instead which is fine enough for them, but that's not my D&D.

[Edea]

Main thing I don't like is the at-will/encounter/daily system of power use. I'd rather see the current encounter powers for all classes have a more efficient recovery mechanism (ToB), and I'd rather see the current daily powers for all classes use a point system (XPH). Possibly the two most controversial books mechanics-wise in 3.5, but that's how I'd rather see it. As for at-wills, just turn them into that particular class's basic attacks (and have access to all of them). Also, I think the Wizard class should be able to prep more than one spell per 'level slot' (I'd say 2, at least).

What the powers do in and of themselves I'm not so concerned about; that's just a shift in the game paradigm, so I've altered expectations on that accordingly. However, the way the powers are used and handled from a resource management perspective, that bothers me mightily, and that goes for ALL the 4e classes, not just Wizards.

[Viruzzo]

Obviously, other measures would have to be taken to make you slightly more vulnerable when doing something like that, but the idea is that the team has to protect the wizard from being hit, grappled, or plastered with hostile magic for an extended period of time if he chooses to use a doomsday spell instead of rockin' out with a bunch of less obscene and faster spells.
Then you coul just rename the game Elminster and his friendly neighbourhood bodyguards. :smallbiggrin:


But this isn't Ars Magica, and the magic doesn't have limitless possiblilties because there is a heavy, heavy price associated with the more egregious aspects of it - indeed, the cost should be too high most of the time for the wizard to cast at the highest level available to him.
I wasn't saying that D&D 3.x is like Ars Magica (that would make many people cry in horror), but that when magic is really magical the game centers on the casters, and the other PCs become just healbots, meatshields and such.


If you're not going to make magic magical, why have it at all?
You just ignored the part you quoted (aaagh no, I'm talking like EE!).


I can play fine without 3 classes and 2 PrCs. But if I do want to build a very complicated character, then I can in 3.5. Too bad that isn't an even close to an option in 4e.
You even said "complicated", not "complex". That would be my point! :smalltongue:
Anyway, this is what I meant: being used to the extremely free character creation system of 3e prevents you from noticing that 4e's one is also complex, much more so than 2e. And again, it shouldn' be multiclassing that defines your character but you.

[Kurald Galain]

The second is the new language structure, which is easily corrected by adding back in the "extra languages for INT or WIS" rule.
What on earth does wisdom have to do with learning languages?



The initial multiclassing feats (like Warrior of the Wild) are too powerful relative to other feats (compare to Skill Training).
Yup. Given the low power level of feats overall, the first multiclassing feat is a very good choice for many characters (if only to boost damage, via the ranger or rogue feat, plus a free skill is nice). Swapping powers is situationally useful, but note that some classes have rather sucky powers at some levels.

[Eita]

Odds are good that someone has already mentioned this or the topic is far off from it's original start, but I don't feel like wading through 14 pages. As such, my biggest complaint is that Wizard's says that at level 30, after you complete "the awesome quest of epicness", you can't play that character anymore. No more for you. Go reroll a new one. Now then, all my information on this is just from the WotC website, so I might be wrong, but they're forcing how you want to play your character. If you choose the Archmage Epic Destiny, you will eventually become a shut-in who researches all day before being absorbed by the Demi-Spell. No exceptions. The funniest thing about this though is that the guy who let that through is getting fired the second Wizard's says, "Alright, time to publish the Epic Level Handbook."

[nagora]

What on earth does wisdom have to do with learning languages?

Intuition?

[Prophaniti]

Originally Posted by Jade_Tarem
If you're not going to make magic magical, why have it at all?
You just ignored the part you quoted (aaagh no, I'm talking like EE!).

What twist in your logical process lead you to that conclusion? The part he was quoting asked why magic should be inherently better than things non-magical. He replied asking why, if you make magic no better than the mundane, include magic at all? The worst he can be accused of is answering a question with a question, he didn't ignore it.

The question he asks is a valid one, and if anyone's ignoring anything it would have been you.

[Viruzzo]

First of all, let's calm down. No one is attacking no one (did I mess up the negations?).


The part he was quoting asked why magic should be inherently better than things non-magical. He replied asking why, if you make magic no better than the mundane, include magic at all?
I wasn't saying that it shouldn't necessarily be better than mundane, I said that it shouldn't necessarily be better than superhuman. Many of the things non-spellcasters do are far superior to the human capabilities and reflect that fact that the PCs are in fact "superhumans". Why should "magic" be inerehently be superior to other not mundane capabilities?
Should magic be superior to common abilities? Yes.
Should magic be superior to every other ability? Not in a system that is not focused on spellcasters.

Also much "real world" magic (as in the common practice of druids, witches or such) is often neither flashy nor world-shaping: it allows practitioners to achieve feats that are not normally not possible for common humans (e.g. catching a glimpse of the future). Spells that instead allow them to do the stuff others do, but better or more easily, lacks imagination.

As for the part that Jade_Tarem "ignored" ("skipped", "didn't answer to"), it was:
If magic is hard to master, most spellcasters will be weak, if it's not then anyone in the world should have at least some magic powers...

[Draco Dracul]

I kind of like the idea that the superhuman abilities associated with all of the 4e class are a manifestation of magic in different forms.

[Jade_Tarem]

Then you coul just rename the game Elminster and his friendly neighbourhood bodyguards. :smallbiggrin:

It was good of you to point this out. It certainly could go that way, if handled poorly. The thing is, though, that the developers wouldn't have to excercise the same lack of creativity with noncasters as they did in 3x initially. Additional options can and should be put in to make playing those a viable option - kinda like they did in 4e, actually. The problem is, they shoudn't have ramrodded casters into the same system as the noncasters.


I wasn't saying that D&D 3.x is like Ars Magica (that would make many people cry in horror), but that when magic is really magical the game centers on the casters, and the other PCs become just healbots, meatshields and such.

But 4e has already beaten you there. There was so much emphasis on your "role in the party" when I read through the 4ePHB that I almost choked on it.


You even said "complicated", not "complex". That would be my point! :smalltongue:

Mine too! Some people enjoyed the mental challenges presented by optimizing all those options. WotC found that they were losing money because they weren't appealing to the entirety of the WoW and Halo crowd, and so they nixed anything that made you think too terribly hard and rigged the game up to play more quickly and more smoothly. I am not saying 4e is WoW: I'm saying that one of the WotC big shots has been quoted as saying that they took a bunch of elements from WoW and was glad that people noticed.


Anyway, this is what I meant: being used to the extremely free character creation system of 3e prevents you from noticing that 4e's one is also complex, much more so than 2e. And again, it shouldn' be multiclassing that defines your character but you.

But I'm not on here longing for the good ol' days of 2e. All I know is that Baldur's Gate II, a positively ancient (and very good) CRPG, had more character creation options than 4e. I'm happy to define my character, but happier when my character can also be defined decently by the game mechanics.


First of all, let's calm down. No one is attacking no one (did I mess up the negations?).

No, I'm only angry 'cuz this is the second time I'm posting this, after the server ate the first one. :smallyuk:


I wasn't saying that it shouldn't necessarily be better than mundane, I said that it shouldn't necessarily be better than superhuman. Many of the things non-spellcasters do are far superior to the human capabilities and reflect that fact that the PCs are in fact "superhumans". Why should "magic" be inerehently be superior to other not mundane capabilities?
Should magic be superior to common abilities? Yes.
Should magic be superior to every other ability? Not in a system that is not focused on spellcasters.

It should be superior in terms of versatility. It doesn't matter how superhumanly strong you are, you're not going to open a planar portal or turn lead into gold with your amazing pecs. Again, cost should balance it rather than option limits.


Also much "real world" magic (as in the common practice of druids, witches or such) is often neither flashy nor world-shaping: it allows practitioners to achieve feats that are not normally not possible for common humans (e.g. catching a glimpse of the future). Spells that instead allow them to do the stuff others do, but better or more easily, lacks imagination.

Um, yes... I guess? I'm sorry, have you met a practicing witch (I have, but why bring my 12th grade English teacher into this?) or are you referencing literature?


As for the part that Jade_Tarem "ignored" ("skipped", "didn't answer to"), it was: If magic is hard to master, most spellcasters will be weak, if it's not then anyone in the world should have at least some magic powers...

An either-or fallacy. The most likely scenario is that if magic is difficult to master, then spellcasters will be scarce. Also old.

[Pirate_King]

However, the way the powers are used and handled from a resource management perspective, that bothers me mightily, and that goes for ALL the 4e classes, not just Wizards.

I've had similar thoughts on that subject, and I wonder if it wouldn't be game breaking to let encounter powers have some kind of recharge like many of the monster powers.

I'd also like to go through the rituals and see which ones where it actually makes sense to cast during combat and lower the casting time a bit. would make for an interesting encounter, all the other combatants have to protect the wizard for X rounds as he prepares the ritual.

With these couple tweaks, I actually kind of like the simplicity the system offers, but I don't like waiting for more books to expand the options. I'll probably let my players create their own powers, working with stuff from 3.5 and converting it.

One thing that really irks me though is potions. I want potions of anything other than healing back.

[Ograbme]

It should be superior in terms of versatility. It doesn't matter how superhumanly strong you are, you're not going to open a planar portal or turn lead into gold with your amazing pecs.
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2632/musclesbombdk6.jpg

[Edea]

Also, while 'save once or die' is a bit harsh (though personally I like those kinds of things), completely removing the alternative routes to taking care of enemy targets is somewhat irksome to me, especially since monsters still have access to these kinds of abilities.

This is what I would've wanted to see instead: let's say in 3e you have an ability that requires you to make a Fort save, or die. Rough stuff. It might've even been Fortitude partial, having some kind of nasty damaging effect even if you succeeded in saving.

Well...IMO one of 4e's paradigms is reigning in lopsidedness during a combat scenario. Being able to -instantly- blip a target out of the fight like that pretty much contradicts this sort of game design. However, they didn't need to get rid of the idea entirely (or restrict it to monsters). What I think they should have done is extend the overall sequence of events that leads to death (or suckage) through the repeated use of or prolonged exposure to said power.

