Things you dislike about 4th edition.

[Ograbme]

Or... or possibly the game mechanics are not the world physics, and HP is really abstract.
Mechanics aren't supposed to represent the physics of the game world to one degree or another?

[Oracle_Hunter]

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.

More bookkeeping, not more math. Keeping track of all of those modifiers (even if they are written down) is more work than not having to keep track of them.

As for your last statement: I laugh at it. People who play D&D are likely to be exposed to at least one other RPG over the course of a lifetime, if for no other reason than the D&D books are sold next to the WW books at your local game store. Since few other systems (non OGL-based anyhow) actually use anything like a HP system, it stands to reason that they've at least been exposed to a different way of doing things.

I would, in fact, be surprised to find that WotC has such dominance that gamers these days haven't even dabbled with a competing system.

EDIT:

Mechanics aren't supposed to represent the physics of the game world to one degree or another?

Sure they are... to one degree or another. Every system picks some things that are important enough to model in great detail, and other things that are not.

In D&D, the exact effects of wounds is not something that they render with great detail, because they're not interested in them. For the same reason, the "HP total" of people outside of plot-arc isn't as important as their "HP total" when the PCs are involved... and 4e chooses the system that models what they find important, and they model that well.

Besides, does it really break immersion for anyone to suddenly be struck, as a player, that Bob the Minion has a nebulous HP when you're not fighting him? Really?

[Helgraf]

Or... or possibly the game mechanics are not the world physics, and HP is really abstract.

Newp newp newp, couldn't be like that old chap. Clearly everything in the world springs from the rules, and the rules don't just provide a moderately abstract handle on how the world works instead.

Newp newp newp. That just isn't possible. I mean, so many fine people have gone on at length about how impossible that is. Surely they must all be right, right old chap?

[Thurbane]

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.).
That's a very, very interesting point of view. From my (admittedly very limited) 4E experience, this seems pretty true...

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.
Schrödinger's Ogre? :smallbiggrin:

[Covered In Bees]

Mechanics aren't supposed to represent the physics of the game world to one degree or another?

NO. They are ABSOLUTELY not. They are supposed to provide a system of task resolution, or even conflict resolution.

[Viruzzo]

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.
That if you choose the Battle Cleric build or something similar (that is, based on Str vs X attacks), but there is also the Devoted Cleric (Wis vs X attacks) which is based on prayers. BTW the Cleric has always been a secondary melee class, it's was just too good to spec them as casters in 3.x.

[Helgraf]

Schrödinger's Ogre? :smallbiggrin:

Will hurt you whether it has 1 HP or 88 HP.

[Kompera]

Mechanics aren't supposed to represent the physics of the game world to one degree or another?
No, not at all. Mechanics are not physics, and physics be damned in a FRPG in any event. HP have always been abstractions in D&D. The wound is relative to both the weapon inflicting the damage and the person taking the damage.

Your 1st level Fighter takes an arrow for 6 damage? Ouch! That hurt him! He was shot in the shoulder and is sorely injured.

Your 8th level Fighter takes an arrow for 6 damage? It grazed his cloak and made him take heed of the attacker.

See how that works? You don't need a table for wounds and limbs, you make it up as you go based on the die rolls and the relativity. You know, using your imagination in a game representing an imaginary world. How hard is that?

[Jayabalard]

Mechanics aren't supposed to represent the physics of the game world to one degree or another?Depends on the game. In some games, this is absolutely the case.

In others, they're simply a conflict resolution mechanism, and only vaguely represent the physics of the game world.

[Helgraf]

See how that works? You don't need a table for wounds and limbs, you make it up as you go based on the die rolls and the relativity. You know, using your imagination in a game representing an imaginary world. How hard is that?

Prepare for ludicrious, taken-to-extreme statement made for deliberate parody in relation to above statement to serve as your counter-argument, by somebody.

[Jayabalard]

Your 1st level Fighter takes an arrow for 6 damage? Ouch! That hurt him! He was shot in the shoulder and is sorely injured.If his shoulder is sorely injured, why can he still use the weapon or shield in that arm? That makes no sense; an arrow in your shoulder doesn't just make it hard to hold a shield, or swing a sword... an injury like that will stop you cold. The fighter goes from a "real", believable character to (for example) a SCAdian who's kneeling because he's been legged; there's nothing wrong with the latter except that it's not as believable at that former.

Then the fighter uses a healing surge. Now you have to explain away that injury in a believable fashion, which may be fairly difficult to do in a believable fashion depending on the rest of the situation; especially true if can't give some magical reason for that wound to close up, for example: your fighter is a pulp type hero wearing a loincloth and wielding a big sword and nothing else, so obviously isn't carrying any healing draughts, or is restrained in some fashion, so that there's no way for him to maneuver that, etc.

[Helgraf]

If his shoulder is sorely injured, why can he still use the weapon or shield in that arm? That makes no sense; an arrow in your shoulder doesn't just make it hard to hold a shield, or swing a sword... an injury like that will stop you cold. The fighter goes from a "real", believable character to (for example) a SCAdian who's kneeling because he's been legged; there's nothing wrong with the latter except that it's not as believable at that former.

Then the fighter uses a healing surge. Now you have to explain away that injury in a believable fashion, which may be fairly difficult to do in a believable fashion depending on the rest of the situation; especially true if can't give some magical reason for that wound to close up, for example: your fighter is a pulp type hero wearing a loincloth and wielding a big sword and nothing else, so obviously isn't carrying any healing draughts, or is restrained in some fashion, so that there's no way for him to maneuver that, etc.

Big damn pulp heroes tough out or flat out ignore injuries that would cripple lesser, 'normal' men, so actually there's no issue with the healing surge here.

[Prophaniti]

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.

Ok, fun side argument not withstanding, the point he was making was pretty obvious, and it was NOT that the variance of HP has anything specifically to do with physics, real world or otherwise. The point is that it has a similarity to one of the more interesting properties of certain particles in the real world. How is that even remotely construed as him saying 'Mechanics should reflect RL physics.'? Note, he doesn't even state that it's a bad thing, merely that it is interesting, and perhaps a bit confusing.

Anyway, please continue with your regularly scheduled pointless* debate.

*I say pointless because the degree to which game mechanics reflect RL physics is entirely up to the group, and can be easily changed. Often without changing the rules themselves, just the context in which they are described. Not much point debating about something that is entirely mutable. Why don't we debate about which flavor of icecream is better next? I say Chocolate, and anyone who disagrees is obviously not eating their icecream correctly.

[Pirate_King]

Big damn pulp heroes tough out or flat out ignore injuries that would cripple lesser, 'normal' men, so actually there's no issue with the healing surge here.

Also, adrenaline.

[Starbuck_II]

Also, adrenaline.

Also, due to a mutation in the guy's DNA he can create new telomeres (just like cancer does) and thus regenerates.

[Starsinger]

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.


The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

[wodan46]

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.

{scrubbed}
There is a very big difference between all characters being standardized and balanced, and all characters serving the same role, unless by that role you mean adventurer who kills/disables monsters and occasionally makes skill checks.

Each role is completely different from the next, and each class is itself strongly differentiated, and these are the 8 basic classes, with the more complicated ones saved for later.

[Thurbane]

Also, due to a mutation in the guy's DNA he can create new telomeres (just like cancer does) and thus regenerates.
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/12/FEB072098_hi_CIVIL_WAR_FALLEN_SON_WOLVERINE.jpg

[Starbuck_II]

Yes, I was thinking sorta like Wolverine: he is just an extreme case though.
His regeneration seems to get better with age.

[AlexanderRM]

Okay, first, I have to admit that I only noticed the books at a bookstore and looked over them out of curiosity, so this is not said by someone who has total comprehension of the rules and all. Still, it troubles me to find so many things that I disliked.

-The alignment system. It just doesn't seem as three-dimensional any more, it really seems like something out of a previous edition, not a new one.

-I should be able to get over the removal of certain classes and races, but one thing I noticed is that among the ones they removed were every single class or race added in 3rd edition. That just doesn't feel right. I actually had to keep checking the copyright date to be sure this was 4th edition.

-On that note, that they no longer list the edition number on the side of the book. Putting "3.5" on the side of the 3.5th edition books must have been one of the best decisions ever made by anyone, ever. It's just so ridiculously convenient.

-The removal of the good dragons. Actually, people have been discussing the metallic dragons here and it made it sound as if they were still here, which is weird, because I distinctly remember checking and finding that all five dragon types were evil, and I think I would have noticed if metallic dragons were among them.
And, really, I don't even want to know what other monsters they removed.

-Tiefling as a player race. Just odd.

[wodan46]

-The alignment system. It just doesn't seem as three-dimensional any more, it really seems like something out of a previous edition, not a new one.


The Alignment system has been abandoned as being stupid, arbitrary, and restricting. As it no longer has a mechanical impact and characters don't need to follow a given alignment ever, its only real purpose is classifying monsters.



-I should be able to get over the removal of certain classes and races, but one thing I noticed is that among the ones they removed were every single class or race added in 3rd edition. That just doesn't feel right. I actually had to keep checking the copyright date to be sure this was 4th edition.


4th edition is not an expansion on 3.5, its a whole new edition. They will be back eventually. Also, several races are in the Monster Manual (gnomes, drow, gith, warforged, and orcs among others).



-On that note, that they no longer list the edition number on the side of the book. Putting "3.5" on the side of the 3.5th edition books must have been one of the best decisions ever made by anyone, ever. It's just so ridiculously convenient.


I agree with you there. Its a pity.



-The removal of the good dragons. Actually, people have been discussing the metallic dragons here and it made it sound as if they were still here, which is weird, because I distinctly remember checking and finding that all five dragon types were evil, and I think I would have noticed if metallic dragons were among them.


They will be back. They didn't consider stating out good aligned monsters to be a high priority for the first set of core books.



And, really, I don't even want to know what other monsters they removed.

Ones which might show up later, and ones which are stupid. There are plenty of new monsters, I think.



-Tiefling as a player race. Just odd.
They wanted something different.

[Knaight]

The alignment system, despite being "stupid, arbitrary, and restrictive" is still there though. This being after god knows how many other games came up with better stuff, like noting down personality gifts(patient, cool headed) and faults(arrogant, doesn't think others should have rights), which itself has been all over the place. Then there is stuff like travelers courage/cowardice stuff in multiple categories. Lawful evil tells me nothing much. Cool headed, knack for leadership, arrogant, narcissistic, overly ambitious does. Or you could have another lawful evil character, but differentiate them by saying something like: Believes in laws, loyal, dangerously bureaucratic, holds grudges, over-reacts, doesn't value life. Or you could just have both people just have the short list, without the lawful evil descriptor.

[Thurbane]

They will be back. They didn't consider stating out good aligned monsters to be a high priority for the first set of core books.
See, that I have a problem with.

Good "monsters" should be in the core - if a DM wants to run an evil (or even neutral) based campaign where the PCs are battling good aligned foes, he should have the opponents at hand without having to go outside the core. Sure, they could just always be fighting good aligned PC race/classes, but the monsters should be there also.

[Knaight]

Ehh, honesty you can just change cosmetic things and alignment. Take dragons, change the name a bit, make them shiny. Then again I was never attached to the way D&D did dragons in the first place, preferring them to be differentiated by shape as opposed to color. Fire is the only element they really need in my opinion, and bipedal with wings(with or without front arms, small ones at best), quadrupedal with wings, quadrupedal without wings, serpentine with wings, or serpentine without wings being used as the distinctions instead of color would have been much cooler.

[Helgraf]

See, that I have a problem with.

Good "monsters" should be in the core - if a DM wants to run an evil (or even neutral) based campaign where the PCs are battling good aligned foes, he should have the opponents at hand without having to go outside the core. Sure, they could just always be fighting good aligned PC race/classes, but the monsters should be there also.

Or, frankly, they can be fighting other evil monsters as well. Evil doesn't have the target discrimination disqualifiers that Good usually does. Evil monsters are useful for everyone. Good monsters are (99% of the time) only useful for the far rarer evil games, and the occasional 'good monster gone bad/extremist' plot.

You'll note angels now no longer have a definitively good alignment because they're servants of the gods - not just servants of an alignment or of the good / lawful good gods.

[wodan46]

As I heard one person state how their evil party behaved:
Person A: Lets go find some paladins, kill them, and take their stuff!
Person B: Why would we want a paladin's stuff?
Person A: ... Lets find some evil cultists, kill them, and take their stuff!

In short, Evil players are likely to be fighting evil monsters, because they're still monsters that don't want to make friends, and are often outright competition.

Furthermore, most creatures are now unaligned anyway, allowing plenty of leeway.

Lastly, as said before, classic good creatures like Angels are now of no specific alignment and are simply soldiers/messengers of their deity, and thus are covered by the rulebook just fine anyway.

So, it was figured to be pretty unlikely that you would be fighting high level entities of shining goodness, and thus not worth stating when there is only so much room.

[Kompera]

See, that I have a problem with.

Good "monsters" should be in the core - if a DM wants to run an evil (or even neutral) based campaign where the PCs are battling good aligned foes, he should have the opponents at hand without having to go outside the core. Sure, they could just always be fighting good aligned PC race/classes, but the monsters should be there also.Every company strives to cater to the largest portions of their market first, and give attention to the rest of their market after that first priority has been handled. I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I'd put money down that the vast majority of campaigns are based on the standard fantasy story element of good vs. evil, with the good protagonists being portrayed by the players. So including in the core rules those portions which support good aligned groups is smart business.

The rules support this. Read the alignment descriptions and it's clear that the good and unaligned alignments are made for players (I'm AFB, but I recall a "This is the best alignment because" for each of those) while the evil alignments are clearly intended for the NPCs (the descriptions of these is more about how terrible it is).

And in my gaming experience I have been in two all evil campaigns. Both were short run affairs due to the backbiting and lack of cooperation amongst the participants. When each player has to spend a significant amount of time and resources ensuring that they aren't bumped off by the player sitting next to them it leaves less time to get anything accomplished.