There's already evidence of this in the aforementioned monster abilities. It's not a total save or die; you have to fail a certain number of times (definitely more than once), and then each time you get a failure, the status effect the ability inflicts gets worse (until finally, you see the 'Death' part). Or, you could use multiple attack rolls, each hit making the ability exert a more powerful effect (almost like the succeed/fail system in a skill challenge; each hit makes it worsen, each miss makes it lessen). Going back to the 3e instant death spell, maybe in 4e it would work like this:



Finger of Death Wizard or Warlock attack 25
You point at the target with a single outstretched finger.
For a brief instant, your hand becomes completely skeletal,
and a churning ray of gray and black energies surges towards
the target's vitals.
Daily/Arcane,Death,Progressive
Standard Action Ranged 5
Target: One creature
Attack: Intelligence, Constitution, or Charisma vs. Fortitude
Hit:The target is stunned until the end of your next turn.
You can choose to make another attack to worsen the effect on your
next turn (see Effect).
Miss:The target is dazed (save ends).
Effect:This is a progressive power, meaning that on a hit, you
may continue attacking with this power on the same target as a
standard action in an attempt to worsen the effects. The condition
track for this power is as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------
No hits: Dazed (save ends).
One hit: Stunned until the end of your next turn.
Two hits: Unconscious until the end of your next turn.
Three hits: The target dies (no save).
--------------------------------------------------------
Every miss with this power while trying to progress its effects
slides the condition of the target back one step. If you miss
enough times to return to the "No hits" step, you can no longer
progress this power. If you stop attempting to progress this
power for any reason, at the end of your turn the target behaves
as if you missed with the power.


Or something along those lines; I just wish they hadn't removed it -entirely-. Hearing CO people say that sleep should be kept until Wizard 25 due to the fact that it's one of the only spells of its kind remaining in existence (and thus very potent)...kinda makes me sad, especially since it's 1st level O_O.

Notice also that I introduced a couple new power types. Don't want your Solo getting bit by this kind of power as a DM? Give it immunity to the Death type; problem solved. In fact, just being a Solo may grant that immunity automatically.

[Skyserpent]

It was good of you to point this out. It certainly could go that way, if handled poorly. The thing is, though, that the developers wouldn't have to excercise the same lack of creativity with noncasters as they did in 3x initially. Additional options can and should be put in to make playing those a viable option - kinda like they did in 4e, actually. The problem is, they shoudn't have ramrodded casters into the same system as the noncasters.

I feel that forcing casters and non-casters into the same system is a completely viable system, as demonstrated by Book of Nine Swords, albeit that went a bit the other way around. Now, I was a little unnerved when I looked at the single level chart for all classes. However, 4e seems to follow the design philosophy of balance, and it's a lot easier to balance a single system of character abilities than it is to balance more.

That being said, It's more of a flavor choice, as the economics of ability management is now centralized, which allows for more easy homebrewing, as well as much easier balancing among abilities since we can look at each individual level and say "Yeah, that's about right". This is something of a slap in the face to a lot of old-school casters who want their Wizards to be more "special" than the fighter. Not stealing the limelight or anything, but more along the lines of "I am MAGICAL, don't I deserve a little bit more unique treatment?"

4e says no. I may or may not agree with that....



But 4e has already beaten you there. There was so much emphasis on your "role in the party" when I read through the 4ePHB that I almost choked on it.

The "Party Role" system is hardly new... the main difference is the nerfing of casters into particular roles so that they can't step on the toes of everyone else. Once again, a balance decision. Not everyone appreciates balance, or even needs it, but a significant number of us, in fact, do. Party roles have been around since 3.5, except rather than having a Wizard and a Cleric basically take every role almost inherently, 4e makes sure that the classes are designed with a particular purpose explicitly stated. While I was a bit miffed by the blatant shoehorning of roles, it's not something I'm overly worried about...



Mine too! Some people enjoyed the mental challenges presented by optimizing all those options. WotC found that they were losing money because they weren't appealing to the entirety of the WoW and Halo crowd, and so they nixed anything that made you think too terribly hard and rigged the game up to play more quickly and more smoothly. I am not saying 4e is WoW: I'm saying that one of the WotC big shots has been quoted as saying that they took a bunch of elements from WoW and was glad that people noticed.

Since we're getting into the Videogame argument, here's my two cents:

Yeah, 4e has taken a rather LARGE influence from WoW, and anyone who disagrees is, quite frankly, wrong. However, I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing as far as optimization, Anyone who has played World of Warcraft in any sort of compettetive PvP mindset can easily see that optimization is still available, The talent specializations are integral to optimum builds. WoW may have a lot of negative points going for it, but lack of player optimization or thought is definitely not one of them. Oddly enough: WoW actually DOESN'T shoehorn class roles as much as 4e does... Every class in WoW has at LEAST two separate conceivable party roles, Tank, Melee DPS, Ranged DPS, and Healer. Not to mention the plethora of Crowd Control options... Now, that is something I think 4e may have messed up on.

Now, speaking of the Beer-Drinking-Frat-Boy demographic that is the Halo crowd: 4e has taken a few points from the Halo-Halo2 changeover... as odd an allegory this is:

In Halo, there were some oddities about the weapon design: We had a Pistol that acted like a rifle, and the Assault Rifle acted like a Machinegun. In Halo 2 they reworked the weapons so that the Pistol acted like a Pistol, the SMG was an SMG, and the Battle Rifle was an Assault Rifle. This was initially received rather unfavorably as the original Pistol/Rifle thing that was in Halo was incredibly popular and frankly, the most powerful weapon in the game. Now, the new Handgun was, quite frankly, irritatingly weak.

In 3.5 we had a somewhat similar situation, witht he only two really optimized Fighter builds being Spiked Chain battlefield Control, and SHockTrooper Power Attack Damage. both the damage and control abilities were outstripped by Clerics and Wizards respectively anyway, and for "good" reason.

I mean, consider swinging a sword to reordering the fabric of reality or calling upon the intervention of GOD, Muscle no longer measures up. And that's fine if you're okay with that. But once again, with a shift in design philosophy towards Balance, something has gotta give. and It wasn't going to be the Fighter...

Now for a final Videogame note: Super Smash Brothers.

Smash Bros had a rather significant changeover from Melee to Brawl with a similar emphasis on Balance. Suddenly, the really obscure and difficult tricks that the Pros learned in Melee were gone. No more Wavedashing or Shine-spiking. Now speedy characters were slowed down to give slow-powerhouses a chance at victory, and all the speed-only tricks to instant-victory were removed to make it "fair". However, enforced fairness has a way of feeling UNFAIR to those who excel. Thus, the pro who spends countless hours playing the game isn't INFINITELY better at it than everyone else and very well might lose a match due to simple bad luck.

This is a SLAP IN THE FACE to the "Dedicated" gamers, who's primary goal isn't to have fun PLAYING it's to have fun MASTERING the intricacies of the game.

I myself LOVED optimizing, I thoroughly enjoy my Batman Wizard. But unfortunately, I had to let him go if I was to expect a truly balanced game.


But I'm not on here longing for the good ol' days of 2e. All I know is that Baldur's Gate II, a positively ancient (and very good) CRPG, had more character creation options than 4e. I'm happy to define my character, but happier when my character can also be defined decently by the game mechanics.

Yay Baldur's Gate!


No, I'm only angry 'cuz this is the second time I'm posting this, after the server ate the first one. :smallyuk:

Hate that....


It should be superior in terms of versatility. It doesn't matter how superhumanly strong you are, you're not going to open a planar portal or turn lead into gold with your amazing pecs. Again, cost should balance it rather than option limits.

Truth. They damn well should be. and while they still ARE in 4e, it's by a MUCH less significant margin. The issue with Versatility is a bit difficult to (here it goes again) balance.

Let's take WoW. We have two Hybrid Classes, that is Classes that can perform more than one role, Paladin and Druid. Both Paladins and Druids can Heal, DPS, and Tank. However, while the Paladin has these three roles divided into three completely seperate talent specs, the Druid has Melee DPS and Tanking rolled into a single talent tree. Thus, a Druid has more versatility, and when trying to balance this, they can't make Druids worse tanks than Paladins, because then NO ONE would play a Druid tank... all or nothing is never a good way to go about anything. So they ended up making the Druid tank just as good as the Paladin Tank, but unlike the Paladin, the Druid can easily swap gear into a DPS set and fill in for a DPS character just as easily. Leaving the Paladin with fewer things to do... And THAT is not good game design.

4e doesn't give any particular class the overt ability to outdo any other class. Their hybrid gameplay is such that a Fighter is a Tank/DPS and a Paladin is a Tank/Healer... the Versatility that casters are losing is a rather heavy blow, however, thematically they still FEEL similar. Weaker perhaps, but they can still do their utility abilities which are, far more useful out of combat than a FIghter's utilities...

oh and the spreading of Rituals around? I don't see how that's such a big deal. I mean, Anyone can take the ritual caster feat, but that's just an adjustment of perspective. I'm OKAY with he Fighter dabbling in a few spells. THe Rogue had Use Magic Device in 3.5, and it was hardly any different...




An either-or fallacy. The most likely scenario is that if magic is difficult to master, then spellcasters will be scarce. Also old.

Now, this kind of balancing is difficult in that cost vs. power leads DIRECTLY to Min-Maxing, which, in extreme cases breaks game balance over it's knee with a sickening crack. So while it may make SENSE, it's not necessarily GOOD.

As a final note though: All this emphasis on "balance" is not inherently BETTER. It's just what it says on the tin: "More Balanced." Which to some people is fun, and to others is aggravating. For casual gamers balance is good and fun. for Hardcore gamers, Balance is a kick in the balls that removes their advantage and brings them back down to the same level as the idiot plebeian who wants to play a Samurai in 3.5 because he thinks they're "Cool".

I feel like there's a sense of entitlement to dedication, perhaps a deserved one, but as EE has said time and again, 4e is streamlined and simplified for a broader appeal. Some people don't like it, and that is their subjective right.

I like both 3.5 and 4e for different reasons, but overall I think I can have just as much fun playing in either, the main difference being in 4e I have to spend less TIME in character creation and optimization, and get to spend more time PLAYING the game.

[Prophaniti]

*amusing image*

See, that actually reinforces the point I and Jade_Tarem are making, in that it is simply ludicrous and silly when muscles do things like that. Now, if your going for a silly game, having the fighter flex and knock down a room of enemies can be quite fun and will work well for that. Having that concept as your system's baseline, though, that makes it a lot more difficult to run a serious, gritty game.

Also, I fully agree with Edea that save-or-dies should simply have been toned down instead of removed completely. Yet another example of WotC cutting off their feet to avoid getting athlete's foot.

[strayth]

I don't like the lack of content as yet, but that'll improve with time.

I don't like the one attack per round, sometimes carefully disguised as multiple success rolls per one ability per round.

I've already had two obnoxiously predictable brooding Tiefling players in an online game of 4e, so I wish those would have been held back to the monster manual, if nothing than the "permission-based" feel to it, as well as dodging player notice. Neither dragonborn nor Eladrin have reflected badly for me yet.

I don't like the lack of crafting. This is RPed away in my setting I'm making, and in a game with another DM right now, it works fine but I still prefer at least a feat to that effect.

I don't understand the new (or rather missing) alignments. As yet I don't care about it, since I'm reluctant to enforce alignment rules in all but mandatory ways.

I don't like the wizard. Its variety seems cut down to which element of damage to use, and I hope they decide to expand their utility a lot later on.

All in all, I still like 3.5 about as much as 4e. It's hard for me to side, and eventually I imagine i"ll just be playing 4e when there's more content. For now, the cons of both sides keep them level to me, and a lot of the changes they pulled confused me more than frustrated.

Edit: and I don't like "Encounter" powers. Here's why: it feels like you have to cycle through your powers - the same powers - once per "encounter". A lot of strenuous areas might have an encounter divided into two parts, and an encounter could go from twelve seconds to three hours if massive enough. In Unearthed Arcana, they had a few good alternative systems to the Vancian: magic points and recharging magic being my favorites. It doesn't strike me as consistent, and it isn't any simpler than, say, a basic "energy" point system or even a hard time limit set on its re-cast time.

Edit 2: Someone mentioned WoW as influencial -- yes. Originally i figured they were just taking cues from MMOs in general, but honestly there is a great deal of WoW-specific influence in that. This did annoy me a little, having wasted a couple years of my life on that game, but also removing my initial reaction of "Well, MMOs owe their predecessors for what they are."

[Jade_Tarem]

@ Skyserpent:

It seems you've given a lot of thought to this. You're not off the mark, either. This Penny Arcade comic (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/1/29/it-is-a-sensitive-topic/) (warning: language) sums up the aggravation of players who are told by the game that skill no longer matters. The WoW thing mostly ticks me off because the 4e DnD mage strongly resembles the mage from WoW, and if that's the case it will pretty much remain the weakest class in the game forever.

[Skyserpent]

@ Skyserpent:

It seems you've given a lot of thought to this. You're not off the mark, either. This Penny Arcade comic (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/1/29/it-is-a-sensitive-topic/) (warning: language) sums up the aggravation of players who are told by the game that skill no longer matters. The WoW thing mostly ticks me off because the 4e DnD mage strongly resembles the mage from WoW, and if that's the case it will pretty much remain the weakest class in the game forever.

I really hope that you're wrong about the Mage thing... but I'm not optimistic...

At any rate: The whole "Skill" issue is interesting because I feel 4e has traded individual character optimization for GROUP Optimization. The emphasis on tactical movement and short term effects make party cooperation more important. This shift in attention is jarring for most of us, especially with the American Media that is far more focused on individual heroism than the power of the group. Difficult for optimizers, since it's in rather poor taste to tell someone else how to play their character...

[Helgraf]

QUOTE=Prophaniti;4640060]See, that actually reinforces the point I and Jade_Tarem are making, in that it is simply ludicrous and silly when muscles do things like that. Now, if your going for a silly game, having the fighter flex and knock down a room of enemies can be quite fun and will work well for that. Having that concept as your system's baseline, though, that makes it a lot more difficult to run a serious, gritty game.

Also, I fully agree with Edea that save-or-dies should simply have been toned down instead of removed completely. Yet another example of WotC cutting off their feet to avoid getting athlete's foot.[/QUOTE]

Petrification. Bodak. Orcus. There are still effectively save-or-dies in there, even if most of them are actually save-or-petrified (and no, petrified doesn't say "save ends") The 'downside' is that (excluding Orcus) it generally takes two or three failed saves to reach that Oops yer dead/irrelevant point.



If you're not going to make magic magical, why have it at all?

Umm, just because it's magical does not mean I have to believe that those who do magic must be inherently superior to those who do not. There are (currently) three power sources for a reason. Mastery of the Martial path, I argue, _should_ be just as powerful in its own right as mastery of the Arcane or the Divine.

I do not agree that choosing the Arcane path should, per default, make you better overall.

When viewed through a broader lens, the Martial power source could easily be seen to be more than just 'swinging a weapon special-like'. It, too, is focusing and directing energy to achieve your objectives. It has limitations _just as Arcane and Divine power sources can and should_. But no, I don't find it ridiculous that a true master of the martial art would be able to channel _that_ energy source to do fantastic things like 'teleport' across the battlefield - or focus the essence of the cutting 'edge' of their art to breach a hole in reality.

It's perspective. If you insist that martial must equal = low end effects, then yeah, you're going to be biased in favor of arcane/divine being 'better' because you can do more. If you throw away that requirement, there is absolutely no reason why a master of the martial power source cannot stand equally tall, proud and capable with masters of the arcane or divine ways.

[FoE]

I hate it when people talk about what wizards "should do." How the hell do you know what wizards should do? Have you ever seen one in action?

I say, either accept that martial-themed classes are roughly on par with magic-users or play a low-magic game or a "magic-users, clerics, psionics, warlocks and certain monsters only-as-PCs" game. Honestly.

[Edea]

Petrification. Bodak. Orcus. There are still effectively save-or-dies in there, even if most of them are actually save-or-petrified (and no, petrified doesn't say "save ends") The 'downside' is that (excluding Orcus) it generally takes two or three failed saves to reach that Oops yer dead/irrelevant point.


I think he meant for players. We already referenced that monsters had possession of those abilities.

[Jade_Tarem]

QUOTE=Prophaniti;4640060]Umm, just because it's magical does not mean I have to believe that those who do magic must be inherently superior to those who do not. There are (currently) three power sources for a reason. Mastery of the Martial path, I argue, _should_ be just as powerful in its own right as mastery of the Arcane or the Divine.

I do not agree that choosing the Arcane path should, per default, make you better overall.

When viewed through a broader lens, the Martial power source could easily be seen to be more than just 'swinging a weapon special-like'. It, too, is focusing and directing energy to achieve your objectives. It has limitations _just as Arcane and Divine power sources can and should_. But no, I don't find it ridiculous that a true master of the martial art would be able to channel _that_ energy source to do fantastic things like 'teleport' across the battlefield - or focus the essence of the cutting 'edge' of their art to breach a hole in reality.

It's perspective. If you insist that martial must equal = low end effects, then yeah, you're going to be biased in favor of arcane/divine being 'better' because you can do more. If you throw away that requirement, there is absolutely no reason why a master of the martial power source cannot stand equally tall, proud and capable with masters of the arcane or divine ways.

*Sound of head banging on desk*

I've already responded to a post exactly like this one, only it was more concise and had less "U R BIAZD WIZZERD FANBOI." Not once, not once did I say that arcane/divine magic should be absolutely - or even relatively - better overall than this ethereal "martial path." Somewhere along the line someone mentally substituted what I posted with the words "WIZARDS BE SUPERIOR! KUH KUH KUH RAWR!!!"

I just want to know what part of focusing on your inner Ki is supposed to create a zombie or alter the weather. To me, it's the stuff that isn't just "101 ways to do energy damage" that made magic what it was: Flight, summoning, divinations, etc. Sure, we can take a look at a bunch of faux-oriental legends pop-culture stuff and see swordsmanship badassery and spirtual attunement providing a number of amusing abilities - especially if you're a fan of Bleach! But when you get to the point of summoning and teleporting based on "techniques" and "spiritual energy" what you're talking about are "spells" and "mana" by a different name. And that's fine. What's not fine is tossing the two together and expecting the players to not notice that reshaping reality through force of will or channeling the power of a god always produces effects that are not only exactly as powerful as swinging a big stick, but are also exactly as creative.

"Bob McFighter, what do you do?"

"I hit it with my sword for 1d6 + 2!"

"Joe McWizard, what do you do?"

"I hit it with my spell for 1d6 + 2!"

This is a massive oversimplification, but since you didn't bother to read anything that I wrote past that mediocre one-liner from 5 posts ago (And while I'm starting to sound like EE, I really do think that you just skimmed down my posts, saw that line, and thought "Oh, this must be the sum total of all the thought he ever put into this! I can totally own him with 6 paragraphs of text on how class balance is being maintained and he's just biased about wizards!") I figured that I would put something like that there to get my point across.

Think about it this way. What if wizards couldn't do damage? At all. What if there was some kind of universal magical law that you couldn't take actions that directly end the life of another and retain your ability to channel magic. What then? Well, in 4e the answer is "there's no reason to play a wizard any more." Now think back to 3x, or just explore the vast depths of human imagination. What could you do if you could violate natural laws but had to do it for constructive purposes? There are thousands of ways for spellcasters to contribute anyway (even in an adventuring party!), and they are not there in 4e. You would still need your fighters and rogues. In fact, you could argue that fighters and rogues would be significantly more powerful than wizards, since no fighter or rogue would ever lose in a fight with one. The fact is that wizards have been changed from something mysterious and intruiging into the arcane archer from Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance - lots of amusing ways to do damage at range! That is how they took the "magical" out of magic and that is what is what I dislike.


I hate it when people talk about what wizards "should do." How the hell do you know what wizards should do? Have you ever seen one in action?

Uh huh. Every time I want to install a new program.


I say, either accept that martial-themed classes are roughly on par with magic-users or play a low-magic game or a "magic-users, clerics, psionics, warlocks and certain monsters only-as-PCs" game. Honestly.

I'm fine with them being on par. I really am. Why is this so difficult to understand? I'm only disappointed in the creative stagnation involved in the creation of the spellcasters in 4e.

[FoE]

I don't really see wizards as "violating natural laws" when half the world uses magic in their everyday lives.

[MartinHarper]

I just want to know what part of focusing on your inner Ki is supposed to create a zombie or alter the weather.

Creating a zombie: a special mixture of herbs and spices.
Altering the weather: a rain dance.
These are rituals, incidentally.


What if wizards couldn't do damage? At all. What if there was some kind of universal magical law that you couldn't take actions that directly end the life of another and retain your ability to channel magic.

That would rock.
You can achieve this in 4e by having everyone use classes with the Martial or Divine power source, and having "wizards" be people who have the Ritual Casting feat(s). You'd want to house-rule some "Advanced Ritual Casting" feats and some more rituals, to bolster the limited selection we have so far.

[Viruzzo]

Skyserpent replied and expressed my thought quite exactly, so I'll just reply this.

It should be superior in terms of versatility. It doesn't matter how superhumanly strong you are, you're not going to open a planar portal or turn lead into gold with your amazing pecs. Again, cost should balance it rather than option limits.
If you consider the fighter as "the strong guy", yeah he should not be able to do anything apart from bashing stuff and being bashed. That would be boring as hell to play though (as is in 3.x), even more so since the casters can do almost anything else. Sure, you may find some balancing costs, but the only reason someone should sacrifice and make a fighter is to shield the l33t wizards behind him.

Side note: WoW mages are a DPS class (unlike 4e), have the best AoE spells (like 4e), are not the best in CC (unlike 4e), use elemental spells plus some "arcane" ones (more or less like 4e). Seems not so similar, or similar to a lot of other stuff.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Removal of races and classes, especially the classes. I loved to play the classes they've scrapped, especially sorcerer, and now all I can do is hope they bring back my favourite classes in 4.5 or 5e. I think they're making a sorcerer for the PHBII, but it's just annoying that I'll have to buy another book to play one.