I'm sure it could be done better, but the fact remains that amongst a group of evils there is always the possibility of treachery which does not exist in a group of goods.

[Thurbane]

Heck, how about good monsters in the core as allies/cohorts? :smallconfused:

Sorry, I firmly believe they shouldn't have been excluded from the core books.

[Crow]

I am beginning to dislike the complete dependence that all characters have on +x weapons, necklaces, and armor. It's not so bad at Heroic tier, but it starts to hurt at Paragon, and is downright crippling at Epic. I don't think a character should be at his or her best with salvaged equipment, but I believe he should be able to pick something up off the ground and still be viable. As it is right now, a character without his +6 weapon or implement is next to worthless unless he is totally twinked out in other areas to make up for that loss (which most casual characters aren't).

I thought the designers said they were going to move away from magic item dependence in this edition, which was a bummer in the last edition too...the only cure was different magic items. What the hell happened???

Thurbane: That has to be the creepiest avatar I have ever seen. What is that thing? It looks like a little old-guy/hobbit/gremlin/pedofile or something. No offense...but...what the hell?

[Edea]

I...think that's the Dungeon Master from the D&D cartoon series.

[The New Bruceski]

I...think that's the Dungeon Master from the D&D cartoon series.

Yup, old guy/hobbit/gremlin/pedophile.

[Xion_Anistu-san]

{scrubbed}

There is a very big difference between all characters being standardized and balanced, and all characters serving the same role, unless by that role you mean adventurer who kills/disables monsters and occasionally makes skill checks.

Each role is completely different from the next, and each class is itself strongly differentiated, and these are the 8 basic classes, with the more complicated ones saved for later.

I have both played and run 4E, thank you very much. And as far as wallowing in mindless hate, I really wanted 4E to be at least as good as 3.X was compared to 2nd Ed. But it just doesn't work out that way and I'm disappointed. And what are these underlying principles you speak of? 4E was supposed to be an easy game to play and not need mastering. Or did they lie about that as well and there are things about the game I'm not seeing here?

I don't see this "very big difference" between the essentially identical classes. What are these differences you speak of? I would really like to hear someone explain them.

And why does my paladin HAVE to be a defender? Why can't he be a striker? Or a controller? Historically speaking paladins were technically leaders. These roles seem to arbitrary and very restrictive. It seems like rail-roading players into doing things they wouldn't normally do with their PC's.

[Thurbane]

Yup, old guy/hobbit/gremlin/pedophile.
:smalleek:

...dude, it's the Dungeon Master! He was only a mentor to those kids! :smallredface:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/350601174_1424999879.jpg

[Kurald Galain]

-The alignment system. It just doesn't seem as three-dimensional any more, it really seems like something out of a previous edition, not a new one.

It doesn't seem as two-dimensional any more, because it's now one-dimensional instead :smallcool: IIRC the first edition of D&D also had one-dimensional alignment ranging from lawful to chaotic (based on the Stormbringer books).

[Viruzzo]

And why does my paladin HAVE to be a defender? Why can't he be a striker? Or a controller? Historically speaking paladins were technically leaders. These roles seem to arbitrary and very restrictive. It seems like rail-roading players into doing things they wouldn't normally do with their PC's.
This has already been discussed over and over eternally. The class roles were already there before, they were just implicit. In 4e they were explicited. That doesn't mean you can't make your paladin into some sort of striker or controller, but you will need multiclassing and will not be effective as a "natural" striker. As for being leaders, it's the 4e paladin's second role (as fighter's secondary one is striker), and can do it quite well. Obviously not as much as an appropriately designed warlord or cleric, which you would normally expect. Actually, the paladin is probably more versatile in 4e than in 3.x.

On the alignments: if you consider it "3.x without some alignments" it's lame, but it's not how it was intended. In 4e, unaligned represents the greatest majority of people and creatures in the world, and evil/good are reserved to those who take a decisive stance in that direction. This also applies for monsters.
So let me repeat: 4e unaligned <> neutral something.

@Jayabalard: it's "Romani", not "Romeni".

[FoE]

Dude, it's the Dungeon Master! He was only a mentor to those kids! :smallredface:

I remember it differently. Was he helping those kids? Or was he the one responsible for them being in danger? What reason did this seemingly omnipotent being have in setting these young children against dangerous villains like Venger? Could it be that he just gained some twisted pleasure from watching them risk their lives?

My God. The Dungeon Master. What a sick, cruel, Magnificent Bastard he was. :smallamused:

[Crow]

:smalleek:

...dude, it's the Dungeon Master! He was only a mentor to those kids! :smallredface:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/350601174_1424999879.jpg

I wasn't familiar with the cartoon, but wikipedia has set me straight. He's still creepy-looking, but then it is different as far as avatars go around here, and that's not a bad thing.

[Skyserpent]

I am beginning to dislike the complete dependence that all characters have on +x weapons, necklaces, and armor. It's not so bad at Heroic tier, but it starts to hurt at Paragon, and is downright crippling at Epic. I don't think a character should be at his or her best with salvaged equipment, but I believe he should be able to pick something up off the ground and still be viable. As it is right now, a character without his +6 weapon or implement is next to worthless unless he is totally twinked out in other areas to make up for that loss (which most casual characters aren't).

I thought the designers said they were going to move away from magic item dependence in this edition, which was a bummer in the last edition too...the only cure was different magic items. What the hell happened???

They did move away from it... just not far enough...

Still, I myself am okay with the way the magic system is right now, primarily because when you look at the tier system, Heroic tier is fine without much magic enhancement, because it's a generally normal power scale. This is your standard fantasy fare, magic items are impressive and rare.

In Paragon you're saving the WORLD, fighting demons and other big extraplanar somesuch, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the players to get some Magical equipment to keep up.

And in Epic, well, if you don't have the legendary artifact of whatever and the magical sword of stabitchy, then you shouldn't be considering fighting these Godlike beings.

If you want to run a low-magic campaign, I'd say you'd be restricted mostly to Heroic tier almost on principle, and that's still 10 solid levels of gameplay, which, quite frankly is a fair bit considering how long it takes to level up legitimately. But again, that's just what I'd do. It's completely reasonable to find that irritating, and I sympathize, but hey, I think the designers did the best they could.

Magic items are a part of the D&D experience, the +number sword and the Bag of Holding are classics. I wouldn't expect them to make these things superfluous. But at least we're not scrambling to make sure we have every tiny little slot meticulously filled in order to even stand a chance at high levels.

I should probably stop defending 4e in the "Things you dislike about 4th Edition" thread...

[Morty]

As it no longer has a mechanical impact and characters don't need to follow a given alignment ever, its only real purpose is classifying monsters.

Because new edition or not, good characters still need something to mindlessly slaughter.
As for exclusion of Good-aligned monsters from MM: yes, it is stupid. Because not only there are many occasions in which PCs can fight good-aligned characters, but also a world where there are plenty of evil demons, devils or whatever wanting to slaughter everything but no Good forces to oppose them looks simply stupid and unbelivable.
But I guess I'm just wallowing in mindless hate.:smalltongue:

[nagora]

Because new edition or not, good characters still need something to mindlessly slaughter.
I think you mean that heroes need opponents :smallsmile:

[Morty]

I think you mean that heroes need opponents :smallsmile:

No, I don't. What I mean that that editions come and go, but arbitrary, black and white moralty remains. And mind you, I don't see strict moralty as prerequisite for heroism, neither do I see the need for enemies to have big "Evil" label swapped on.

[Starsinger]

And why does my paladin HAVE to be a defender? Why can't he be a striker? Or a controller? Historically speaking paladins were technically leaders. These roles seem to arbitrary and very restrictive. It seems like rail-roading players into doing things they wouldn't normally do with their PC's.

You have to see that removing class roles would make the classes as homogeneous as you claim they already are... right?

[Jayabalard]

Every company strives to cater to the largest portions of their market firstNot true. Many companies strive to fit a particular niche of their market rather than the whole of the market itself.

Sure you can claim that they're just redefining their market and then trying to appeal to the largest parts of that market but that makes statements like "Every company strives to cater to the largest portions of their market first" meaningless.


Big damn pulp heroes tough out or flat out ignore injuries that would cripple lesser, 'normal' men, so actually there's no issue with the healing surge here.Unless someone is interested in playing something other than superheroes in the middle ages and pulp heroes. Which probably makes up a good portion of the people who are saying that they dislike 4e because of the way that healing surges work.

[wodan46]

I have both played and run 4E, thank you very much. And as far as wallowing in mindless hate, I really wanted 4E to be at least as good as 3.X was compared to 2nd Ed. But it just doesn't work out that way and I'm disappointed. And what are these underlying principles you speak of? 4E was supposed to be an easy game to play and not need mastering. Or did they lie about that as well and there are things about the game I'm not seeing here?

I don't see this "very big difference" between the essentially identical classes. What are these differences you speak of? I would really like to hear someone explain them.

And why does my paladin HAVE to be a defender? Why can't he be a striker? Or a controller? Historically speaking paladins were technically leaders. These roles seem to arbitrary and very restrictive. It seems like rail-roading players into doing things they wouldn't normally do with their PC's.

Identical classes? Explain.

If you mean identical in the sense that they have attacks that deal damage and kill monsters, and usually have a buff/debuff/effect or 2 attached, then yes, all characters are the same, just like in 3.5e. They are all also designed for combat as primary, with skill challenges as secondary, also just like in 3.5e.

While you can build all classes to do nothing more than have the highest raw DPS possible, then you are playing the game horribly wrong, both from a strategic and flavor perspective. If you choose to setup battles where in both sides blindly mash into each other until 1 gives, then you are playing the game horribly wrong, both from a strategic and flavor perspective.

Here's an overview of the primary(bolded) and secondary foci of each Role
Defender: Area Control, DPS, Buffing(Self only)
Strikers: DPS, Debuffs, Mobility(Self only)
Controller: Debuffs, DPS, Area Control
Leader: Buffing, Healing, Mobility

You might notice, that out of the bunch, only Strikers should view DPS as paramount, and furthermore, they should still actively pursue the other aspects of their role as well. Each class probably has emphasis on different foci, but can still choose to specialize in them as they wish.

One thing that has to be noted is that Positioning is vital now, to the point that the 3 core things combat revolves around are Damage, Conditions, and Positioning. ALL roles are dependent on positioning. Defenders are able to and should be pinning enemies down, Controllers force enemies out of areas and need to be in a safe position themselves, Strikers need to be able to obtain flanking of concealment, and Leaders need to be in position to help others achieve those positions, as well as be within range of helping them at all.

Once again, if you just have your party run at the monsters and mash into them until they die, making no semblance of teamwork, strategy, or positioning, well then frankly, what did you expect to happen?

[Tengu_temp]

And why does my paladin HAVE to be a defender? Why can't he be a striker? Or a controller? Historically speaking paladins were technically leaders. These roles seem to arbitrary and very restrictive. It seems like rail-roading players into doing things they wouldn't normally do with their PC's.

1. Historical paladins have very few in common with DND ones, no matter the edition. Same case with druids.
2. 4e PHB states that the leader role is something completely different than the IC party leader. Leader as a role is a class that can heal and buff.
3. Most classes can be built in several ways that have different roles - a charisma-bases sword'n'board paladin is a defender, but a strength-based one with a two-hander packs a punch similarily a striker. Do you want your paladin to be able to cast spells from a distance, or fight with two swords and in light armor?

Why can't my 3.5 fighter be a caster? Why can't my wizard be a healer?

[wodan46]

I do find it odd that people's complaints about 4e is that everything is the same AND they don't like being railroaded into being different. Also, that its more hack and slashy and wargamey despite previous editions being JUST that.

[Morty]

I do find it odd that people's complaints about 4e is that everything is the same AND they don't like being railroaded into being different. Also, that its more hack and slashy and wargamey despite previous editions being JUST that.

What I find odd is that apparently accepting that someone might have a different perception of something is the hardest thing ever for a man to do. Take that, climbing Mt. Everest. Melding dozens of people into one anonymous entity is even weirder.

[nagora]

You have to see that removing class roles would make the classes as homogeneous as you claim they already are... right?
Are you really suggesting that being a paladin is "about" a combat style?! Get real.

[Starsinger]

I do find it odd that people's complaints about 4e is that everything is the same AND they don't like being railroaded into being different. Also, that its more hack and slashy and wargamey despite previous editions being JUST that.

I agree with you, like 3.5 Paladins were really any more different from one another than 4e Paladins.

[Crow]

I agree with you, like 3.5 Paladins were really any different from one another than 4e Paladins.

I think what most people are talking about is the style in which the character is played. Every Paladin (and every class) had certain core features that every other member of that class would have as well. But feats were much stronger in the last edition, and feat selection could be used to make two Paladins whose tactics and role were vastly different, which affected the way they used their core abilities.

Sure, you can select different powers now, and they will affect the way the character plays, but for a lot of people, it just feels the same, no matter what powers your using.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I think what most people are talking about is the style in which the character is played. Every Paladin (and every class) had certain core features that every other member of that class would have as well. But feats were much stronger in the last edition, and feat selection could be used to make two Paladins whose tactics and role were vastly different, which affected the way they used their core abilities.

Sure, you can select different powers now, and they will affect the way the character plays, but for a lot of people, it just feels the same, no matter what powers your using.

So... you want difference through Feats? How about the weapon-based feats? Heck, unlike in 3e, now if you want to be an Axe Paladin, you'll have a high CON, while a Heavy Blade Paladin will have a higher DEX. And let's not forget the Divine Feats which are tied to your deity. Plus, you can Multiclass and start swapping powers with other classes.

What, exactly, are you looking for when you want "different" Paladins, if it isn't RP or feats like the above?