[Skyserpent]

Removal of races and classes, especially the classes. I loved to play the classes they've scrapped, especially sorcerer, and now all I can do is hope they bring back my favourite classes in 4.5 or 5e. I think they're making a sorcerer for the PHBII, but it's just annoying that I'll have to buy another book to play one.

On the subject of the Sorceror, it's really just a matter of linguistics at this point, since in 3.5 the Sorceror was just the Wizard with less spell selection and spontaneous casting.

That's pretty much EXACTLY what the Wizard is in 4e. the Sorceror is going to be a fair bit different when he comes out, theorized to be a more... primal... blaster of things, with wild and lingering effects.

As far as Races... Gnomes and Half-Orcs may have gotten the axe, but I found half-orcs rather dull, when they're just an excuse to play an Orc, and Gnomes, now playable out of the Monster Manual are now terrifying and awesome.

Back to the subject of 4e disdain though: Characters do seem to run together if you just take the PHB, there's only one real build for a good melee ranger, and only one real build for a Feypact Warlock etc. But all in all, it pretty much folds into the whole "Trading individual optimization for party optimization" thing...

[Prophaniti]

Yeah, the races thing bugs me too, especially the axing of gnomes from the PHB, since I feel they're one of the more unique races D&D uses. But, apparently, playing as anything other than overused fantasy trope archetypes (elven rangers, dwarven fighters) is not what D&D is about... or so I've been told. Now, I love using a classic archetype as much as the next person, but I also like to have at least the possibility of playing something else.

Since I'm getting weary of banging my head against the 'fighters should be able to bend reality too' wall, I'm gonna move away from that subject for a bit.

Instead, let's talk about party roles. Now, I know the whole '4e is WoW' thing has been done to death. Regardless, I really don't like the way party roles are being crammed down our throats in this edition. Of course they've always been there, in all previous editions. The fighter's job has always been 'keep squishier party memebers from getting hurt', while the wizards has always been either 'blow **** up' or 'control the situation'. That's fine, it's simply what the different classes happen to be best at.

Up till now, however, the class roles have been content to sit quietly in the back, occasionaly raising their hands when called on. Previously, the classes were defined primarily by their concept, and their party role was an incidental. Now, though, because WotC decided to target the MMO-playing demographic, the party roles are jumping up and down in front of you, yelling and screaming. The classes now seem to be defined by their roles, and their concepts have become the incidental.

Ok, that's a bit of an exageration, but the point is, it feels to me like yet another of the many, many parts of the new system that slap me in the face every time I come close to immersion. It's the game saying to me "HEY! You're playing a game here! Stop thinking like your character is really standing there, fighting desparetly for his life and start thinking about optomized party synergy! Get to it!" I find that very annoying.

I don't mind thinking about strategy, especially when I run a character that would, and I often do. I really don't like having it forcefed to me, though, nor do I like how the new structure seems to punish you for NOT constantly thinking on a party-strategy level.

[Jade_Tarem]

They definitely need the multiquote function back.

@Face of Evil: I've already talked about this. Prophaniti has already talked about this. In Eberron and Faerun magic is overwhelmingly prevalent. That doesn't mean everyone, or even most of everyone, gets it. Assuming that Billy Joe Jim Bob has access to magic in any other setting is just plain ludicrous.

@MartinHarper: Still missing the point. That's fine (although I'm pretty sure I'd call a rain dance magic), but then, why have wizards? Think about this. The wizard's main "thing" is that they do magic - but apparently everyone else should be able to do magic too! Only, y'know, in armor. Ironically, this is exactly what happened to WoW (only replace "magic" with "damage") and it's why the classes are so ridiculously unbalanced. Fact: Hunters and Warlocks can do everything a mage can, but better, other than creating food and water, and teleporting. Mages do not have the highest damage. They do not have the best AoEs. Thier much-vaunted (by Blizzard) crowd control abilities don't measure up to the classes with pets. All of this was to make sure that the other, nonmagical classes could "be awesome."

@Viruzzo: I'm sorry, what should the fighter do, then, if he isn't going to be fighting and protecting his party?

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

On the subject of the Sorceror, it's really just a matter of linguistics at this point, since in 3.5 the Sorceror was just the Wizard with less spell selection and spontaneous casting.

That's pretty much EXACTLY what the Wizard is in 4e. the Sorceror is going to be a fair bit different when he comes out, theorized to be a more... primal... blaster of things, with wild and lingering effects.

In that case, I might have to check out the wizard. Lack of Druids and Bards is still annoying though.

But the other thing that gets me with 4e is the reduced amount of customisation you can have while creating a character, just because I like having free reign over my characters. I've also heard bad things about XP and combat, but as I have yet to play a 4e game I don't know much about that.

[Viruzzo]

1) Mages do not have the highest damage.
2) They do not have the best AoEs.
3) Thier much-vaunted (by Blizzard) crowd control abilities don't measure up to the classes with pets.
1) The highest DPS classes switches over patches, and yet Mages and Warlocks are the best ranged DPS in the game. Warlocks' pets are almost useless in raids (raid DPS is Affl for efficiency or Destro for burst damage and AoE), so there they hardly count as a "pet class".
2) No? Who would it be then? Destrolocks? No. Hunters? Lol. Rotfl. Lmao.
3) Polymorph = Freezing Trap = Sap > Seduction. So mages have a good CC (plus a lot of freezing stuff, or Slow), which is as intended since CC is not a class role in WoW.
Also: Warlocks are "magical" too. Actually, the only non-magical classes in WoW are Warriors, Rogues and Hunters, 3/9. So how does the "make the non-magical classes awesome" argument make sense in a game where two thirds of the classes are magical?


I'm sorry, what should the fighter do, then, if he isn't going to be fighting and protecting his party?
They should do that, it's what "defender" means in 4e. The problem is how and who they protect. In 3e, they "protect" (not that they need it) wizards, and do it with X basic attacks per turn. In 4e they protect the other members of the party (who are all useful and therefore meaningful to protect), and have more varied abilities to do that and don't get asleep meanwhile.


Now, I love using a classic archetype as much as the next person, but I also like to have at least the possibility of playing something else.
Where not Gnomes and Half-Orcs "archetipical"? The big, scarred, strong and stupid half-monster that beats things and the small, smart guy who played illusions on you? Favoured class is what I'd call "pushing people toward archetypes", not the stat bonuses that 3.x had too. Actually since the race/class system was born there have always been "good" (metagaming-wise) and "bad" combos. What in 4e incites you towards the "good" ones?
Also, Dragonborns and Tieflings are nothing spectacularly original, but still more so than gnomes. I mean, gnomes (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/toon/20071219a)!


Of course they've always been there, in all previous editions. [...] That's fine, it's simply what the different classes happen to be best at. [...] Now, though, because , the party roles are jumping up and down in front of you, yelling and screaming.
Yes, we have played the game, we know what the roles are. Now they're telling the people who maybe don't know, like the new players. What's the big deal?
Where there's written "Fighter, Defender" ignore the second part. Where is the difference? :smallconfused:


because WotC decided to target the MMO-playing demographic
Again. Ignoring the usual "MMO players = ignorant crybabys who mash buttons" implication, you said that class roles where already there in D&D way before WoW was conceived: then if anything it was D&D that inspired their introduction into WoW, not viceversa.


In that case, I might have to check out the wizard. Lack of Druids and Bards is still annoying though.
Yes I miss the Bard too, was one of the best roleplaying classes. The Druid was too broken in 3.x, so I can understand they are taking more time making the new version of it.


the other thing that gets me with 4e is the reduced amount of customisation you can have while creating a character
True, but that's partly because 4e has a more "inversely piramidal" approach to customisation: you create a PC quickly, without too many options, but slowly hack it into what you want as you progress.


I've also heard bad things about XP and combat, but as I have yet to play a 4e game I don't know much about that.
That depends, since combat and XP designation (for the DM) are probably amongst the things that 4e does best. :smallwink:

An interesting thing would be if they made a Sorcerer class features similar to the old Wild Mage's one. Random and very annoying at times, but fun times for everyone! :smallbiggrin:

Oh no. Wall of Text! Run! :smalleek:

[The New Bruceski]

In that case, I might have to check out the wizard. Lack of Druids and Bards is still annoying though.

But the other thing that gets me with 4e is the reduced amount of customisation you can have while creating a character, just because I like having free reign over my characters. I've also heard bad things about XP and combat, but as I have yet to play a 4e game I don't know much about that.

I'm not sure as far as customization goes. There's less at the start, but there seems to be more as you level (usual qualifier: for non-spellcasters). Whether it balances out depends on the person. In 3e it felt (to me) like I needed to have the character's full progression planned out at the start due to prerequisites; in 4th stats still need a bit of thought (if playing a fighter you should have an idea what secondary stat(s) you want to focus on, for example) but the rest seems to flow more easily, with a bit of thought at each level rather than all at the start. In-rules retraining helps too, because it essentially means you can field-test any feats or powers you're unsure of.

As for combat, it really varies on the person and what their 'ideal' is. Combat's qualities (time, tactics) also vary heavily on the gaming group.

I'm curious what you've heard about xp, it seems to be based around the same "10 encounters and you level" baseline as 3rd.

[Viruzzo]

I'm curious what you've heard about xp, it seems to be based around the same "10 encounters and you level" baseline as 3rd.
Actually was 13.33. Just changing that to 10 is an improvement, unless you're an alien race with 13 fingers and a spare phalanx.

[Guyr Adamantine]

I dislike "padded sumo suit and foam swords D&D".

That's all I felt like writing.

[Jade_Tarem]

1) The highest DPS classes switches over patches, and yet Mages and Warlocks are the best ranged DPS in the game. Warlocks' pets are almost useless in raids (raid DPS is Affl for efficiency or Destro for burst damage and AoE), so there they hardly count as a "pet class".
2) No? Who would it be then? Destrolocks? No. Hunters? Lol. Rotfl. Lmao.
3) Polymorph = Freezing Trap = Sap > Seduction. So mages have a good CC (plus a lot of freezing stuff, or Slow), which is as intended since CC is not a class role in WoW.
Also: Warlocks are "magical" too. Actually, the only non-magical classes in WoW are Warriors, Rogues and Hunters, 3/9. So how does the "make the non-magical classes awesome" argument make sense in a game where two thirds of the classes are magical?


They should do that, it's what "defender" means in 4e. The problem is how and who they protect. In 3e, they "protect" (not that they need it) wizards, and do it with X basic attacks per turn. In 4e they protect the other members of the party (who are all useful and therefore meaningful to protect), and have more varied abilities to do that and don't get asleep meanwhile.

Oh, jeez. I'm not going to turn this into a big WoW debate. I've played a mage for freakin' ever (yes, up to level 70) before I quit a couple months back - just trust me that they're pretty much useless outside of a couple eigenized zones in raids (And btw, Warlock of any build SMOKES mage dps while having five or six times the durability, and most hunter builds are like that too). And your point about 7 of 9 classes in WoW being magical is part of my point - all that magic, and mages are one of the weakest classes becuase the damage does NOT scale with survivablity, and damage is the whole point of the class.

You're still missing the point on fighters. I like what they did to fighters. This was a case where making them like WoW warriors was a good idea. The thing is... you know what? Nevermind. I guess the idea that magic could do something other than make things explode is lost on some people.

[nagora]

Actually was 13.33. Just changing that to 10 is an improvement, unless you're an alien race with 13 fingers and a spare phalanx.
Why bother having xp points at all if you just hand out a level every 10 encounters?

[Guyr Adamantine]

Why bother having xp points at all if you just hand out a level every 10 encounters?

1) It only applies to encounter of appropriate CR.

2) People like to addition XP.

[The New Bruceski]

Why bother having xp points at all if you just hand out a level every 10 encounters?

Because it's a guideline? XP values are based around a 5-man party having ten equal-level encounters between level-ups. If you would prefer a faster or slower progression adjust accordingly.

[Viruzzo]

Oh, jeez. I'm not going to turn this into a big WoW debate.
Yeah I too didn't want to, just your points weren't much true IMHO. Yes Warlocks are (and have always been) one of the strongest classes overall (if not the strongest), both in PvP and PvE. Still, being surpassed by Hunters seems strange to me (except by BM in PvP). The second and third points I saw no evidence of in the game.


I guess the idea that magic could do something other than make things explode is lost on some people.
In WoW there is little else to do beyond tanking, healing and dpsing, so it's only natural they make things explode. That's not the only thing a 4e mage can do though.
Anyway it seems like the discussion ends here: some think that being "magic" should make casters able to do a plethora of things (as in 3.x), some like having equal capabilities for all classes (4e).


Why bother having xp points at all if you just hand out a level every 10 encounters?
The same could be said with 13.33, what's your point?

[Skyserpent]

You're still missing the point on fighters. I like what they did to fighters. This was a case where making them like WoW warriors was a good idea. The thing is... you know what? Nevermind. I guess the idea that magic could do something other than make things explode is lost on some people.

D&D as a system, has quite historically been very combat centric. The bulk of the game-rules have been about combat andthe central Batman Builds for 3.5 have also been almost completely combat centric. Or at least.... conflict centric. So while magic is particularly good at making things explode and indeed a lot of the not-direct-damage powers have been trimmed down, I still think, after playing a 4e Wizard, that the class plays like a Wizard. I mean, I REALLY hated the whole Vancian system that made my Wizard need to sleep for EIGHT frickin' hours every twenty-seven minutes because I'd pop my best spells and the party would be too paranoid about the next fight. I'm sorry but the narcoleptic wizard just wasn't all that fun... And by the time I had access to way more spells than I could spend in a single day, I had access to the kind that allowed me to end encounters within three rounds without any serious help from my companions... I get that Wizards should be able to do most things. Considering their Class name implies nothing other than Magic, which can in theory, do EVERYTHING. Which undermines the necessity of a group, which undermines the whole... Party.... system...

I'm not saying they couldn't have done Wizards better, but I do know that they could have been a heck of a lot worse.

[Jade_Tarem]

I'm not saying they couldn't have done Wizards better, but I do know that they could have been a heck of a lot worse.

So, you think the 4e wizards are taking refuge in mediocrity? That's a new take on it... :smalltongue:

While everything in your post is technically correct, I still feel the need to express disappointment. They had this chance to do a better job with wizards, and only succeeded in terms of rigid game balance.

[Prophaniti]

They had this chance to do a better job with wizards, and only succeeded in terms of rigid game balance.

Well, IMO, that's the only thing they succeeded at, period. The game is certainly balanced, and that's about all the praise I can find for it.

[brennanatorx45]

Barbarians and half orcs gone!?!... sob...:smallfrown:

[Jayabalard]

The same could be said with 13.33, what's your point?I think that it was "if you're just going to hand out a level every x encounters, why keep track of XP?"

[Zyrusticae]

Because the 3.5e vs. 4e argument has been done to death, and because it'd reflect poorly on me if my first post here was explicitly to rail on such individuals, I'm going to stay rigidly on-topic and actually list things I dislike about 4th edition. Which isn't much, really.


Not as much variety between classes as there could be. It's not much of a minus, because this is obviously early days for 4e as of yet.
Multiclassing. Spending a feat for each power to trade off doesn't strike me as very fair, even if they were trying to prevent the munchkin class combos that occured in 3rd edition. For one, a trade-off between two classes should always be fair unless the classes are inherently unbalanced, and two, mostly everyone is going to suffer from MAD if they multiclass, as few classes share the exact same prime attributes (although the number will obviously increase as they release more classes).
Ditching the talent system from d20 Modern and Saga Edition. I see no reason they couldn't have implemented the talent system alongside feats and powers, as it would have given more differentiation between classes (which appears to be a big sticking point for a number of anti-4e individuals). Well, actually, I take that back - adding it would've taken up quite a few pages, and obviously they were tight on space with the powers alone. Maybe sometime in the future, perhaps...


Um... yeah. That's actually about it. I just can't think of anything else. :smalltongue:

[Arbitrarity]

I think that it was "if you're just going to hand out a level every x encounters, why keep track of XP?"

Because that's not how it works. The amount of XP you gain from a standard, appropriate encounter is 1/10 that needed to level. Sure, you could hand out levels every 10 encounters, which would be simpler, but instead, they calibrated the system to give a level every 10 encounters if the encounters are reasonably challenging.

Same thing happened in 3.5. Harder challenges are rewarded more, easier challenges, less.

[Skyserpent]

So, you think the 4e wizards are taking refuge in mediocrity? That's a new take on it... :smalltongue:

While everything in your post is technically correct, I still feel the need to express disappointment. They had this chance to do a better job with wizards, and only succeeded in terms of rigid game balance.

I can get behind that. Still, I know a few guys playing Wizards, they seem to be enjoying themselves... then again, they're most certainly not optimizers...

[Inhuman Bot]

Sorry, but just reading the title I need to state: though it was delibrate, the weaker magic ites suck.. It's like, there's no "WOOT! THAT ITEM IS AWESOME!" or situtaion where you use your items, James Bond style.

[The New Bruceski]

Sorry, but just reading the title I need to state: though it was delibrate, the weaker magic ites suck.. It's like, there's no "WOOT! THAT ITEM IS AWESOME!" or situtaion where you use your items, James Bond style.

So when I smacked a big heavy ogre with a frost longspear daily (slow) and ran away, doesn't count? How about using Wavestrider Boots to stand on a lake and Leaf on the Wind to swap places with a heavy-armored guy?

[Aravail]

I have read the core books and played a few sessions at different levels.

Main dislikes:

1. The dragon men. Not lizardfolk, who I have enjoyed playing in 2nd and 3x, but Klingons with breath weapons. Seriously, Klingons. I dare you to read their fluff again with good old Kalas and Stoval Core in mind. Klingons, dude.

2. Tieflings. I'm not riled up by their emo factor, but by the fact that aisimar aren't also presented. Why not make Planetouched a class, instead of choosing one flavor for us and wasting ink on crappy fluff? REALLY crappy fluff...

3. The alignment system. Wow. I like the unalighned choice, I suppose, but they eliminated the two alignments, CG and LE, that represented about 70% of the characters I've ever been in games with. Sigh.

4. I do think they overdid the nerfing on the spellcasters. I like to play martial characters, I have been annoyed with casters in 3x, but by Crom, did they humble those arcane bastards...

4 1/2. Goodbye, random groups of characters. If you don't have everyone in their roles, things aren't going to go well. It wasn't easy to roll without a cleric or a wizard in 3x, but it could be done. In 4e it's practically a sin.

5. Skills? Well, if you aren't likely to use them in a HEROQUEST adventure, you aren't likely to find them on the new lists.

6. Which brings me to my real point. 4e is a boardgame. Period. A very interesting, complex, and fun boardgame, true. But the switch from pen-and-paper to boardgaming is real and tangible. Use strictly defined pregenerated ability to strike a target for xdy+z damage and slide him q squares." This is not D&D for me. It's HEROQUEST (or Runequest or Warhammer Quest or Whatever). The mini has wrested the game back from mind's eye. What happens in your head is totally subsumed to whats happening on the table. We've come full circle back to CHAINMAIL. Much of what was gained in liberating the game from the battlegrid stands to be lost again, and for what? An execise in tabletop metagaming? The party is turned into a well practiced sports team, executing well coodinated multi-action combos. Well, that's fine. You could do that in 2e or 3x, you just didn't have to...

I feel like we've gone back in time. Like I have to wait for them to unveil "Advanced" 4e so I can ride a horse and adventure outdoors. Like I'll have to shell out $40 to play a druid and... oh wait, that is absolutely sure to happen...

Sure, I was frustrated with 3x. My group homebrewed the hell out of it, but mostly toward what we called 2.5, the opposite direction 4e has taken. We wanted to get away from micromanged actions, back towards the idea that things like BAB, HP, and AC were pragmatic abstractions that represented a level of competency rather any specific fighting styles and techniques. Feats and PrCs made fighters and rogues into one trick ponies, tripmonkies and chainmonkies and Stormtrooper-FrenziedCharger-Mechadeathpanda-whateversplatbookyoujustboughtomancers. Boring. So you can do Final fantasy damage in ONE WAY. Again and again. Meh. The micromangement and pigeonholing in 3x was far more annoying to martial character playing than the brokenness of casters, which could generally be solved with a combination of maturity, taste, and DM backbone.

Where have we gone with 4e? Now everyone is equally pigeonholed, into officially sanctioned holes, with as many as six or seven powers that can now be spammed again and again. And no need to worry about all those spellcasting haxx... everything is equal equal equal.

Generally, 4e seems to represent a total capitulation to the change in the gaming culture, hothouse bred in 3x, from 1.) "I tell the DM what I want to do, we roll some dice, he tells me what happens" to 2.) "I show the DM pg. references to justify action, he verifies references and sighs, I do 18d10+315 damage and win."

Rather than trying to curb this tendancy, which they had shamelessly fostered for so long with their endless stream of badly playtested splatbooks, WoTC simply threw up their hands and declared the cause lost, by making basically any optimization impossible. It's like they tried to stop drive-by-shootings by outlawing cars.

ahhh well, that's enough. Sorry to be long-winded, I got pretty charged up there reading all 15 pages of the thread.

To sum up, 4e is a great improvement on the HEROQUEST genre of dungeoncrawling boardgames. D&D it is not.

[Jerthanis]

Why bother having xp points at all if you just hand out a level every 10 encounters?

Our group actually HAS stopped using experience points. We simply level up at appropriate points in the story. Since we've stopped, we wonder at times what the appeal of them is.