[nagora]

So... you want difference through Feats? How about the weapon-based feats? Heck, unlike in 3e, now if you want to be an Axe Paladin, you'll have a high CON, while a Heavy Blade Paladin will have a higher DEX.
Do differences that make no sense count in this argument?

[Crow]

I was using feats as one example. Just look at the doors a simple ability-swap feat like weapon finesse opened. The problem with powers is when you are required to have certain high abilities because your powers have no chance of hitting reliably without them. Good luck having that high CON or DEX if you want to take advantage of the best weapon feats AND use your powers effectively. It eventually comes down to a level of stat array optimization that most players (not most forum-goers mind you) are not going want to deal with (or in some cases, won't even realize). You shouldn't need to be a CharOp wizard just to make a different concept viable mechanically.

As it stands right now, multiclassing is the only way to really change the feel of a character, and your options there are pretty limited. Every straight-classed Paladin is pretty much the same.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I was using feats as one example. Just look at the doors a simple ability-swap feat like weapon finesse opened. The problem with powers is when you are required to have certain high abilities because your powers have no chance of hitting reliably without them. Good luck having that high CON or DEX if you want to take advantage of the best weapon feats AND use your powers effectively. It eventually comes down to a level of stat array optimization that most players (not most forum-goers mind you) are not going want to deal with (or in some cases, won't even realize). You shouldn't need to be a CharOp wizard just to make a different concept viable mechanically.

As it stands right now, multiclassing is the only way to really change the feel of a character, and your options there are pretty limited. Every straight-classed Paladin is pretty much the same.

Bullet Points (more in spoilers):
1) Paladins are a particularly MAD class in both 3e and 4e. That said, the problem of "stat optimization" was just as bad for using powers reliably in 3e and in 4e - the only difference is that in 3e, everyone just used magic to bridge the gap, resulting in people running around with +5 Crowns of Intellect and such foolishness.

If you feel better about relying on magic, rather than your character, to be able to fight effectively, then I have nothing to say.

Additionally, the "stat array optimization" is far from complicated in 4e. Every weapon has a stat tied to it, and for pretty much all of them, if you start out with a 12 in a stat, then you'll be able to raise it to qualify for feats as you want. This is not rocket science - try it yourself.

2) Feats like Weapon Finesse opened the doors, alright - to one-stat wonders.
Being able to make virtually all your rolls work off of a single stat is not a good idea: it encourages powergaming (buff one stat to the max, and that's all she wrote) and discourages diversity of builds (who needs Concentration when I can just use Perform?).

See #3 below to see what 4e did instead.

3) Classes are linked to certain stats, because that is how classes have always been built.
If you wanted to play a Paladin with 8 STR in 2e, that's nice, but you will suck. If you wanted to play a Divine Caster with Low Strength, you should have been a Cleric instead - they care more about Wisdom. If you don't like that, then I'm sorry, but that's how the class system works.

Honest, 3e left those rails only after WotC released a boatload of feats that allowed you to do whatever you wanted (and multiclassing!) - a fighter 2 / rogue 10/ warblade 3 / obscure prestige class 5 isn't a class, it's a blob of powers!

As a nice compromise, 4e has allowed many in-class variations through use of power selection, ability selection (Brutal v. Artful, TWF v. Archer, Implement Specialization) which, sadly, the Paladin lacks. And let's not forget the PPs, which are, I suppose "prestige classes," but they're prestige classes that are refinements of their underlying classes, not just random crap that is thrown together.

At least they are right now.

4) A straight-paladin in 3e has much less variation than a straight-paladin in 4e.

Every Paladin in 4e gets one power per level, choosing between 3-4, and those powers may either use STR or CHA, and may also be affected by WIS, or not. In addition, at level 11 every Paladin chooses 1 of 4 Paragon Paths, each of which is distinct from the others. And, at level 20, every Paladin also gets to pick an Epic Destiny - one of two, I believe, at the moment. Oh, and they can be whatever alignment their God is.

A 3e Paladin used STR to attack, CHA for his powers, and that was it. They got the same powers as every other Paladin of their level and that was it. They were all LG and followed the same code. If you wanted more variation, you had better buy splatbooks, 'cause that's it at Core.

Now, I don't know what it is you find makes a Paladin "different" but it can't be what I see.

Oh, and

Do differences that make no sense count in this argument?

Yes, because "sense" is clearly in the eye of the beholder when arguing system logic. We have people arguing about whether basically every in-game design decision makes "sense" - from feat stat requirements to healing surges.

Clearly, there cannot be a right-or-wrong answer here, and if there is, I've yet to hear it.

[nagora]

Yes, because "sense" is clearly in the eye of the beholder when arguing system logic.
I'm straining to see any possible sense in axes being connected to CON or Heavy blades to DEX. Both seem so counter-intuative as to defy sense. Perhaps this is just another problem with 4e - in which case it's on-topic!

[Crow]

Bullet Points (more in spoilers):
1) Paladins are a particularly MAD class in both 3e and 4e. That said, the problem of "stat optimization" was just as bad for using powers reliably in 3e and in 4e - the only difference is that in 3e, everyone just used magic to bridge the gap, resulting in people running around with +5 Crowns of Intellect and such foolishness.

If you feel better about relying on magic, rather than your character, to be able to fight effectively, then I have nothing to say.

Additionally, the "stat array optimization" is far from complicated in 4e. Every weapon has a stat tied to it, and for pretty much all of them, if you start out with a 12 in a stat, then you'll be able to raise it to qualify for feats as you want. This is not rocket science - try it yourself.

2) Feats like Weapon Finesse opened the doors, alright - to one-stat wonders.
Being able to make virtually all your rolls work off of a single stat is not a good idea: it encourages powergaming (buff one stat to the max, and that's all she wrote) and discourages diversity of builds (who needs Concentration when I can just use Perform?).

See #3 below to see what 4e did instead.

3) Classes are linked to certain stats, because that is how classes have always been built.
If you wanted to play a Paladin with 8 STR in 2e, that's nice, but you will suck. If you wanted to play a Divine Caster with Low Strength, you should have been a Cleric instead - they care more about Wisdom. If you don't like that, then I'm sorry, but that's how the class system works.

Honest, 3e left those rails only after WotC released a boatload of feats that allowed you to do whatever you wanted (and multiclassing!) - a fighter 2 / rogue 10/ warblade 3 / obscure prestige class 5 isn't a class, it's a blob of powers!

As a nice compromise, 4e has allowed many in-class variations through use of power selection, ability selection (Brutal v. Artful, TWF v. Archer, Implement Specialization) which, sadly, the Paladin lacks. And let's not forget the PPs, which are, I suppose "prestige classes," but they're prestige classes that are refinements of their underlying classes, not just random crap that is thrown together.

At least they are right now.

4) A straight-paladin in 3e has much less variation than a straight-paladin in 4e.

Every Paladin in 4e gets one power per level, choosing between 3-4, and those powers may either use STR or CHA, and may also be affected by WIS, or not. In addition, at level 11 every Paladin chooses 1 of 4 Paragon Paths, each of which is distinct from the others. And, at level 20, every Paladin also gets to pick an Epic Destiny - one of two, I believe, at the moment. Oh, and they can be whatever alignment their God is.

A 3e Paladin used STR to attack, CHA for his powers, and that was it. They got the same powers as every other Paladin of their level and that was it. They were all LG and followed the same code. If you wanted more variation, you had better buy splatbooks, 'cause that's it at Core.

Now, I don't know what it is you find makes a Paladin "different" but it can't be what I see.

Oh, and


Yes, because "sense" is clearly in the eye of the beholder when arguing system logic. We have people arguing about whether basically every in-game design decision makes "sense" - from feat stat requirements to healing surges.

Clearly, there cannot be a right-or-wrong answer here, and if there is, I've yet to hear it.

You seem to be very confident in your BS...here is something simple: Please build me an archery-focused straight-class Paladin. We'll call it a Paladin of Artemis or something.

[wodan46]

Seriously, as described above, in Core 3.5e, Paladins were either all the same, or were abused either multiclassing or feat combos. In fact, all classes were like that, if they weren't simply broken already once they perused their spell list.

In 4e, there 2 primary builds for the Paladin, the Defenderish build, that takes Str and Wis, and the Leaderish build that takes Cha and Wis. Since Paladins get friggin Plate Armor, Dex and Int aren't going to be important, which means that after your primary and secondary stat, you can choose between raising your other secondary stat to be more well rounded, or focus on Con to be as tough as hell.

I could build a Paladin with either Str, Wis, or Cha dumped and another only as a tertiary stat, and it would still be playable. Can the same be said for a 3.5e Core Paladin, who doesn't multiclass or take stat warping feats?

[wodan46]

Please build me an archery-focused straight-class Paladin. We'll call it a Paladin of Artemis or something.

Go Dex+Cha, get a Longbow. Get within 5 spaces to mark an enemy, then fall back and plink away at a distance.

You might want to ask yourself why you are not playing a Striker class though, rather than a Defender.

Seriously, what kind of a Paladin hides away at the back lines and leaves their weaker allies to take the brunt of an attack? They are supposed "to unflinchingly stand before an enemy's charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice". It would go against their basic character concept, especially combined with things like the Lay On Hands power and Smite both always having been Melee dependent.

Also, yay, once again you are complaining about a Class being forced to be in a specific role, whereas previously you were complaining about there not being diversity. Make up your minds.

[Crow]

Go Dex+Cha, get a Longbow. Get within 5 spaces to mark an enemy, then fall back and plink away at a distance.

Oh yes, the ranged basic attack...that'll get you through the encounters. So your solution is to spend a feat on longbow proficiency and forsake the use of a huge chunk of your powers. Genius!


You might want to ask yourself why you are not playing a Striker class though, rather than a Defender.

Good point, because all Paladins should be defenders...:smallsigh:


Seriously, what kind of a Paladin hides away at the back lines and leaves their weaker allies to take the brunt of an attack? They are supposed "to unflinchingly stand before an enemy's charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice". It would go against their basic character concept, especially combined with things like the Lay On Hands power and Smite both always having been Melee dependent.

That is your view of the Paladin. Mine may be different. That evil ability swap feat mentioned earlier is all it takes for a Paldin to be a good archer and be able to use their melee-based abilities as well.


Also, yay, once again you are complaining about a Class being forced to be in a specific role, whereas previously you were complaining about there not being diversity. Make up your minds.

Yes, being forced into a specific role eliminates diversity. You're beginning to understand.

[Kurald Galain]

If you wanted to play a Paladin with 8 STR in 2e, that's nice, but you will suck.
False. In 2E, characters are much, much less reliant on attributes than in 3E (and in 3E, they're slightly less reliant on attributes than they are in 4E).



As a nice compromise, 4e has allowed many in-class variations through use of power selection, ability selection (Brutal v. Artful, TWF v. Archer, Implement Specialization) which, sadly, the Paladin lacks.
That's not "many", that's "two per class". Don't forget that whenever you have a choice of ~four new powers when you levelup, you actually have a choice of only about two, because the others either obviously suck, or are meant for the other class build instead.

[Crow]

It is still a fun game...I don't hate it....just to clarify.

[wodan46]

Classes are generally limited to their Roles and 1 other. More significantly, some Roles (Defender, Controller) and come classes (Warlord, Warlock) are limited to either melee or ranged attacks for the most part, because of the nature of their role or class. The ability to be effective at close or long range is often vital to the nature of the class and what it does. To change that would be foolish, as that is the entire point of their design.

For example, its not that the Fighter is no longer capable of Archery and TWF so much as that it has been assigned to the Ranger instead. If you want, you could call the Ranger a Fighter, and theme its abilities that way.

Paladins can be effective ranged characters to the same extent that Wizards can be effective melee characters. Just be patient though, the Divine Striker will likely be capable of doing ranged attacks with a Paladinish theme, just as the Swordmage is an Arcane Melee expert.

[Viruzzo]

False. In 2E, characters are much, much less reliant on attributes than in 3E (and in 3E, they're slightly less reliant on attributes than they are in 4E).
Yes, in 2e attributes where more fixed and as such high scores where not required, but still 8 Str is like -1 or -2 to hit with melee weapons, compared to +3/+4 from a 18/something value will make you quite less powerful as a melee PC, which is the realistic build for paladins. And your carrying capacity would suck, which tends to be a problem for someone who wanders around in heavy armor.

@Crow
Making a paladin an archer in 3.x changes little since they have little options to begin with (as most melee in 3.x): using a bow for a full round attack doesn't give you that exceptional difference, but it's just a change in range and fluff. So what you get is making X attacks per turn with your bow, not some kind of special ability. Since in 4e the rule is "1 attack per turn", either you make only basic attacks with bows or you multiclass.

[Prophaniti]

For example, its not that the Fighter is no longer capable of Archery and TWF so much as that it has been assigned to the Ranger instead. If you want, you could call the Ranger a Fighter, and theme its abilities that way.
True, but that's all you'd be doing, CALLING it a fighter. You'd still be running a Ranger, and most of your abilities would be those of a Ranger, not a Fighter. Whether a certain build is effective at emulating another class or achetype is often irrelevant, as most groups, DM and players, will refer to your character as the class on the sheet, and any insistance to the contrary will likely be annoying at the least. Having abilities cut from classes that used to be able to access them, or having abilities that used to be available to ANYONE who wanted them become restricted to only one class is a perfectly legitimate complaint against the new system. It's undeniably true, and while it is a matter of opinion whether such changes are good or bad, if someone feels it's a bad change then it IS a bad change, at least to them. The only time this 'just call it a fighter' idea is at all relevant is if they want to keep playing anyway, and are looking for ideas to bypass these restrictive (to them) changes.

Calling a chicken a duck does not make it so, even if you teach the chicken to swim.

[Swok]

So everyone who is a fighter in your world is called a Fighter? I could have sworn there's been some oots strips pointing out how...little sense that concept makes. Especially with a concept as nebulous as "fighter," Let alone "Samurai."
My apologies if that's not what you're saying, but that's essentially what it looks like.

[Prophaniti]

I was speaking from a meta-game standpoint. Meaning when it's your turn, or the other players want something from you, they're going to say "Ranger, it's your turn." not "Fighter-who's-actually-a-Ranger, it's your turn." Most groups, anyway. Sorry for the confusion.

[Swok]

That's completely understandable then. Though I don't know of anyone who reflavors things from a meta-game standpoint...they reflavor things from the in character standpoint.

[Matthew]

Yes, in 2e attributes where more fixed and as such high scores where not required, but still 8 Str is like -1 or -2 to hit with melee weapons, compared to +3/+4 from a 18/something value will make you quite less powerful as a melee PC, which is the realistic build for paladins. And your carrying capacity would suck, which tends to be a problem for someone who wanders around in heavy armor.

There is no penalty to hit or damage for strength 8 in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (though in Basic Dungeons & Dragons it would mean a penalty of -1 to hit and -1 to damage); carrying capacity would be limited, as you indicate, but that is really a movement issue. A more serious problem is that you cannot qualify for the paladin class (or indeed fighter) with a strength of 8 (but if the game master waives that, then you are golden).

[Prophaniti]

Well, my basic point was that if their class says 'Ranger' and their sheet says 'Ranger' and their ability tree says 'The Ranger can X', then they'll likely think of their character as a Ranger. This ties into a point I made a long time ago in this thread that many players find the closer they can match the mechanics on their sheet to the concept in their head, the easier it is to keep that concept fresh and true as the game progresses.

So, not being able to make your TWF Fighter from 3.5 as a fighter in 4e (or not being able to make a character who uses shield-bash TWF at all, one of my favorite melee builds) IS a legitimate complaint about a system. If the individual feels comfortable about simply changing the in-game flavor, that's fine, but it does not, in fact, fix the original problem they had with the system.

[wodan46]

Yes, in 2e attributes where more fixed and as such high scores where not required, but still 8 Str is like -1 or -2 to hit with melee weapons, compared to +3/+4 from a 18/something value will make you quite less powerful as a melee PC, which is the realistic build for paladins. And your carrying capacity would suck, which tends to be a problem for someone who wanders around in heavy armor.

@Crow
Making a paladin an archer in 3.x changes little since they have little options to begin with (as most melee in 3.x): using a bow for a full round attack doesn't give you that exceptional difference, but it's just a change in range and fluff. So what you get is making X attacks per turn with your bow, not some kind of special ability. Since in 4e the rule is "1 attack per turn", either you make only basic attacks with bows or you multiclass.

As he points out, Paladins are able to make as many ranged attacks in 4e as they can in 3.5e, its just that they've actually been given a full suite of melee attack abilities on top of that, whereas 3.5e Paladins were limited to smiting, lay on hands, and a few spells pawned off of the cleric.

In fact, that is true for all the Martial Classes, who have actually been fleshed out to the point that changing them from melee to ranged or vice versa would disrupt the balance. It wouldn't in 3.5e, because back then all martial characters did was basic attack over and over, with maybe a few feat tricks every once and a while.

Furthermore, even with feat builds, 3.5e Fighters and the like tended to be 1 trick ponies, whereas 4e Fighters have lots of different powers on top of their defining class features.

[Kompera]

Not true. Many companies strive to fit a particular niche of their market rather than the whole of the market itself.

Sure you can claim that they're just redefining their market and then trying to appeal to the largest parts of that market but that makes statements like "Every company strives to cater to the largest portions of their market first" meaningless.
I've come to realize that you're more interested in splitting hairs and semantics and not so much interested in having a real discussion.

I'll play along. A company which strives to fit a particular niche is indeed striving to cater to the largest portion of their market. Meaningless? Preposterous. You're trying to say that any defined niche is completely catered to by any given product, and that's an impossible goal. Define it as narrowly as you like and you'll still find those who are within your market but dislike your product.


Heck, how about good monsters in the core as allies/cohorts? :smallconfused:

Sorry, I firmly believe they shouldn't have been excluded from the core books.
And you're free to believe that. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't a smart business decision for the MM to focus on the evil monsters which are more likely to be the opponents for the players. Other books will follow, bringing in more revenue. 3.x has more than a dozen books, not counting those by third party publishers. If you're expecting a complete product in 3 books you're not thinking clearly about the financial realities of game publication.

[Prophaniti]

And you're free to believe that. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't a smart business decision for the MM to focus on the evil monsters which are more likely to be the opponents for the players. Other books will follow, bringing in more revenue. 3.x has more than a dozen books, not counting those by third party publishers. If you're expecting a complete product in 3 books you're not thinking clearly about the financial realities of game publication.
But he is thinking clearly in terms of comparing 3.5 to 4, and drawing a clear and obvious conclusion from that. 3.5, even 3.0, had more good-aligned monsters in the core MM than 4e. He feels this is a bad thing, a mark against the system, and does not feel that they had adequate reason to cut these creatures out of core. This is an opinion, and debatable, but whether it was a 'smart business decision' does NOT enter into the discussion. We are talking about the merits and flaws of the current system as a whole, not about whatever financial excuses WotC had for making their decisions. Just because they had a good fiscal reason for changing or not including something does not mean they had a good game reason, nor does it lessen the blow to those who dislike the change or omission.

[Kompera]

But he is thinking clearly in terms of comparing 3.5 to 4, and drawing a clear and obvious conclusion from that. 3.5, even 3.0, had more good-aligned monsters in the core MM than 4e. He feels this is a bad thing, a mark against the system, and does not feel that they had adequate reason to cut these creatures out of core. This is an opinion, and debatable, but whether it was a 'smart business decision' does NOT enter into the discussion. We are talking about the merits and flaws of the current system as a whole, not about whatever financial excuses WotC had for making their decisions. Just because they had a good fiscal reason for changing or not including something does not mean they had a good game reason, nor does it lessen the blow to those who dislike the change or omission.I disagree that understanding the business aspect isn't a valid part of the discussion. If there were a large number of players gaming as evil players vs a good world, there would have been a much larger business incentive for WotC to include the good monsters as their foes. Unless there is a dispute about the relative ratios of good vs evil playing groups, there can be no dispute that leaving out good monsters has less of an impact than leaving out evil monsters. And again the book is of a certain page count based on business decisions, so making it larger or including more isn't an option.

[Kompera]

I'm straining to see any possible sense in axes being connected to CON or Heavy blades to DEX. Both seem so counter-intuative as to defy sense. Perhaps this is just another problem with 4e - in which case it's on-topic!
And maybe the designers strained as well, because once you decide to include a certain mechanic you have to balance it or you'll find down the road that it's too easy to game the system or min/max. They wanted to offer a connection between weapon groups and stats as a game mechanic, and then they needed to assign the weapon groups to stat matches while making sure that no stat was either over or under represented. It looks like they managed to achieve that, and since skill or finesse with a weapon can be logically attached to many different physical capabilities then it shouldn't be too much of a "strain" to just accept the ones they assigned for the group at face value and move on.

[Prophaniti]

I disagree that understanding the business aspect isn't a valid part of the discussion. If there were a large number of players gaming as evil players vs a good world, there would have been a much larger business incentive for WotC to include the good monsters as their foes. Unless there is a dispute about the relative ratios of good vs evil playing groups, there can be no dispute that leaving out good monsters has less of an impact than leaving out evil monsters. And again the book is of a certain page count based on business decisions, so making it larger or including more isn't an option.

Emphasis mine. There certainly can be dispute on that topic, regardless of whether there is debate on the other, since the degree of impact depends on the individual in question and their opinion. Remember, in the end, whether 4e is good or bad is entirely a subjective opinion, unmitigated by why they decided to make the changes that are liked or disliked. My point is that the business practices and decisions of a company do not affect ones opinion of a finished product. They may cause you to feel more or less accomadating to whatever shortcomings you percieve, but it does not change those shortcomings even a little bit.

The opinions of the majority do not negate the opinions of the minority. Just because it didn't bother most people does not mean his complaint for the shortcoming is invalid. Sure, the voices of a few will not cause WotC to suddenly say "We messed up, we're sorry", but we're discussing personal opinions and perceptions of 4e here, not it's financial success or failure. You're looking for the "Do you think 4e is catching on?" thread.

[Kompera]

Emphasis mine. There certainly can be dispute on that topic, regardless of whether there is debate on the other, since the degree of impact depends on the individual in question and their opinion.You missed my context. The impact is less because there are more people playing good groups vs an evil world. The impact to any individual or small group can be higher, but that is a localized impact not a global impact.

[Prophaniti]

You missed my context. The impact is less because there are more people playing good groups vs an evil world. The impact to any individual or small group can be higher, but that is a localized impact not a global impact.

That's exaclty my point. Why do we care about global impacts in this thread? It's about things you don't like, not things a lot of people don't like. The large-scale impacts of this edition simply have no bearing here.

[Kompera]

The opinions of the majority do not negate the opinions of the minority.
[...] Sure, the voices of a few will not cause WotC to suddenly say "We messed up, we're sorry", but we're discussing personal opinions and perceptions of 4e here, not it's financial success or failure.Exactly. Few people will care if an individual dislikes 4e because the core books excluded good monsters for them to kill. And that "few people" includes those trying to make a profitable business out of selling the game. The minority can't be catered to at the expense of the majority. Play evils all you like, that's a personal choice. But just like playing a Paladin who uses a bow, that choice is sub-optimal for getting the most out of the material which have been published to date. You have many more play options if you don't choose to limit them arbitrarily yourself. And bemoaning your (that's the generic "your", I'm not referring to you personally) limit of options once you make the choice to arbitrarily limit them is not a sympathetic position.

[Crow]

Did you just basically say you have more options if you limit your options?

[wodan46]

He's saying that if you insist on making classes act the exact opposite of what they are designed for, you will have less choices. If you you insist on playing Wizards as battle axe berserkers or playing Paladins as unarmed experts, what do you expect to happen? Diverse talent sets?

in 3.5e, you have:
1. Spellcasters that break the game easily, and are pathetic at low levels
2. Non-Spellcasters are 1 or 2 trick ponies that are pathetic at high levels
3. Non-Core stuff

in 4e Core, you have:
1. Spellcasters who have plenty of reasonable options, and are never weak
2. Non-Spellcasters who have plenty of reasonable options, and are never weak.

Put simply, 3.5e may allow more choices, but most of those choices are either insignificant or imbalanced. in 4e, the choices are somewhat less common, but more significant. Every Power choice matters, and has a significant impact on your characters behavior in combat, and every Feat helps tune your character in 1 way of another.

[Thurbane]

And you're free to believe that. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't a smart business decision for the MM to focus on the evil monsters which are more likely to be the opponents for the players. Other books will follow, bringing in more revenue. 3.x has more than a dozen books, not counting those by third party publishers. If you're expecting a complete product in 3 books you're not thinking clearly about the financial realities of game publication.
So, the marketing personnel of every other edition of D&D (that I've played, anyway) had it "wrong" by including good aligned creatures in the core books? :smallconfused:

You missed my context. The impact is less because there are more people playing good groups vs an evil world. The impact to any individual or small group can be higher, but that is a localized impact not a global impact.
This runs on the assumption that good creatures are only there as punching bags for evil PCs.

[Crow]

He's saying that if you insist on making classes act the exact opposite of what they are designed for, you will have less choices. If you you insist on playing Wizards as battle axe berserkers or playing Paladins as unarmed experts, what do you expect to happen? Diverse talent sets?

Whoa, who said they were making their wizard a battle-axe berzerker (Easily done in core 3.5), or a Paladin unarmed expert (also doable in 3.5 core, though both examples require multiclassing)? I don't see why it would be so unreasonable for a Paladin to be able to shoot arrows and remain viable without having to multiclass.


in 3.5e, you have:
1. Spellcasters that break the game easily, and are pathetic at low levels
2. Non-Spellcasters are 1 or 2 trick ponies that are pathetic at high levels
3. Non-Core stuff

Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


in 4e Core, you have:
1. Spellcasters who have plenty of reasonable options, and are never weak
2. Non-Spellcasters who have plenty of reasonable options, and are never weak.

Unless they don't have their +X sword or implement, in which case they're next to unplayable at higher levels. :smallwink:

[Starsinger]

Whoa, who said they were making their wizard a battle-axe berzerker (Easily done in core 3.5), or a Paladin unarmed expert (also doable in 3.5 core, though both examples require multiclassing)? I don't see why it would be so unreasonable for a Paladin to be able to shoot arrows and remain viable without having to multiclass. Because generally to do so you have to dumpster dive through a mountain of splat books to find the loophole which lets paladins smite with ranged weapons (other wise it's about the same as just doing basic ranged attacks in 4th, which was a complaint raised by, I believe, you.)





Unless they don't have their +X sword or implement, in which case they're next to unplayable at higher levels. :smallwink:

Like a 3.5 character without magic items? Or presumably without magic items or access to the "Magic Weapon" line of spells. Having a spell that lets you do without magic weapons is a bit cheeky if the goal is "without your magic weapon".

[Crow]

Because generally to do so you have to dumpster dive through a mountain of splat books to find the loophole which lets paladins smite with ranged weapons (other wise it's about the same as just doing basic ranged attacks in 4th, which was a complaint raised by, I believe, you.)

A ranged paladin isn't completely useless in melee by default. One core feat is all it takes. Smite wasn't an ability that the Paladin relied upon, because he really couldn't do it that often, especially at lower levels. It's perfectly reasonable to have options other than Smite Evil.

The problem with relying on the basic attack in 4e is that it is not the norm. Powers are the norm in 4e. If you aren't using your powers, you are not a viable character. In 3.5, the "basic attack" was the norm, along with it's friend the full attack. "Basic attack" and full-attack wasn't viable in 3.5 only when compared to that system's horribly broken magic system.