[The Mormegil]

@Aravail: weeeell, I can kinda see where's your point... but that is called Exalted, or even Wushu, not DnD. In Exalted you tell the Dm what to do, you roll some dice based on how well you described, then the DM tells you what happens... Dnd is rather more... complex. Y'know, I actually LIKE having rules to abide to. It feels more like of a game than a mere dibate between PCs and a DM. More of a game than a book. And I like playing games. I also like reading books, but that's another thing.

[Sebastian]

@Jade_Tarem
In 2e there were (almost) no skills, feats and useful multiclassing, and still we managed somehow to make different characters, or we didn't feel the problem. 3e introduced a (too much IMO) free multiclassing system that enhanced min/maxing, shifting quite some of the focus of the game to character building. Now it has been reduced, and many people have gotten so used to the 3.x system that they think they can't play without 3 classes and 2 PrCs...

Actually 2e had as much skills as 4e, if not more.
I can't be the only one that think that 4e don't have a real skill system, skills checks are 1/2 level +stat bonus + x if you have a certain feat, that also open more ways to use the check, this is essentially the 2e proficiency system, except maybe without the flexibility (because to add more proficiencies was quite easy.)

And I suppose this is what I dislike of 4e.

Also, As i've put in my signature in another forum
"4ed did with D&D what Peter Jackson did with the "Lord of the Rings". I let to you to decide if it was a good or a bad thing"

[Dhavaer]

"4ed did with D&D what Peter Jackson did with the "Lord of the Rings". I let to you to decide if it was a good or a bad thing"

Poor 3.5. It doesn't deserve that comparison. :smalleek:

:smallwink:

[Matthew]

Actually 2e had as much skills as 4e, if not more.
I can't be the only one that think that 4e don't have a real skill system, skills checks are 1/2 level +stat bonus + x if you have a certain feat, that also open more ways to use the check, this is essentially the 2e proficiency system, except maybe without the flexibility (because to add more proficiencies was quite easy.)

That is also essentially the D20 skill system.

[Sebastian]

That is also essentially the D20 skill system.

err, no. The d20 skill system also add the skill ranks, which gives it a lot more granularity and not add the level, which make raw level less important and you had synergies and those "tricks(?)" from complete scoundrel if you go not core.
In 4e skills are just on/off and in most cases "on" only mean "+5 to certain checks", not enough for me to call it a skill system.

[Matthew]

err, no. The d20 skill system also add the skill ranks, which gives it a lot more granularity and not add the level, which make raw level less important and you had synergies and those "tricks(?)" from complete scoundrel if you go not core.
In 4e skills are just on/off and in most cases "on" only mean "+5 to certain checks", not enough for me to call it a skill system.

It's as much the D20 Skill System as it is the AD&D 2e proficiency system, I should say. Sounds like a double standard to me.

Assign Difficulty, Calculate Probability, Roll Dice (or not).

The only difference between D20/3e and 4e is that you don't allocate character resource points in the form of skill ranks during the character construction process (which generally resulted in the maxing out of any skills you intended to use in any case).

[Viruzzo]

Our group actually HAS stopped using experience points. We simply level up at appropriate points in the story. Since we've stopped, we wonder at times what the appeal of them is.
Yeah, in 4e they find most use as a way for the DM do design balanced encounters. XP are still important for those who assign them individually to each member of the group, even if there too they can just be virtualized with "experience parcels".

@Sebastian
The real difference between 3.x's and 4e's skill systems (apart from the number of skills) is that in 3.x (as with saving throws) the differenze between specialized and non-specialized is enormous: past a certain point a PC with skills ranks and a decent modifier in the appropriate ability would win every DC that is hard to a non specialized one.
As for the reduced number of skills: they merged some between 3e and 3.5e, and they did it again in 4e. It was a wise move the first time, it has been this time too.

@Aravail
If you read the description of the Good alignment in 4e, it's almost the same as the old Chaotic Good: in fact it's "the alignment of those who are good, but not legal", which would be NG (which meant little to begin with) plus CG. Same drill for LE.

[Jayabalard]

Poor 3.5. It doesn't deserve that comparison. :smalleek:

:smallwink:Seems like a valid comparison to me. Some people really like it; some people think it completely misses out on the spirit of the original. Most people are somewhere in the middle, liking some elements, disliking other elements.


Because that's not how it works. The amount of XP you gain from a standard, appropriate encounter is 1/10 that needed to level.The quote comes off of a discussion that started off as
it seems to be based around the same "10 encounters and you level" baseline as 3rd.And that, along with other people who say that they are playing it that way, does imply that people are playing it as n encounters and then you level.

[nagora]

The same could be said with 13.33, what's your point?
My point was that if you hand out levels for turing up instead of basing it on the experience the characters actually gain from doing things, then why bother with XP at all? 13.333 or 10 is all the same broken system.

You either do xp/level or you do encounters/level; having both is redundant.

[Sebastian]

It's as much the D20 Skill System as it is the AD&D 2e proficiency system, I should say. Sounds like a double standard to me.

Assign Difficulty, Calculate Probability, Roll Dice (or not).


Uh, that is true for the almost totality of rpgs (except the diceless), are you saying that all the RPGs use the same skill system?

[Matthew]

Uh, that is true for the almost totality of rpgs (except the diceless), are you saying that all the RPGs use the same skill system?

I am saying that is what you are saying, by indicating that the 4e Skill System is "essentially the 2e Proficiency System" without the ability to spend slots as you please. It is not, except in the broadest sense or that all skill systems share the same 'essential quality' (in fact, I would say the proficiency system beats both skill systems hands down, but that is another debate).

2e: 1d20 + Modifiers = under Attribute*
3e: 1d20 + Skill Slots + Attribute Modifier + Modifiers = Target Number
4e: 1d20 + 1/2 Level + Attribute Modifier + Modifiers = Target Number

* There's also the Skills & Powers version which is much closer to D20/3e.

As far as they go, they are all broadly similar (because, yes, all skill systems are broadly similar), but the details governing these systems are all very different. The point is that your comparison between the 4e skill system and the 2e proficiency system is either a) false or b) just as valid a statement and comparison for D20/3e.

If you had said "the 4e skill system is essentially the Star Wars Saga skill system," I would have probably have gone along with that. :smallwink:

[Knaight]

You want great fantasy without Deus Ex Machina?

Song of Fire and Ice. There is great fantasy where pretty much everyone is on equal footing and anyone and everyone can die.

First its Song of Ice and Fire. Secondly Deus Ex Machina only works if you have teamed up main characters, and most of the characters are trying to kill one another. Sure there is some unity among the houses(some of the houses anyways. The Lannisters have no unity to speak of, then there is the whole Theon issue, and everybody else who betrays the Starks), so main characters can and do die routinely, and the story can go on without them.

Another good example, although not really classic fantasy. Watership down. The closest thing to dues ex machina in that was when one of the rabbits led a dog into the enemies. The dog didn't just appear to save them though. Then General Woundwort went and beat the dog up anyways.

[Helgraf]

My point was that if you hand out levels for turing up instead of basing it on the experience the characters actually gain from doing things, then why bother with XP at all? 13.333 or 10 is all the same broken system.

You either do xp/level or you do encounters/level; having both is redundant.

Either way, 13.33 or 10, that's just some mathmatical crunch that the game designers unearthed. It's not a requirement or a law or even a guideline. All it really is is a statement that observes :

[3.5] Given Level X players facing CR X encounters, it will take 13.33 CR X encounters to gain a level.

[4.0] Given Level X players facing Encounter Budget Level X encounters, it will take 10 EBL X encounters to gain a level.

Nowhere does it say "thou must do it this way or thou art a bad DM." Nowhere.

[AKA_Bait]

Nowhere does it say "thou must do it this way or thou art a bad DM." Nowhere.

Not just that but in the DMG it specifically advises that if you want the pace of your campagin to be slower in terms of power development then award less xp per encounter to stretch a level over 10 battles. If you want it to be faster, award more.

[Pirate_King]

1. The dragon men. Not lizardfolk, who I have enjoyed playing in 2nd and 3x, but Klingons with breath weapons. Seriously, Klingons. I dare you to read their fluff again with good old Kalas and Stoval Core in mind. Klingons, dude.


Definitely the first thing I thought when I read their fluff, though I kinda like it. I'm with you on the heroquest comparison, but I'll see how that holds up in a long-term campaign.

[Starbuck_II]

Definitely the first thing I thought when I read their fluff, though I kinda like it. I'm with you on the heroquest comparison, but I'll see how that holds up in a long-term campaign.

I agree. I like having fire breathing Klingons. Ko'Pla Dragonborn!

[Jade_Tarem]

Secondly Deus Ex Machina only works if you have teamed up main characters, and most of the characters are trying to kill one another.

I'm pretty sure you can have Deus Ex Machina with any contrived save-the-day plot device, or any time a god leaves or descends from a machine, regardless of the state of the other characters. That's right, every time Odin steps out of a port-a-john, BAM! Deus ex machina.

Although I do think that Watership Down should be referenced as much as possible.

[Pirate_King]

Wizard has reached Level 13!
Wizard is trying to learn THUNDERLANCE, but Wizard can only learn 4 moves. Delete an old move for THUNDERLANCE?

..."retraining" makes me think of pokemon.

[Bago!!!]

Retraining was introduced in 3.5, they just brought into 4.0.

Course, its was alot more odd and perculiar. Serouisly, retraining races was one of the retraining options. No joke.

[Pirate_King]

Yeah, I know there was retraining in 3.5, but it was an option, for if you never used some spell or something. Although, I guess it's technically still an option when I use the word "retraining" since you can do that at any level. I refer more to the fact that you are required to replace old powers with new ones at higher levels, instead of just getting better at old powers while having limited access to new powers. I also miss being able to use web more than once. My first caster loved web/fire spell combos.

[Solaris]

Everything I've seen.

[Kurald Galain]

Wizard has reached Level 13!
Wizard is trying to learn THUNDERLANCE, but Wizard can only learn 4 moves. Delete an old move for THUNDERLANCE?

..."retraining" makes me think of pokemon.

:smallbiggrin:

It's also funny that if you're a wizard, retraining causes part of your spellbook to be erased...

[Sebastian]

It is also funny that drinking a healing potion at full hitpoint weaken you, because you lose a healing surge.
I can see villains forcing captured Pcs to drink potions until they are out of healing surges to make keep them prisoners easier. :)

[Charity]

or they could save themselves 1000's of gp and just beat the snot out of them...

[Covered In Bees]

Wizard has reached Level 13!
..."retraining" makes me think of pokemon.

It makes me think of the PHB II.

[Sebastian]

or they could save themselves 1000's of gp and just beat the snot out of them...