Like a 3.5 character without magic items? Or presumably without magic items or access to the "Magic Weapon" line of spells. Having a spell that lets you do without magic weapons is a bit cheeky if the goal is "without your magic weapon".

Why yes, exactly like I said about 3.5 earlier. Obviously I am a 3.5 fanboy and that sytem can do no wrong. Every statement that I type is an attack against 4th Edition because I am so in love with 3.5...

[OneFamiliarFace]

Shouldn't all of us pro-4ers leave people to their dislike thread? There is a "what don't you like about 3.x" thread just across the way. I can see it through the window! Right over there!

Then we can all be happy being unhappy together, just like the gods intended.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Shouldn't all of us pro-4ers leave people to their dislike thread? There is a "what don't you like about 3.x" thread just across the way. I can see it through the window! Right over there!

Then we can all be happy being unhappy together, just like the gods intended.

But then both threads will die from lack of conflict!

...

I see your point. :smalltongue:

[Kompera]

Did you just basically say you have more options if you limit your options?
Not at all. I said "You have many more play options if you don't choose to limit them arbitrarily yourself." How was that hard to understand?

[Knaight]

Why yes, exactly like I said about 3.5 earlier. Obviously I am a 3.5 fanboy and that sytem can do no wrong. Every statement that I type is an attack against 4th Edition because I am so in love with 3.5...

Of course the CR system was such a crapshoot anyways that it didn't help much, although it was nice as a general guideline to pick monsters. Same thing with the experience thing in fourth edition, your going to have to modify that depending on player tactics. Again, nice to have, but easy enough to toss. Fourth edition made a few steps forward, although it would have been so freaking easy to finish the job. That and there is the whole magic item threshold on monster crap.

[Pirate_King]

I've been mostly using this spot as a place to vent my problems with 4e, not so much to bash it as a system. Nothings perfect, I liked it. I just didn't like some things. There's my disclaimer, I'm not a hater of 4e, so I'm not flip-flopping on my previous complaints or anything.

Okay, the complaint that tires me most is the magic item dependence thing. That's the same as 3.5. CR took into account what kinds of magic items a party would have at that level. It's the same here. It's always been up to the DM's judgment of what the party was capable of handling with their resources. Magic items are just as optional as they've ever been, and those who like to run games without as many pluses can do some tweaking. Personally, I think shiny magic things sprinkled in the loot are a fun part of the game, and everyone has more fun when they get to add more cool stuff to their character, and in a world full of magical beasts it makes perfect sense to rely somewhat on magical weapons. If you're going to keep magic items out of your characters hands, you can keep hordes of magic monster out of their hair, or you can do a little homebrewing to make them easier to handle. I'm going to stick with my items, they're an extension of my fun and easy to keep track of powers.

[Crow]

Not at all. I said "You have many more play options if you don't choose to limit them arbitrarily yourself." How was that hard to understand?

I missed the "don't" in there. That's why I phrased my post as a question. Because it didn't sound right.

[Crow]

I've been mostly using this spot as a place to vent my problems with 4e, not so much to bash it as a system. Nothings perfect, I liked it. I just didn't like some things. There's my disclaimer, I'm not a hater of 4e, so I'm not flip-flopping on my previous complaints or anything.

Okay, the complaint that tires me most is the magic item dependence thing. That's the same as 3.5. CR took into account what kinds of magic items a party would have at that level. It's the same here. It's always been up to the DM's judgment of what the party was capable of handling with their resources. Magic items are just as optional as they've ever been, and those who like to run games without as many pluses can do some tweaking. Personally, I think shiny magic things sprinkled in the loot are a fun part of the game, and everyone has more fun when they get to add more cool stuff to their character, and in a world full of magical beasts it makes perfect sense to rely somewhat on magical weapons. If you're going to keep magic items out of your characters hands, you can keep hordes of magic monster out of their hair, or you can do a little homebrewing to make them easier to handle. I'm going to stick with my items, they're an extension of my fun and easy to keep track of powers.

It's not that people want to keep magic items out of their players' hands, but that their characters are hopelessly crippled without them. A lot of people really like magic items and there is nothing wrong with that. But some people (even ones that like magic items) would still like to think that their character can still do something without them. Tailoring encounters doesn't fix the problem, as there are many in-game reasons why the players could possibly be separated from their goodies. Maybe an encounter overpowered them and they were captured? I hope the captors locked their gear in the next cell...

3.5 had this problem. 4e has this problem.

The suggested (homebrew) fix has been to just apply "magic threshhold" to your players' characters...or variants of it. But being able to homebrew the problem away doesn't mean the problem didn't exist to begin with.

[Pirate_King]

How does tailoring not work? I've had a handful of adventures that involve our characters getting separated from their items, they've been among the more interesting. What is a magic weapon more than a bit easier to hit with and a cool power once a day? (or more often than that, in 3.5...) In other situations, it actually makes sense for a character to be powerless without a magic weapon, such as a low-mid-level adventure vs. lycanthropes. Not going to do much without silver. I guess it's just that my groups run games differently, but I've never felt totally dependent on magic items unless that particular adventure called for a dependency on a certain substance or object.

[Crow]

How does tailoring not work? I've had a handful of adventures that involve our characters getting separated from their items, they've been among the more interesting. What is a magic weapon more than a bit easier to hit with and a cool power once a day? (or more often than that, in 3.5...) In other situations, it actually makes sense for a character to be powerless without a magic weapon, such as a low-mid-level adventure vs. lycanthropes. Not going to do much without silver. I guess it's just that my groups run games differently, but I've never felt totally dependent on magic items unless that particular adventure called for a dependency on a certain substance or object.

The magic item thing is way more noticable at high levels than low ones. At epic, a character without their +6 implement is 12 character levels lower for to-hit purposes. That's 30% of your powers in the can. Hitting anything just got a helluva lot harder. The reason tailoring doesn't always work is because it only modifies the initial state of the encounter. For example:

Your group gets overpowered by a level-appropriate challenge and gets captured by cannibals. Instead of just killing the characters, you want to give them a second chance, so the cannibals don't let the characters die because they want them to be fresh by the time they march them back to their village. The group wants to escape before they get back to the village because they know they won't be able to fight an entire village of cannibals.

So now, without their magic gear, even assuming they come up with normal weapons somehow, the players are going to have to overpower their guard, and if they wake up the other cannibals that captured them in the process of doing so, overpower them also. It's the same level-appropriate encounter as before, except the players are the equivelant of 2 levels lower than they were when they first encountered the cannibals in the case of +1 weapons and implements. If these are high-level cannibals, the group could effectively be 12 levels lower for to-hit purposes (in the case of +6 weapons and implements).

While the +1 situation could be done, and would certainly be tense and exciting, the +6 situation would be pretty much hopeless unless you arbitrarily lower all the stats of the cannibals.

And like I said, 3.5 had this problem too. The only non-homebrew fix was more magic items, or stat-booster spells for those who had them.

[nagora]

And maybe the designers strained as well, because once you decide to include a certain mechanic you have to balance it or you'll find down the road that it's too easy to game the system or min/max. They wanted to offer a connection between weapon groups and stats as a game mechanic, and then they needed to assign the weapon groups to stat matches while making sure that no stat was either over or under represented. It looks like they managed to achieve that, and since skill or finesse with a weapon can be logically attached to many different physical capabilities then it shouldn't be too much of a "strain" to just accept the ones they assigned for the group at face value and move on.

All of which shows the pointlessness of sacrificing everything in the name of a type of balance where all characters are the same with different paint jobs. Connecting axes to CON is plain dumb.

The balance in 4e is achieved by applying illogical and arbitrary rules that make no sense in-character. We see this in minions, encounter levels, powers, weapons - across the board. It's like some awful computer game or something.

Press "X" to activate your special move; all special moves cause 3d8 damage but with different graphics.

[Covered In Bees]

All of which shows the pointlessness of sacrificing everything in the name of a type of balance where all characters are the same with different paint jobs. Connecting axes to CON is plain dumb.

The balance in 4e is achieved by applying illogical and arbitrary rules that make no sense in-character. We see this in minions, encounter levels, powers, weapons - across the board. It's like some awful computer game or something.
Connecting axes to CON is dumb? Big, tough axemen somehow don't fit? Funny. Most of the axe-using Fighters I saw in 3E were... dwarves. With a high Constitution.

The rules are not arbitrary. They exist for some pretty specific purposes. "Encounter levels" exist to tell you what *is* a challenging but not overwhelming encounter... because cakewalks aren't fun, and neither is running into a big monster that eats you all. You can still do that, but for once the system helps you *avoid* that if you don't want it. Minions exist in order to provide easy-to-dispatch opponents who can still hurt you, because that sort of thing is very much in-genre (do you want me to point you at fantasy that has "minions"? Really?). Powers are just another way of representing doing stuff in combat, and are a lot more interesting and play out a lot more tactically than attack rolls. D&D combat is already so very abstract that they're no more or less illogical than anything else (2E's one-minute combat round in which you couldn't possibly shoot a bow more than twice, anyone?).


Press "X" to activate your special move; all special moves cause 3d8 damage but with different graphics.
Wow! "It's like a video game!" I've never heard that before!

Meanwhile, in 1E, you get to... ATTACK.

Push a button to attack. Push it again to attack again! It's okay for the game to not be a fun game, because you can use your imagination! Wait, why do we have this game, again?

If 4E is the modern Ninja Gaiden, 1E is... what, Galaga?



I will never understand people who think the rules should be some kind of accurate world simulator. Not even Gygax thought that. Hey, how about those level caps on nonhumanoids? What do those represent, again, besides arbitrary "balance" restrictions?

[Charity]

Golden axe.

[Viruzzo]

The magic item thing is way more noticable at high levels than low ones. At epic, a character without their +6 implement is 12 character levels lower for to-hit purposes. That's 30% of your powers in the can. Hitting anything just got a helluva lot harder.
The problem with "+X to hit" bonuses has, as you said, always been present in D&D.
The reason is simple: PCs are expected to hit with about a certain probability. If you include the (say, weapon) bonus in the calculation, a PC without it will hit much less often than expected. If you don't, a PC with that bonus will hit much more often than expected.
Since most of the time the PCs will be using their +X weapons, it makes sense to expect the encounters to be balanced with those weapons, but obviously if they lose them they will be weaker. It's inherent in the system's choices.
IMO there is no perfect solution, still changing the +X into a passive bonus as suggested in the other thread is probably a good way to decrease item dependancy.

On the "no good monsters in MM" subject:
1) the choice the devs made is not "remove good monsters", but "remove good monsters and put in more non-good ones". Since non-good monsters will be used far more than the good ones, I can understand this choice.
2) as already said, 4e puts an accent on non-evil groups, of which point (1) is a direct consequence.
3) again and gain I'll repeat this: 4e's unaligned is not neutral something. 4e MM has more unaligned creatures, because that alignment now includes more stuff (see unicorn). So there are no good creatures also because there will be less in general, or they fall into the "any" category (see angels).
4) 4e focused a lot on trying to remove the "stupid" monsters from the game, and IMO the good ones were amongs the worst in this case.
5) the change in the setting removed many outsiders, and with that at least 2 good creature categories (Eladrins, Archons), and changing Angels to "any" alignment.

[Kompera]

All of which shows the pointlessness of sacrificing everything in the name of a type of balance where all characters are the same with different paint jobs.No, it does not show this, and no, they are not.


Connecting axes to CON is plain dumb.
It's all fine and good to state that, and you may believe it if you wish. But would you mind explaining to this poor ignoramus just why you hold this belief? And perhaps you'll be kind enough to also provide any credentials which would lend any kind of weight to your opinion other than that it's your opinion which you are free to hold?

I've done a little bit of Markland fighting, and some recreation play, and a tiny bit of SCA fighting. Wielding an axe doesn't seem to be horribly out of line with a high CON for the endurance to keep hacking away. And many swords do require a good bit of wrist work to use properly, so DEX isn't inappropriate there, either. I do think that a fair argument can be made for almost any weapon group and stat combination, but I will admit to a fleeting amount of curiosity as to why you think the way the designers choose to do it is so awful.


Press "X" to activate your special move; all special moves cause 3d8 damage but with different graphics.
I begin to become convinced that you are bashing a game that you not only have never played, but haven't even read a few pages of the rules. If you had, you would not be making such obviously false statements such as the above.

[Morty]

Minions exist in order to provide easy-to-dispatch opponents who can still hurt you, because that sort of thing is very much in-genre (do you want me to point you at fantasy that has "minions"? Really?)

And as we know, if something is in-genre, disliking it is stupid and illogical. It's not like someone can like fantasy but deem one of its typical elements as stupid, after all.


1) the choice the devs made is not "remove good monsters", but "remove good monsters and put in more non-good ones". Since non-good monsters will be used far more than the good ones, I can understand this choice.

Fine, except this "good monsters are used less often" argument is rubbish. Alright, so you fight evil and neutral ones more often. Is this a good enough reason to completely remove good ones, especially since there are a lot of occasions to use them?


2) as already said, 4e puts an accent on non-evil groups, of which point (1) is a direct consequence.

Which is yet another thing 4ed does badly.


3) again and gain I'll repeat this: 4e's unaligned is not neutral something. 4e MM has more unaligned creatures, because that alignment now includes more stuff (see unicorn). So there are no good creatures also because there will be less in general, or they fall into the "any" category (see angels).

It would work if there weren't boatloads of creatures with "evil" alignment, some of them being sentient humanoids. Which means there are hordes of purely evil, bloodthirsty maniacs with noone to counter them.


4) 4e focused a lot on trying to remove the "stupid" monsters from the game, and IMO the good ones were amongs the worst in this case.

So instead of making Good monsters non-stupid, although I sincerely don't know what's so stupid about them in the first place, they remove them.



5) the change in the setting removed many outsiders, and with that at least 2 good creature categories (Eladrins, Archons), and changing Angels to "any" alignment.