That too, but if you just beat the snot out of them they have still the healing surges, they wait for the right occasion, heal themselves at full strength and try to escape.
If you can make them waste them you make everything easier.

the beauty of it is that work even at epic levels with the lowest level potions, with some thousand of gold piece you can burn a large part of the PC resources.

[Kompera]

It is also funny that drinking a healing potion at full hitpoint weaken you, because you lose a healing surge.
I can see villains forcing captured Pcs to drink potions until they are out of healing surges to make keep them prisoners easier. :)
Ah, yes. 4e sucks because you can force your captive Dragonborn Paladin to drink 10 + CON healing potions in order to make any escape attempts more difficult for him. Per day, if allowed to take an extended rest. Can you say: Resource management?

I also think that there is plenty of room for interpretation in "Drink this potion and spend a healing surge." The prisoner might be forced to drink the potion, but what coercion can force him to spend the healing surge? And how would the captors know one way or the other?

[Prophaniti]

On Retraining: Yeah, the rules in the PHBII were just rules and ideas to do 'in character' something that I've always allowed players to do; remake their character. That said, some pretty decent ideas there, and if I were running a super-realistic campaign with no character handwaving allowed whatsoever, I'd go insane. But before that, I'd probably use some of those ideas if a player wanted to remake a character.

On Potion Weakening: Doesn't really do the bad guy any good, since in 4e, PCs completely regenerate after 5 minutes of Not Doing Anything, for which sitting in a dungeon cell probably qualifies. Unless they were being tortured constantly, which I would probably do to begin with, making it something of a moot point. Still, it is a fun loophole, up there with Drowning Healing in 3.5, one of those things that you wish they hadn't put rules for in the first place so people couldn't take them as literally as possible and make your head hurt.

[Sebastian]

Ah, yes. 4e sucks because you can force your captive Dragonborn Paladin to drink 10 + CON healing potions in order to make any escape attempts more difficult for him. Per day, if allowed to take an extended rest. Can you say: Resource management?


I can say strawman, where did I say in that post that 4e sucks?

beside it works also with 30th level characters and heroic tier level healing potions. Resource management, indeed.

[bosssmiley]

Things you dislike about 4th edition.

The fact that the system is so rigid in its' take on what's level-appropriate that you can have a serious discussion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87118) over whether a non-magical weapon property that lets you re-roll 1s for damage is broken. :smallamused:

I'm not sledging the posters; they seem quite sincere in their study of the matter.
I'm sledging the thought that re-rolling a 1 for damage when you hit with a big-@ss melee weapon is even deemed a significant point of discussion, rather than just being a no-brainer.

[Sebastian]

I also think that there is plenty of room for interpretation in "Drink this potion and spend a healing surge." The prisoner might be forced to drink the potion, but what coercion can force him to spend the healing surge? And how would the captors know one way or the other?

So you can stop a healing potion from working by sheer force of will? that would be even weirder. Or is making the potion works a willing action? but that means that potions don't works if you are unconscious because you can't "activate" them.

[Charity]

Internet is serious business Bossman

http://cowlander.neobahumut.com/LOL%20PICTURES/Serious%20Business.jpg

[Kompera]

I can say strawman, where did I say in that post that 4e sucks?

beside it works also with 30th level characters and heroic tier level healing potions. Resource management, indeed.
You didn't say 4e sucked, but you posted about a perceived flaw in a thread with the topic "Things you dislike about 4th Edition."

The rational assumption is that you dislike 4e for what you see as being a silly (see: comparison to bucket healing in 3.5) rule.

I still don't think that forcing a potion down someone's throat forces the use of a healing surge, so the point is moot in any case.


So you can stop a healing potion from working by sheer force of will? that would be even weirder. Or is making the potion works a willing action? but that means that potions don't works if you are unconscious because you can't "activate" them.
I don't need to make any justification for it, I'm just trying to interpret RAW. The "spend a healing surge" does not appear to be mandatory, and the choice on the spending of it is a meta-decision and is up to the player so unconsciousness is irrelevant.

[The New Bruceski]

On Potion Weakening: Doesn't really do the bad guy any good, since in 4e, PCs completely regenerate after 5 minutes of Not Doing Anything, for which sitting in a dungeon cell probably qualifies. Unless they were being tortured constantly, which I would probably do to begin with, making it something of a moot point. Still, it is a fun loophole, up there with Drowning Healing in 3.5, one of those things that you wish they hadn't put rules for in the first place so people couldn't take them as literally as possible and make your head hurt.

(bold mine)
Uh, no they don't. They get encounter powers back, but hit points, healing surges and daily powers are gone until they get 6 hours of sleep. Minions with sticks can prevent that pretty well.

[Jayabalard]

The rational assumption is that you dislike 4e for what you see as being a silly (see: comparison to bucket healing in 3.5) rule.Not so; the rational assumption is that someone dislikes the things that he mentions (if any) for the reasons that he mentions (if any). In this particular case, the rational assumption is that he thinks that a certain part of 4e's mechanic's is silly and therefore funny.


It's not rational to assume that he dislikes 4e. If you imply that he said something that he didn't (for example "Ah, yes. 4e sucks because <yadda yadda yadda") then you are indeed making a strawman argument.

[Xion_Anistu-san]

Everything I've seen.

On the surface, I would have to agree. There are very, very few things that could be considered good in conjunction with the whole of 4E.

One of the things a friend of mine pointed out was that, if you think of it in comparison to all previous editions, all the classes are basically Bards and here is how:

1) They have limited abilities (like only one attack per round at a 3.5 Wizard BAB and a maximum of 17 powers).
2) They dabble at everything and have no real focus.
3) They work best in teams as they affect other party members (like with the sliding, marking, combat advantage, etc.).

However unlike the 1st Edition Bard (the TRUE prestige class), they get royally pooched in abilities and even the 3.5 Bard gets a better BAB and spell selection. The Bard is slated for release in 4E in the future, but I'm not looking forward to it. It should be just as suck-tastic as all the rest of the classes.

[Kompera]

Not so; the rational assumption is that someone dislikes the things that he mentions (if any) for the reasons that he mentions (if any). In this particular case, the rational assumption is that he thinks that a certain part of 4e's mechanic's is silly and therefore funny.


It's not rational to assume that he dislikes 4e. If you imply that he said something that he didn't (for example "Ah, yes. 4e sucks because <yadda yadda yadda") then you are indeed making a strawman argument.

Oh, please. The thread is called "Things you dislike about 4th edition." If you post about 4e here and it's not clearly positive, it takes no leap of intellect to conclude that the thing posted about is something you dislike about 4e. It also takes little intellect to grasp that if you dislike something about 4e, then you dislike, at least in that part, 4e. Straw man, my rosy bottom.

If people want to post in a "Things you dislike about 4th edition." thread with things they find merely silly or amusing, it is incumbent upon them to make their intent clear. Or perhaps find a better thread for their post. Or perhaps learn to communicate via the written word, where it does take a little more effort than in verbal conversation to convey a point correctly.

[Jerthanis]

One of the things a friend of mine pointed out was that, if you think of it in comparison to all previous editions, all the classes are basically Bards and here is how:

1) They have limited abilities (like only one attack per round at a 3.5 Wizard BAB and a maximum of 17 powers).
2) They dabble at everything and have no real focus.
3) They work best in teams as they affect other party members (like with the sliding, marking, combat advantage, etc.).

Your friend has not played 4th edition. E would see how the classes each have significant focuses, even between two classes that fill the same role if he had.

Also, point 3 is true of every class in every edition, so I don't know what your friend's point is there.

Something that's been bugging me about 4th edition recently is the fact that it treats some aspects of the default setting as intrinsic to gameplay, but doesn't do a comprehensive job of detailing it as a complete setting. The Feywild and Shadowfell are necessarily places that pop up, but both are kind of poorly defined, and seem completely inhospitable, yet normal(~ish) people live in the Shadowfell and want to live in the Feywyld. The worst part IMHO is forcibly incorporating these concepts wholesale into existing settings, even when those settings already HAD death-planes and Fey-planes...

Maybe I just haven't stumbled across the chapter in the DMG that talks about what those two sub-worlds are all about.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Something that's been bugging me about 4th edition recently is the fact that it treats some aspects of the default setting as intrinsic to gameplay, but doesn't do a comprehensive job of detailing it as a complete setting. The Feywild and Shadowfell are necessarily places that pop up, but both are kind of poorly defined, and seem completely inhospitable, yet normal(~ish) people live in the Shadowfell and want to live in the Feywyld. The worst part IMHO is forcibly incorporating these concepts wholesale into existing settings, even when those settings already HAD death-planes and Fey-planes...

Maybe I just haven't stumbled across the chapter in the DMG that talks about what those two sub-worlds are all about.

No, there's just the blurb in the "planes" section of the DMG. This is annoying, but it's part of WotC's marketing - wait until they release their Complete Book(s) of the Feywild/Shadowfell. They'll be released, don't worry.

I mainly use them as classic "Parallel Dimensions" which, when the PCs need to wander into an exceptionally wild or exceptionally dark area of the world, they may stumble into the Twilight Zone Feywild/Shadowfell. For example, my Eladrin live primarily in the Feywild, but many have "summer homes" in the Prime Material which can act as trading posts and hotels for visiting Eladrin.

[Viruzzo]

For a decent fluff for those dimensions you can get Exalted, which has two nice similar places, the Underworld and the Wyld. Anyway I still find that the Shadowfell and the Feywild are much less important than the old Astral/Ethereal/Shadows planes, and can be shaped really easily into something a bit different (Emerald Dream and Twisting Nether for the Warcraft fans?).
Also why you say that you need to have them for the system? Where do they come into play heavily?

[Jerthanis]

Also why you say that you need to have them for the system? Where do they come into play heavily?

Oh, mostly monsters coming from them, adventurers coming from them, or the occasional spell or ability teleporting them there for a round. Nothing serious, it just comes off as if the two places are hugely influential on the setting and are very dangerous places, yet there's not much information on what they're all about. I agree with the Oracle Hunter that the book to describe them WILL come out, but I just think they should be part of a setting book, and I have a feeling it won't be a complete setting book, but a "Feywild" book or a "Shadowfell" book, which will still be insufficient to really run the game as a setting in and of itself.

[Kompera]

I have read the core books and played a few sessions at different levels.

Main dislikes:

1. The dragon men. Not lizardfolk, who I have enjoyed playing in 2nd and 3x, but Klingons with breath weapons. Seriously, Klingons. I dare you to read their fluff again with good old Kalas and Stoval Core in mind. Klingons, dude.

2. Tieflings. I'm not riled up by their emo factor, but by the fact that aisimar aren't also presented. Why not make Planetouched a class, instead of choosing one flavor for us and wasting ink on crappy fluff? REALLY crappy fluff...
I am also not terribly happy about the Dragonborn (and I also got the strong Klingon similarity from their fluff) or the Tieflings. Having played D&D since three booklet set and blue softbound book I prefer that the fantastic critters be NPCs. I'm a traditionalist at heart.


4. I do think they overdid the nerfing on the spellcasters. I like to play martial characters, I have been annoyed with casters in 3x, but by Crom, did they humble those arcane bastards...I don't see it that way. Yes, the potency of Arcane (and any other full spell rank caster) has been savaged. But I see it as having been a necessary thing. I called for it for a long time before any details about 4e were even known, and I'm so glad it happened. Wizard no longer exists, even though 4e has a class named that. The 4e class is more like the Sorcerer, with the at will mechanic making that distinction clear. But in 4e you've got a choice to make: Blaster or more subtle uses of magic. If you like Blaster, Warlock is the class for you. If you prefer the subtle master of arcane mysteries, Wizard is your class.


4 1/2. Goodbye, random groups of characters. If you don't have everyone in their roles, things aren't going to go well. It wasn't easy to roll without a cleric or a wizard in 3x, but it could be done. In 4e it's practically a sin.I haven't seen that. The group might need a Warlord or a Paladin instead, but there is no hard and fast play dynamic that says a Cleric is a must-have class. You need someone who can facilitate the use of healing surges, this is true. Luckily, there are a few different classes who can accommodate that need.


5. Skills? Well, if you aren't likely to use them in a HEROQUEST adventure, you aren't likely to find them on the new lists.Skills sucked in 3.x and are not wonderful in 4e. But it's a system that I can live with, and the 4e systems does avoid any glaring abuse angles. Remember Diplomacy? Forgery? A skill system which needs heavy house ruling to make non-abusive can't be said to be any better than a skill system which is a bit generic.


6. Which brings me to my real point. 4e is a boardgame. Period. A very interesting, complex, and fun boardgame, true. But the switch from pen-and-paper to boardgaming is real and tangible. Use strictly defined pregenerated ability to strike a target for xdy+z damage and slide him q squares." This is not D&D for me.It's different, yes. But not so far from 3.x as you might believe. 3.x had Bull Rush, Trip, Disarm, and a few other maneuvers. Mostly limited to the Martial classes. 4e has more abilities for sliding, and by more classes, but lost the Disarm and Trip maneuvers. I've always played D&D on either the tabletop or using a battlemat of some kind, so the 4e tactical combat just comes naturally to me and my group. We absolutely love the fact that we can work together to set up situations which allow one or another of us to make best use out of a Power. And unlike the sentiments expressed by
Xion_Anistu-sanin the referenced post, it does not at all play like everyone is a Bard. His point 3 "They work best in teams" is a huge endorsement for 4e for anyone who enjoys playing smart with their friends, and I refute his points 1 & 2 as being incorrect or short sighted. Characters have a huge array of Powers. Many more than the same character at 1st level in 3.x, and increasing from there. And each character absolutely has a focus. One is left wondering how Xion_Anistu-san could possibly have missed that in his play.
BTW: 'san' is an honorific. It is considered rude beyond belief to apply it to yourself. Or so I learned from my college Japanese professor.


Generally, 4e seems to represent a total capitulation to the change in the gaming culture, hothouse bred in 3x, from 1.) "I tell the DM what I want to do, we roll some dice, he tells me what happens" to 2.) "I show the DM pg. references to justify action, he verifies references and sighs, I do 18d10+315 damage and win."No, it's the same game you've been playing in 3.x as far as that goes. There's hardly anything mechanically different between:

"<3.x 5th level Fighter> I charge in, swinging my Greatsword, using Power Attack for -7 to hit and +12 to damage (combining Charge and PA mods). I hit, and do 2d6 +12 +STR*1.5 damage. If it's dead, I use Cleave to attack the one next to it."

-and-

"<4e 5th level Fighter> I charge in, swinging my Greatsword, using Power Attack for +1 (-2 to hit for PA, +3 to hit for Greatsword) to hit and +3 damage. I hit, and since I have the Powerful Charge feat I do 1D10 +5 +STR. Shame I can't use the Cleave at-will to get some damage on the one standing next to him, too, but both Charge and Cleave are Standard Actions, and in any event Charge limits me to a melee basic attack."

Really, very little difference there at all, the power escalation is much lower actually with the best abilities being once per encounter or once per day use only, and none of the "I shove the rules down the GMs throat" tone that you describe. I saw much more of that in 3.x, where the GM had to be at the very top of his game or be constantly faced with the casters using spells in completely legal and legitimate ways which just happened to break the encounters the GM had set up for the session. Except it looked more like this:
"I show the DM pg. references to justify spell effect, he verifies references and sighs, you win."

I'll get over the Dragonborn and the Tieflings. And any other minor complaints I might find with 4e. There is no perfect game, after all. But as a replacement for 3.x, it's stellar.

[Viruzzo]

Nothing serious, it just comes off as if the two places are hugely influential on the setting and are very dangerous places, yet there's not much information on what they're all about.
I like to see the positive side of this: they really unexplored places. You get a basic knowledge comparable to what legends tell, but most of the real stuff is not available to players (and not to the DM either, but he will make it up). Obviously Eladrin pose a problem, even if actually they're supposed to be descendants of the real fey, and live on the margin of the Feywild. I imagine this a bit like a "Landover fey realm" thing, where they are allowed a bit into the Feywild as they are tied to it, but are not considered a part of it and are not accepted completely.
Speaking of which: 4e needs more Prism Cats.

[Jayabalard]

Oh, please. The thread is called "Things you dislike about 4th edition." If you post about 4e here and it's not clearly positive, it takes no leap of intellect to conclude that the thing posted about is something you dislike about 4e. It also takes little intellect to grasp that if you dislike something about 4e, then you dislike, at least in that part, 4e. Straw man, my rosy bottom.That wasn't what you said. You said ""Ah, yes. 4e sucks because". The person you were criticizing did not claim that 4e sucks, nor did they even say that they disliked that thing, just that they found it amusing. You're inferring that they dislike it and then take it even further by making your straw man argument, arguing against their supposed claim that the element that they find amusing makes 4e suck.

In fact, it's posted in such a way that it's a bit ambiguous whether Sebastian actually dislikes it that element of the game; it's quite possible that it's just side conversation, since it's in response to someone else pointing out something that they find funny.


If people want to post in a "Things you dislike about 4th edition." thread with things they find merely silly or amusing, it is incumbent upon them to make their intent clear. So, they should start thier post off with something to make that clear, like "It is also funny that <snip>" while responding to a line of discussion that is slightly off-topic and about humorous things, such as likening a wizard retraining to pokemon retraining?

:smallbiggrin:

[Pirate_King]

Clerics aren't different enough from paladins. They even have the same key abilities. What happened to my skinny cleric who gained strength from his faith? They're more like paladins who are a bit closer to their god, instead of divine casters who depend on spells(prayers, whatever) instead of strength.

And while my pokemon reference was mostly silly, it is something that kind of bugs me.

and when will the difference between poison and acid damage be clear?

[Ograbme]

There's some real quantum physics uncertainty stuff going on when a monster has a different number of hitpoints depending on who looks at it.

[Covered In Bees]

There's some real quantum physics uncertainty stuff going on when a monster has a different number of hitpoints depending on who looks at it.

Or... or possibly the game mechanics are not the world physics, and HP is really abstract.

[Knaight]

Well stats are relative now. Although if they just took hit points out already and implemented toughness saves of multiple levels when hit, keeping track of individual wounds, with failure success conditions we wouldn't have this problem. Level could directly play into this, one person does damage, defender takes damage, subtracts level, rolls toughness save, and if they fail glance at a table(or have it memorized, it should be fairly easy) for how much it affects them. Minions would just take a penalty to subtracting of levels. Hit points are a sacred cow that really needs to die already. Not just in D&D either, videogames could loose them too, considering that mechanics get swept into the background anyways.

[ZekeArgo]

Well stats are relative now. Although if they just took hit points out already and implemented toughness saves of multiple levels when hit, keeping track of individual wounds, with failure success conditions we wouldn't have this problem. Level could directly play into this, one person does damage, defender takes damage, subtracts level, rolls toughness save, and if they fail glance at a table(or have it memorized, it should be fairly easy) for how much it affects them. Minions would just take a penalty to subtracting of levels. Hit points are a sacred cow that really needs to die already. Not just in D&D either, videogames could loose them too, considering that mechanics get swept into the background anyways.

Which would be nice if you wanted to play in a system with that kind of gritty realism. People who want to play in a heroic fantasy system/setting however enjoy the ability to describe how their luck, skill and close scrapes brings their characters closer to danger, while not having to worry about having to track how each limb is specifically targeted and disabled.

[Knaight]

More along the lines of the Ogre does 2d6+8 damage, roll a 9, 17, subtract 3(character level, armor would also play in here) its between 11-15 so a minor wound. On a success nothing, on a failure dazed for 1 turn. Tracking each limb and such just makes things take forever. Body location charts never help things, especially stupid ones like FATALs. Although compared to the rest of that "game"...

Something like
0-5 Scratch, on failure -1 to next toughness save
6-10 Cut, on failure -2 to next toughness save
11-15 Minor wound, on fail dazed for 1 turn
16-20 Wound, on fail stunned for 1 turn, -1 penalty to all actions
21-25 Severe wound, on fail stunned for 2 turns, -2 penalty to all actions
26-30 Critical wound, on fail stunned for 3 turns, -3 penalty to all actions
30+ Traumatic wound, on fail your incapacitated, -5 penalty to all actions
50+ Debilitating wound, on fail you die, incapacitated

The toughness save would be against damage taken. So a scratch makes you slightly more likely to fail a save, a cut a bit more, then you start seeing actual penalties for failure, then your taking penalties until you heal up even when you succeed. But no, you still need hit points. Even a wound track would be better.

[Pirate_King]

I miss trip and disarm. I'll have to homebrew those back in. and why did grapple become grab? it sounds... juvenile? I dunno.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The toughness save would be against damage taken. So a scratch makes you slightly more likely to fail a save, a cut a bit more, then you start seeing actual penalties for failure, then your taking penalties until you heal up even when you succeed. But no, you still need hit points. Even a wound track would be better.

So... that's a lot of bookkeeping (and math!) for a single attack. One of the things people have always liked about D&D is that its combat is more "hack 'n slash" than "hack 'n math" - the bookkeeping is usually pretty straightforward.

Not to say that wound tracks don't have their place (and I, for one, think the Shadowrun 3e wound track is amongst the best) but I don't think you'll find many people who like playing D&D who object to HP.

[Knaight]

Its actually less math. That would probably be on the character sheet, so you just tick off the wounds. No subtraction with hit points. Heck thats one of the more default methods for fudge, an extremely simple system. The other being the wound track. As for not objecting to HP, you won't find many D&D players who are exposed to anything else.