And what's the trouble in making up new ones?
But then, I'm probably just a tasteless hack who doesn't see the true glory of 4th edition and the ultimate suckage of 3th.:smallsigh:

[OneFamiliarFace]

Golden axe.

Greatest. Arcade game. Ever. Period.

(Sunset Riders pulls a close second.)

[Matthew]

Golden axe.

Wicked game. My mate downloaded it for his Wii, it still kicks our ass even on easy mode. "Death Adder killed my brother!"

[OneFamiliarFace]

Wicked game. My mate downloaded it for his Wii, it still kicks our ass even on easy mode. "Death Adder killed my brother!"

Wait, you can dl Golden Axe for Wii?!?! Holy crap! Hmm...now I just need a wii. And a television. And money.

Here's what I don't like about 4e: I spent $75 on the books that could have been going towards my sweet new Wii and playing Golden Axe!

[Charity]

Wicked game. My mate downloaded it for his Wii, it still kicks our ass even on easy mode. "Death Adder killed my brother!"

Bah, I still have it for my Megadrive... and you call youself old skool :smallbiggrin:
Do you argue about who gets to be the dwarf? we always did...

Greatest. Arcade game. Ever. Period.

(Sunset Riders pulls a close second.)

I was very fond of Mr Wardner (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/693737/arcade_game_review_wardner_taito_1987.html), and Black dragon (http://www.arcade-history.com/?n=black-dragon&page=detail&id=262)... which reminds me of the classic and available, Double dragon (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/741785/review_of_double_dragon_on_the_wii.html?cat=19) lead pipe ..to the face.
Trip down memory lane.
1942 (http://www.arcade-history.com/?n=1942&page=detail&id=6)
centepede (http://www.arcade-history.com/?n=centipede&page=detail&id=427)
Defender (http://www.arcade-history.com/?n=defender&page=detail&id=614)
The mental Missile command (http://www.arcade-history.com/?n=missile-command&page=detail&id=1644)
flicky (http://www.arcade-history.com/?n=flicky&page=detail&id=862)
Altered beast (http://www.arcade-history.com/?n=altered-beast&page=detail&id=2348)
Arkanoid (http://www.arcade-history.com/?n=arkanoid&page=detail&id=106)
Boot hill (http://www.arcade-history.com/?n=boot-hill&page=detail&id=317)
Ghosts'n goblins (http://www.arcade-history.com/?n=ghosts'n-goblins&page=detail&id=950)
... ok I'll quit

[Jayabalard]

Bah, I still have it for my Megadrive... and you call youself old skool :smallbiggrin:You don't have it for Master System... and you call youself old skool :smallbiggrin:


The rules are not arbitrary. From a meta-game persepetive they aren't arbitrary. From any other perspective they look pretty arbitrary.


because cakewalks aren't fun, and neither is running into a big monster that eats you all.That's your preference; putting your personal preference in italics does not make it some sort of universal truth.

I've known plenty of people who like cakewalks; they often put on god mode, or other cheat codes when they play through video games. They play games through on easy mode rather than normal or hard. They play racing games with all of the driving assists on instead of having to learn how to actually shift, brake, and corner.

Likewise, all the people who enjoy playing Cthulhu enjoy playing a game where a big monster eats everyone. For the most part, so do people who play games like Paranoia.


If 4E is the modern Ninja Gaiden, 1E is... what, Galaga?Galaga is a better game; as is Ms Pac-Man, which was often bundled with it in the arcade.


Hey, how about those level caps on nonhumanoids? What do those represent, again, besides arbitrary "balance" restrictions?It's the other way around. Everyone had level caps except for humans. That represented the fact that humans were were the race that could continue to grow and advance more than any other race. It's part of the explanation of why humans were winning in the "survival of the fittest" contest and gradually pushing all of the other races out (a common theme in high fantasy).

[wodan46]

in 3.5e, you have:
1. Spellcasters that break the game easily, and are pathetic at low levels
2. Non-Spellcasters are 1 or 2 trick ponies that are pathetic at high levels
3. Non-Core stuff

in 4e Core, you have:
1. Spellcasters who have plenty of reasonable options, and are never weak
2. Non-Spellcasters who have plenty of reasonable options, and are never weak.



Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


It has EVERYTHING to do with what we are talking about. You complained that 4e lacks diversity, and I showed that 3.5e has far less diversity. 4e doesn't have as many choices, but those choices are meaningful, rather than choosing between 1 trick pony fighter and his feat combo, or uber-broken the spellcaster.

I fail to see how a 4e 10th level fighter who has 2 At-Wills, 3 Encounters, 3 Dailies, 3 Utilities, in ADDITION to basic attacks, bull rushes, other basic combat maneuvers, and 6 feats, complete with feats that boost specific weapons, is somehow less diverse than a 3.5e 10th level fighter, who is basically limited to hit things.

[Viruzzo]

Fine, except this "good monsters are used less often" argument is rubbish.
Why? It's true for a lot of groups, and probably much more so for beginners. It's definitely true for me.


Is this a good enough reason to completely remove good ones, especially since there are a lot of occasions to use them?
Since "good enough" is a matter of tastes, it depends. For you evidently is not. For me, monster alignment means little to begin with, so I don't care much.


Which is yet another thing 4ed does badly.
How so?


It would work if there weren't boatloads of creatures with "evil" alignment, some of them being sentient humanoids.
Your point being? It's always been this way, sentient monsters are usually evil, else they'll be PC races. It's the way D&D fares, it's also said somewhere in the DMG that it doesn't make sense that there are so many dangerous and evil creatures in the world but it has been done that way to achieve a more interesting game world.


Which means there are hordes of purely evil, bloodthirsty maniacs with noone to counter them.
Evil is fought by evil, unaligned and good creatures. There have never been enough good creatures in MMs to "counter" the sheer number of evil ones.


But then, I'm probably just a tasteless hack who doesn't see the true glory of 4th edition and the ultimate suckage of 3th.:smallsigh:
Playing the victim? No one accused you of that, but you seem to be antagonistic to the system.
If you don't like 4e there is no problem, but saying e.g. that minions or the absence of good monsters in the MM are "stupid" design decisions is not really fair, since it's a matter of tastes.


[...] a 3.5e 10th level fighter, who is basically limited to hit things.
But one more level and he can hit things 3 times each turn! With a cumulative -5, but hey that's an awesome power!

[Starsinger]

Why yes, exactly like I said about 3.5 earlier. Obviously I am a 3.5 fanboy and that sytem can do no wrong. Every statement that I type is an attack against 4th Edition because I am so in love with 3.5...

These words that you put in my mouth taste pretty... foul.

[Morty]

Why? It's true for a lot of groups, and probably much more so for beginners. It's definitely true for me.

Yet the possibility of fighting good monsters is there, not to mention that not everything players meet, they kill. Now, you might argue that what players don't fight doesn't need stats, but this point is moot as there are simply no good monsters.


Since "good enough" is a matter of tastes, it depends. For you evidently is not. For me, monster alignment means little to begin with, so I don't care much.

Although its relevance has been lessened, alignment is still part of the system. Which means that there are many creatures that are simply and plainly evil. It's not a problem when we talk about demons, but it becomes one where there are no good entities to balance them out, as the world loses belivability.


How so?

Because it restricts player options. Some people would want to play evil characters, but 4ed not only actively discourages them from doing so, but actually makes it harder.


Your point being? It's always been this way, sentient monsters are usually evil, else they'll be PC races. It's the way D&D fares, it's also said somewhere in the DMG that it doesn't make sense that there are so many dangerous and evil creatures in the world but it has been done that way to achieve a more interesting game world.

Don't you think that "it's always been that way" argument sounds a bit strange next to "3ed sucks and it's good that 4ed kills sacred cows"? Because for me, "always chaotic evil" trope is a sacred cow that should've died long ago. As for the second point, I don't know about you, but a belivable world is very important to me in RPGs. And world in 4ed isn't belivable. 3ed world wasn't really belivable, but this in 4ed simply falls apart.


Evil is fought by evil, unaligned and good creatures. There have never been enough good creatures in MMs to "counter" the sheer number of evil ones.

Weren't there? For demons and devils, we had various types of celestials. For orcs and goblinoids, we had elves and dwarves. Now evil humanoids fight civilized ones, but there are no counterpart to the supernatural evil of demons and devils. Who are going to stop them if they want to break havoc on the rest of the universe? Gods? There are several evil gods who would rather side with them. PCs? PCs are special and rare, might die before they reach high level and they might become evil themselves.


Playing the victim? No one accused you of that, but you seem to be antagonistic to the system.

Thank you for proving my point so beautifully. I don't see how disliking the system makes you somehow "antagonistic" to it.


If you don't like 4e there is no problem, but saying e.g. that minions or the absence of good monsters in the MM are "stupid" design decisions is not really fair, since it's a matter of tastes.

Tell that to all those who say those are "good" design decisions. Why are they entitled to their opinions, but others aren't? Too many times have I seen "it's all a matter of taste" as convoluted "shut up" to the critics.

[Prophaniti]

Connecting axes to CON is dumb? Big, tough axemen somehow don't fit? Funny. Most of the axe-using Fighters I saw in 3E were... dwarves. With a high Constitution.Tying different weapons to different stats seems to me like a move guaranteed to cause debate, as no matter what stat they choose for a given weapon, someone will disagree. That's why I prefer all weapons use the same stat or two (ex: STR for melee, DEX for ranged or weapon finesse) it's just easier and eliminates potential arguments. Even better is to have actual stats for it, WS and BS a la WFRP, but I'll not suggest D&D ever do that. They've always had the same stats, and it just wouldn't be D&D if they changed that.


The rules are not arbitrary. They exist for some pretty specific purposes. I believe you have a confused definition of arbitrary. If something has a purpose, that doesn't mean it's not arbitrary. I would say that many of the rules changes in 4e certainly qualify as 'capricious' or 'unsupported', (per the actual definition of arbitrary) especially from an in-game perspective. Now maybe you don't care about in-game perspective, and that's fine, but it does not change the way the rules keep slapping my immersion across the face just so the game can be 'balanced'.


"Encounter levels" exist to tell you what *is* a challenging but not overwhelming encounter... because cakewalks aren't fun, and neither is running into a big monster that eats you all. You can still do that, but for once the system helps you *avoid* that if you don't want it.That's actually one of the redeeming qualities I've seen in 4e. I have enough experience as a DM to balance encounters fairly well on my own, but my memory of the begining days when I didn't know what I was doing are still fresh, and I appreciate the ease of encounter-building in 4e.


Minions exist in order to provide easy-to-dispatch opponents who can still hurt you, because that sort of thing is very much in-genre (do you want me to point you at fantasy that has "minions"? Really?).Yes, because every D&D game contains all the classic fantasy tropes and idioms. So, every game you actually rescue a princess from a tower guarded by a dragon? Does every game have a clear Dark Overlord who you must defeat? How bloody boring for you. Sure, minions are a decent rule for those who choose to keep such fantasy tropes in their games, again assisting the DM in creating challenging encounters. Me, I prefer the setting to be more believable and realistic, where horned devils don't fall over when I sneeze just because I leveled up last week, and rules are considered from both meta- and in-game perspectives before being implemented. Both are equally important to me, and I find my compromise between (unreachable) true simulation and (undesirable) pure gaming. 4e is undeniably designed entirely for a pure gaming stance.


Powers are just another way of representing doing stuff in combat, and are a lot more interesting and play out a lot more tactically than attack rolls. D&D combat is already so very abstract that they're no more or less illogical than anything else (2E's one-minute combat round in which you couldn't possibly shoot a bow more than twice, anyone?).Powers are just like minions in this regard. A fine mechanic if all I wanted was a game. I don't. What, you think I wouldn't complain or house-rule a change if they had anything like the 2e, 2 shots, 2-minute round problem? Just because a previous edition had a grevious error that no one ever officially fixed (despite most groups doing the afore-mentioned house-ruling) doesn't mitigate the problems anyone has with the current edition in the slightest.

[tumble check]

I fail to see how a 4e 10th level fighter who has 2 At-Wills, 3 Encounters, 3 Dailies, 3 Utilities, in ADDITION to basic attacks, bull rushes, other basic combat maneuvers, and 6 feats, complete with feats that boost specific weapons, is somehow less diverse than a 3.5e 10th level fighter, who is basically limited to hit things.

Again, there is always a chasm in assumed terminology between they "two sides" of most of these discussions.

4e folks always talk about gameplay, the character in action.
3e folks always talk about character creation options.

It's true that the 10th level 3.5 Fighter is "limited to hit things"(for the argument's sake, I won't talk much about the fact that he can trip things, sunder things, spring attack, etc, whenever he wants. and whether those tactics are useful is a different discussion, he could still do them), but the 4e fighter is severely limited to that with which he can hit it. I can make a 3.5 fighter that uses bows, thrown weapons, or his fists, and he can still remain useful (within the bounds of the system itself. Talk of the unbounded magic system is a different discussion.) I could make a DEX-based fighter, and accordingly a heavily armored one or a lightly armored one. He could fighter with 1 weapon or two.

I know that 3.x basically spoiled us into making stupidly diversified characters, and many people didn't like it, but it's a still a fundamental basis of the discussion.

I'm not against alot of the 4e design decisions of the Fighter, I'm just trying to keep this discussion in the scope of "character building options vs. character action options", because it often boils down to that.

[Jayabalard]

You complained that 4e lacks diversity, and I showed that 3.5e has far less diversity. You've shown that, for you, 3.5e has less diversity becaues you choose not to use all of the options that 3.5e gives you. Sure, these people play characters that you find find gimp or broken, but they enjoy it, and there's nothing wrong with that.


4e doesn't have as many choices, but those choices are meaningfuDifferent people have different values of "meaningful"

For many people, 3e offered much more diversity; when they say that 3.5e has more options and 4e has less, they aren't wrong, they just have different values of meaningful.

[Spiryt]

Axes are now tied to CON? Like, all normal axes now use CON modifier to hit and dmaage ?

[Charity]

No
Axes use STR to hit, certain powers add CON to dam in addition to STR and certain axe feats require CON prerequisites (in addition to STR)
This seems innocuous to me though like so many aspects of 4e it is a big deal to some.

[Spiryt]

No
Axes use STR to hit, certain powers add CON to dam in addition to STR and certain axe feats require CON prerequisites (in addition to STR)
This seems innocuous to me though like so many aspects of 4e it is a big deal to some.

I don't know if it's innocuous, but it seems logical and intersting idea to me.

Although it's a bit weird if it's "axe only ". Even though fight with two handed axe certainly require fierce, exhausting attacks, really the same thing could be said about large two handed sword. Or everything, for that matter.

Although general idea seems good, one of things I actually like in 4ed.

[Jayabalard]

Your point being? It's always been this way, sentient monsters are usually evil, else they'll be PC races. There have been plenty of sentient races that aren't "usually evil" in the various editions of D&D. This is especially true of older editions (1e AD&D and earlier) where the number of PC races was lower, and there weren't really any "play as a monster" rules.

[wodan46]

Again, there is always a chasm in assumed terminology between they "two sides" of most of these discussions.

4e folks always talk about gameplay, the character in action.
3e folks always talk about character creation options.


That is pretty close to my point. For non-spellcasters, while 3e may have more options available for building characters, 4e has more options available for the actual character, when actually playing them.

Hence, those who look at the 4e character creation system will generally say it sucks, whereas those who actually play it discover that 4e plays more colorfully then 3e.

Spellcasters still have plenty of options too, but don't have a Batman Utility Belt anymore. Which is good.

[Prophaniti]

I fail to see how a 4e 10th level fighter who has 2 At-Wills, 3 Encounters, 3 Dailies, 3 Utilities, in ADDITION to basic attacks, bull rushes, other basic combat maneuvers, and 6 feats, complete with feats that boost specific weapons, is somehow less diverse than a 3.5e 10th level fighter, who is basically limited to hit things.
And what, pray tell, do these most diverse and exceedingly unique powers do? Do they *gasp* hit things (with pre-written flavor text)? Shocking.
Sarcasm aside, I think tumble check hit it on the head. 4e proponents speak almost entirely of gameplay options while those opposed speak almost entirely of character creation options. Wouldn't it have been nice if WotC had actually put some effort into fixing 3.5, instead of axing it entirely? Imagine, we could have a game where fighters have countless creation options as well as fun abilities for those gamers who cry because their melee characters don't have a spell powers list to pick from. But, of course, if it's broken, it must be discarded entirely rather than fixed.

[The New Bruceski]

I don't know if it's innocuous, but it seems logical and intersting idea to me.

Although it's a bit weird if it's "axe only ". Even though fight with two handed axe certainly require fierce, exhausting attacks, really the same thing could be said about large two handed sword. Or everything, for that matter.

Although general idea seems good, one of things I actually like in 4ed.

Essentially some powers have weapon specialization added in (not as in the old feat). They do stuff and if you're wielding the right weapon they do it better (some powers can't be used at all without the right weapon, though not as much as, say, rogue). Weapons tend to be in groups; for example, Crushing Blow hits with anything, but if wielding an axe, a hammer or a mace it adds con modifier to damage as well. Dance of Steel is the same base attack (2[w]+str) but if using a polearm or a heavy blade the target is slowed.

For fighters level 3/13/23 encounter powers have this idea, where the weapon you're using (and sometimes ability scores) tweak the powers. It's their equivalent of other classes' "spec trees". Add in feats that do special things based on weapons (such as letting you get AoOs at reach 2 with a polearm, but at the cost of being more vulnerable when you do so) and it goes a ways towards flavoring fighters and influencing their secondary stats (though Strength is still primary).

EDIT: VVVV Polearms have... I think one thing that uses Wisdom. I believe a reason for this is because every polearm also qualifies as another type of weapon, so they didn't want to flood specialization options for those few weapons.

[Charity]

I don't know if it's innocuous, but it seems logical and intersting idea to me.

Although it's a bit weird if it's "axe only ". Even though fight with two handed axe certainly require fierce, exhausting attacks, really the same thing could be said about large two handed sword. Or everything, for that matter.

Although general idea seems good, one of things I actually like in 4ed.

Con is also useful for Hammers
Dex is useful for spears, light blades and heavy blades
Wis is useful for polearms... although dex seems to be needed as well
Essentially they are trying to encourage some stat spreading as far as I can see.
It does mean that one has to be a bit carefull not to miss out on some very good paragon teir feats by missing the stat requirements.

Ak I'm being drawn in to this pointless merry-go-round again


Wouldn't it have been nice if WotC had actually put some effort into fixing 3.5, instead of axing it entirely? Imagine, we could have a game where fighters have countless creation options as well as fun abilities for those gamers who cry because their melee characters don't have a spell powers list to pick from. But, of course, if it's broken, it must be discarded entirely rather than fixed.

They tried to fix 3.0, it was called 3.5 sometimes a radical change is required.

[Spiryt]

Con is also useful for Hammers
Dex is useful for spears, light blades and heavy blades
Wis is useful for polearms... although dex seems to be needed as well
Essentially they are trying to encourage some stat spreading as far as I can see.
It does mean that one has to be a bit carefull not to miss out on some very good paragon teir feats by missing the stat requirements.



Ah, then I must *raise thumb up * about that thing. Those choices although not perfect (cannot be in such game) are much more fun and logical than idiotic weapon finesse in 3.5.

Even though it's again no love for Intelligent fighters...

[The New Bruceski]

Wouldn't it have been nice if WotC had actually put some effort into fixing 3.5, instead of axing it entirely? Imagine, we could have a game where fighters have countless creation options as well as fun abilities for those gamers who cry because their melee characters don't have a spell powers list to pick from. But, of course, if it's broken, it must be discarded entirely rather than fixed.

If it's just some 'quirks' fixed instead of a new rewritten system, I'd expect it to be called 3.6, but that may just be from my computer-based immersion. When XP Service Pack 2 came out they didn't call it Vista and throw it on store shelves (insert Vista joke here). I see major edition updates as the places where designers are >supposed< to slaughter the sacred cows and see if they were actually needed (ideally you find out and put them back in before release, if they are).

[Charity]

Ah, then I must *raise thumb up * about that thing. Those choices although not perfect (cannot be in such game) are much more fun and logical than idiotic weapon finesse in 3.5.

Even though it's again no love for Intelligent fighters...

I think the warlord will give you your intelligent fighter jollies, the rules compendium is up at the WotC site under the D&D insider, a couple of open phrased searches will give you a good understanding of the rules I reckon.

[Telok]

What I dislike about 4e is that is makes serious compromises and breaks with previous editions in the name of balance, simplicity, and mediocrity.

In 4e the classes have been assigned roles to play and those roles are protected by which powers the classes can take. However that protection also limits the classes to those roles. In 4e you cannot play an archer, you can play a ranger, but not a straight up archer type. A ranger will have abilities and skills that an archer may have no reason to possess, nature knowledge and hunter marks are not inherent to archery. Likewise a fighter who multiclasses ranger is not an archer, he is a fighter with a minor ability with a bow. Giving the classes roles has simplified the game by limiting the players.

By making all power of a given level equal in power and making everyone use the same numbers, styles, and recovery methods for those powers 4e has enforced balance on the classes. Unfortunately this also means that everyone has about the same level of ability in everything. Everyone is equal in combat and everyone is equal out of combat. Gone are the rogues and bards who were OK at fighting but had a skill or trick for every non-fighting situation. Gone are the crafty mages with an abundance of minor magical items and an inappropriate (if amusing) love of fireballs. Welcome to the days where for 1-4 feats everyone can cast Raise Dead and Teleport at the minimum allowed levels and you all hit the same in combat.

Perhaps it's just my group and I, we've been playing together for five years now (and one campaign for three years) and we don't see what's so great about having these limits slapped down on us. Maybe we have outgrown the need to be protected from our own choices, good and bad, with our characters. None of us has any interest in 4e.

[Knaight]

The ranger can actually avoid the traditional ranger skills, and the hunters mark basically boils down to looking at one guy and aiming at that guy more. Which pretty much gets every archer that doesn't take part in volley fire. But basically fourth edition does suffer from a class based system. 3rd edition does too, but multiclassing really helps remove it. That said, it also has the annoying tendency to front load a class making a 1 level dip an attractive option for powergaming, which people tend to do due to combat being a big component of the game, as even minor fights take a long time. Rather than actually speeding up the fight in real time, fourth edition shortened the rounds considerably, only to have more of them. People powergame less when there is nothing obvious to powergame off of, and when combat takes no longer than many other parts of the game excessive powergaming is discouraged. Thats the problem with balancing with skill points in 3rd edition, a skill roll takes 10 seconds, a combat an hour and a half. Were a combat shortened as in many other systems, this would not be a problem.

[wodan46]

And what, pray tell, do these most diverse and exceedingly unique powers do? Do they *gasp* hit things (with pre-written flavor text)? Shocking.

You obviously haven't even played 4e, or if you did, you played it as if it were 3e. The flexibility and diversity they allow is much greater than it appears, so long as you number 1, actually play the game, and 2, actually take advantage of such aspects.


Sarcasm aside, I think tumble check hit it on the head. 4e proponents speak almost entirely of gameplay options while those opposed speak almost entirely of character creation options. Wouldn't it have been nice if WotC had actually put some effort into fixing 3.5, instead of axing it entirely? Imagine, we could have a game where fighters have countless creation options as well as fun abilities for those gamers who cry because their melee characters don't have a spell powers list to pick from. But, of course, if it's broken, it must be discarded entirely rather than fixed.

4e is not a retuning of 3e like 3.5e was, its a full new game like 2e-3e and 1e-2e was, perhaps even more so.

Frankly, Class systems, if done away with entirely, allow far more diversity, but generate balance problems. The simple way to fix that problem is to get rid of most of the number chucking and focus on you are good at X but not Y now roll d20+modifiers, but then you wouldn't be playing D&D anymore, you'd being playing one of the math-light flavor-heavy systems instead.

[wodan46]

As for those Fighter Powers, lets take a look at Encounter Level 1 to start with:

Covering Attack allows you to shift an adjacent ally 2 squares
Passing Attack allows you attack, shift, then attack a different thing
Steel Serpent Strike prohibits the enemy for Shifting and Slows them
Spinning Sweep knocks the target Prone, which makes them have difficulty fight back, vulnerability to melee attacks, and need to waste a move action to get up. However, they actually are harder to hit with ranged attacks, and the Sweep itself deals less damage.

As you might notice, while each of those Encounter powers DOES do damage, it also does something else, and in each case, that difference is significant. Do you want to have Covering Attack so that you can save your Squishy Wizard or Glass Cannon from melee beatdowns, or do you want to Steel Serpent Strike to prevent an enemy from engaging them in the first place. Or you could use Covering Attack to get flanking, and Steel Serpent Strike can be used to prevent enemy escapes.

Note that in either case, choice of an encounter power is significant, but furthermore, use of the encounter power itself in combat is more than just throwing as much damage and debuffs as possible at an enemy.

[Prophaniti]

You obviously haven't even played 4e, or if you did, you played it as if it were 3e. The flexibility and diversity they allow is much greater than it appears, so long as you number 1, actually play the game, and 2, actually take advantage of such aspects.
What is it with people on this board telling others what they have and have not done? Seriously, that's incredibly presumtive and insulting.

Yes, I played a game of 4e. I ran a fighter, in fact, and we played for three levels before we got bored and went back to 3.5. The 'flexibility and diversity' the system 'allowed' me is
1) a veneer, a shiny finish to disguise the fact that your just hitting things, when if I want to hit things I would much rather use a simple attack mechanic, rather than making a 'Steel Serpent Strike'.
2) pointless wheel-spinning that usually serves to further slow combats for my group. Shifting here, shifting there, blocking a shift over there, none of it mattered. We were nearly always in a position to stop monsters from getting to the more 'squishy' party members without needing to shift anything. In fact, more than once it was actually undesirable for me to shift my opponent at all, but I was forced to do so anyway because my ability said it happened. We eventually ruled that shifting enemies or allies with abilities is voluntary. (don't know if this rule already existed, but we couldn't find it, and just decided to do it anyway).

All this tactical crap, if we wanted to use it, forced us to pull out the battle map, when we have played many games of 3.5 without it. Yes, we played 3.5 with a battlegrid as well, but I preferred the system where it felt like an aid rather than a necessity to combat.

So don't presume to tell me what I have and have not done, nor to tell me that if only I'd done it 'right' I would have enjoyed it more. I played the way I play every RPG system I've ever tried, and this one did not deliver for me.

[wodan46]

What is it with people on this board telling others what they have and have not done? Seriously, that's incredibly presumtive and insulting.
I may have been harsh. However, many have chosen to denounce 4e despite not playing it or even giving the books a proper read through, which I find equally insulting. Every they say "but they're all the same MOREPIG MOREPIG", it grates on my nerves.



2) pointless wheel-spinning that usually serves to further slow combats for my group. Shifting here, shifting there, blocking a shift over there, none of it mattered. We were nearly always in a position to stop monsters from getting to the more 'squishy' party members without needing to shift anything....

All this tactical crap, if we wanted to use it, forced us to pull out the battle map, when we have played many games of 3.5 without it. Yes, we played 3.5 with a battlegrid as well, but I preferred the system where it felt like an aid rather than a necessity to combat.


Basically, it sounds like you are playing 4e with No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination. In 4e/Smash, the Tactical Grid/Platform Layout is a critical aspect of the system, and removing it severely reduces the diversity that Powers/Attacks can show.

If you try to play 4e like 3e, IE without the tactical grid, or with a blank near featureless one, then there is no way you are going to harness the potential of the powers.

Try playing an asymmetric map filled with bushes that grant concealment, trees that grant cover, rocks that block movement, streams that count as difficult terrain, and other such things. Make sure the enemy uses combined arms, solid tactics, and so on.

All I can say is that when I played, the game clearly revolves around 3 things, all of which are quite important:
1. Damage (and heals)
2. Disables (and buffs)
3. Positioning

[tumble check]

Basically, it sounds like you are playing 4e with No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination. In 4e/Smash, the Tactical Grid/Platform Layout is a critical aspect of the system, and removing it severely reduces the diversity that Powers/Attacks can show.

If you try to play 4e like 3e, IE without the tactical grid, or with a blank near featureless one, then there is no way you are going to harness the potential of the powers.

I've heard this alot, and even 4e diehards have admitted that it takes an interesting grid with obstacles and various terrains in order to make the battles interesting and to force many of the Powers to harmonize.

But should a system have to do this? What if indeed my story calls for a battle in a barren field or plain cavern chamber? Must those battles suffer because the system alone can not make it interesting? As Prophaniti and a few others have said, I refuse to conform my story to the conventions of the game, it should be the other way around.

And, again, what if I have a DM that isn't creative? I recall the PHB mentioning the possibility of 4e not even needing a DM, but it certainly sounds like the consensus is beginning to be that you need a genius DM for the game to be fun.

[Kompera]

Fine, except this "good monsters are used less often" argument is rubbish. Alright, so you fight evil and neutral ones more often. Is this a good enough reason to completely remove good ones, especially since there are a lot of occasions to use them?
Yes, exactly that. If the party isn't fighting the good monster, why does it need stats? And if the good monster is fighting alongside the party, that smacks of Deus ex machina and is avoided by good GMs.

So yeah, there's really not much need at all for the stats of the good aligned NPCs, because their interaction with the PCs is via dialog rather than conflict.

Perhaps some context might help:

Did Lord Shojo need to be statted out? He was a good NPC, after all. But no, as a good aligned NPC he was not going to be in conflict with the PCs, so there was no need to develop him with detailed stats. Shojo was killed by an NPC, that was his destiny within the story arc, and his stats were irrelevant to that destiny. Note that he was killed with a single blow, despite the fact that he was the ruler of a city which had many higher level characters. His death was pure PLOT.

Did Miko need to be statted out? She was supposedly good, after all. Yes, because the GM had it in her story line to fall, and due to that destiny she was in conflict with the PCs long before it became very apparent that she was a fallen Paladin. But 4e supports statting out a fallen Paladin, and so this is an easy thing to do within the core 4e rules.

So again, there is no need to have stats for good aligned NPCs in a game run under the classic good vs evil trope which most D&D games conform to. For those others who like to play evils, so sorry, either mend your ways, get busy house ruling up stats, wait for further publications, or find a different game to play and good riddance to you. There is no one offering you any sympathy, because you are such a trivial niche market that your 'needs' were obviously unimportant to the game designers, and very few players will have any cause to care about your existential angst. Buh bye!


What I dislike about 4e is that is makes serious compromises and breaks with previous editions in the name of balance, simplicity, and mediocrity.
I agree with you completely, except for the simplicity and mediocrity parts. And the 'serious compromises' I see as having been made in the best interests of the game, rather than the best interests of the munchkins. Another good thing, as I see it.


Wouldn't it have been nice if WotC had actually put some effort into fixing 3.5, instead of axing it entirely?Hey, perhaps they did put that effort in, and decided that 3.x was unsalvageable without so many changes as to better support making an entirely new game revision such as 4e. Wouldn't that be nice?b No two people are going to agree on how 3.x could have been fixed, but my concept of what needed to be done included savage limitations on the pure casting classes, and this was accomplished by 4e. I find it hard to conceive of another set of changes which would have made you more happy while preserving those changes which I saw as being absolutely necessary, even if I didn't envision them in the exact detail in which 4e implemented them.


Tying different weapons to different stats seems to me like a move guaranteed to cause debate, as no matter what stat they choose for a given weapon, someone will disagree. That's why I prefer all weapons use the same stat or two (ex: STR for melee, DEX for ranged or weapon finesse) it's just easier and eliminates potential arguments.The problem here is that confining the stats to one or two leads to min/maxing, while trying to spread the weapon 'focus' amongst the stats leads to less. So it's an easy choice to make, once you've decided to make it more difficult to min/max in your new game system.

[wodan46]

Why would enemies challenge you in a featureless room. Either they or you is likely to be standing at an entrance making ranged attacks while being safe against flanking.

That said, even in featureless setups, Controllers will still need to drop their AOEs carefully, while Defenders tactically pin down enemies with their marks, and Leaders and Strikers circle waiting for the opportune moment to assist in finishing off opponents.

[Starbuck_II]

Yes, I played a game of 4e. I ran a fighter, in fact, and we played for three levels before we got bored and went back to 3.5. The 'flexibility and diversity' the system 'allowed' me is
1) a veneer, a shiny finish to disguise the fact that your just hitting things, when if I want to hit things I would much rather use a simple attack mechanic, rather than making a 'Steel Serpent Strike'.
2) pointless wheel-spinning that usually serves to further slow combats for my group. Shifting here, shifting there, blocking a shift over there, none of it mattered. We were nearly always in a position to stop monsters from getting to the more 'squishy' party members without needing to shift anything. In fact, more than once it was actually undesirable for me to shift my opponent at all, but I was forced to do so anyway because my ability said it happened. We eventually ruled that shifting enemies or allies with abilities is voluntary. (don't know if this rule already existed, but we couldn't find it, and just decided to do it



Okay, why did you use the abilioty if you didn't want to shift the enemy? Why not use something else like a at-will power?

It sounds like you are complaining handguns don't shoot missiles. If you want to shoot those; use your other "weapons".

I mean, at-will powers are pretty decent.

[Morty]

Yes, exactly that. If the party isn't fighting the good monster, why does it need stats? And if the good monster is fighting alongside the party, that smacks of Deus ex machina and is avoided by good GMs.

Adding an ally for PCs is Deus Ex Machina? Now that's something new. Also, who says that my party isn't fighting a good monster? My current 3ed party have fought some good people already, and on high levels is quite likely to start fighting devas or solars.


So yeah, there's really not much need at all for the stats of the good aligned NPCs, because their interaction with the PCs is via dialog rather than conflict.

Well, unless PCs, you know, fight good aligned characters, but I guess it never happens and those times my party have done this were just a dream.


Did Lord Shojo need to be statted out? He was a good NPC, after all. But no, as a good aligned NPC he was not going to be in conflict with the PCs, so there was no need to develop him with detailed stats. Shojo was killed by an NPC, that was his destiny within the story arc, and his stats were irrelevant to that destiny. Note that he was killed with a single blow, despite the fact that he was the ruler of a city which had many higher level characters. His death was pure PLOT.

May I point you out the fact that he was an NPC rather than a monster and that while OOTS is mostly good not every party is?


So again, there is no need to have stats for good aligned NPCs in a game run under the classic good vs evil trope which most D&D games conform to. For those others who like to play evils, so sorry, either mend your ways, get busy house ruling up stats, wait for further publications, or find a different game to play and good riddance to you. There is no one offering you any sympathy, because you are such a trivial niche market that your 'needs' were obviously unimportant to the game designers, and very few players will have any cause to care about your existential angst. Buh bye!

I see. Well, here goes any hope for reasonable discussion with you, if you not only don't see how a non-evil party might end up fighting good foes but also utterly disregard other playstyles on account of them not being yours.

[Crow]

There is no need for any monster in the book to have stats until I need to use that monster in a combat situation. When a situation like that does come up, it's certainly nice to have them on hand...

Hell, even technically neutral or unaligned PC's have a pretty good chance of running accross good creatures in less than friendly circumstances.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I've heard this alot, and even 4e diehards have admitted that it takes an interesting grid with obstacles and various terrains in order to make the battles interesting and to force many of the Powers to harmonize.

But should a system have to do this? What if indeed my story calls for a battle in a barren field or plain cavern chamber? Must those battles suffer because the system alone can not make it interesting? As Prophaniti and a few others have said, I refuse to conform my story to the conventions of the game, it should be the other way around.

And, again, what if I have a DM that isn't creative? I recall the PHB mentioning the possibility of 4e not even needing a DM, but it certainly sounds like the consensus is beginning to be that you need a genius DM for the game to be fun.

Honestly, it's much easier to figure out how to make interesting battlefields than making an interesting adventure. If your DM is unable to figure out how to throw a couple columns or patches of difficult terrain on a map, then I got to ask how he's able to make good adventures.

A DM always needs to be clever, or he can just read modules published by WotC - and the modules will have their own battle maps prepared.

As for battles on featureless plains: you can do them, but just like in RL, they will be slaughterfests. There is no terrain to take advantage of, and no cover to avoid enemy fire, so everyone will just blast away until people are dead. At least in 4e, Wizards can make their own terrain (zones!) and Defenders can act like terrain by modulating the flow of battle with marks and OAs.

So no, I don't think battles on featureless plains will "suffer" more in 4e than in other systems, because battles on featureless plains have always been about the damage and nothing else. That is, in fact, the point of "Fox, No Items, Battlefield."

[wodan46]

Exactly, if you play 4e with No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination, what do you expect to happen? Its not as if filling in a grid is that hard anyway. Even an empty dungeon might have fallen pillars (blocking terrain) and skeletons(difficult terrain) as well as concealment (cobwebs, mist).

Also, the complaint about having to shift an enemy with an encounter power, it didn't occur to you to simply save it for when you need it, and use an at-will? If you are just chucking all your encounter powers at the enemy at the beginning of combat, you are doing a good job of supporting my statement that you are playing it like 3e. In 4e, you use encounter powers when you need to turn the tide, they are not there to maximize your DPS.

[Reinforcements]

I also take exception to the idea that you absolutely need a grid with 4e, or even to take advantage of 4e's tactical battle aspects. Sure, if you really want to make a very precise tactical fight with all sorts of terrain and careful movement and planning then yeah, you need a grid for that, but that's true of any edition. I don't think that NOT having a grid means NO TERRAIN EVER.

I also have to say that I think it's adorable to refer to a kind of stripped-down, no-terrain, no-flavor D&D (or 4e) as "No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination".

[The New Bruceski]

But should a system have to do this? What if indeed my story calls for a battle in a barren field or plain cavern chamber? Must those battles suffer because the system alone can not make it interesting?

I'm curious, what system does make a battle in a barren field interesting?

[Starsinger]

I'm curious, what system does make a battle in a barren field interesting?

Duh... obviously 3.5 :smalltongue:

[wodan46]

I also take exception to the idea that you absolutely need a grid with 4e, or even to take advantage of 4e's tactical battle aspects. Sure, if you really want to make a very precise tactical fight with all sorts of terrain and careful movement and planning then yeah, you need a grid for that, but that's true of any edition. I don't think that NOT having a grid means NO TERRAIN EVER.

I also have to say that I think it's adorable to refer to a kind of stripped-down, no-terrain, no-flavor D&D (or 4e) as "No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination".

Well lets review:
1. Endless whining about needing Magic Weapons to fight Dragons: No Items
2. Focusing entirely on DPS at the expense of tactics: Fox only
3. Preference of featureless wastes to complex battlefields: Final Destination

[wodan46]

Duh... obviously 3.5 :smalltongue:

How exciting, you can be the Rhino or Batman. With that kind of tactical sophistication, why would you need anything other than a blank featureless rectangle in the cosmic void?

[wodan46]

I also take exception to the idea that you absolutely need a grid with 4e, or even to take advantage of 4e's tactical battle aspects. Sure, if you really want to make a very precise tactical fight with all sorts of terrain and careful movement and planning then yeah, you need a grid for that, but that's true of any edition. I don't think that NOT having a grid means NO TERRAIN EVER.


Frankly, playing 4e without the battle grid may be doable, but results either in huge difficulty simulating what's happening or the loss of the heart of the combat system. Play it with colored cubes for all I care, but no battlegrid and there will be trouble. Play by Post excepted, cause of the formating issues.

[Prophaniti]

I may have been harsh. However, many have chosen to denounce 4e despite not playing it or even giving the books a proper read through, which I find equally insulting. Every they say "but they're all the same MOREPIG MOREPIG", it grates on my nerves.

Basically, it sounds like you are playing 4e with No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination. In 4e/Smash, the Tactical Grid/Platform Layout is a critical aspect of the system, and removing it severely reduces the diversity that Powers/Attacks can show.
So, let me get this straight... One of the 4e proponents, who very vocaly tears into anyone making the 4e = video game comparision (even pointing that out at the begining of the post), then proceeds to compare 4e to a video game? This is... almost surreal. It's like I logged onto the Bizzaro GitP boards by mistake. That means I get to berate you for it, right? Since I don't care, and these are the Bizzaro boards, I have to take the stand here...

[ZekeArgo]

So, let me get this straight... One of the 4e proponents, who very vocaly tears into anyone making the 4e = video game comparision (even pointing that out at the begining of the post), then proceeds to compare 4e to a video game? This is... almost surreal. It's like I logged onto the Bizzaro GitP boards by mistake. That means I get to berate you for it, right? Since I don't care, and these are the Bizzaro boards, I have to take the stand here...

Different comparison however. The statement isn't "it plays like X genera of game" its "there is another game where players can willfully strip themselves of options, with similarly dull results."

Just because both comparisons involve video games, doesn't mean the comparisons themselves are similar.

[Prophaniti]

Perhaps not, I merely found it very amusing. I still resent the implication that my lackluster experience was due to any action or inaction on my part, however. As I said, I approached the system with the same attitude and effort that I put into every system I've tried, from 3.5 to WFRP, and I simply was not impressed.

[wodan46]

Perhaps not, I merely found it very amusing. I still resent the implication that my lackluster experience was due to any action or inaction on my part, however. As I said, I approached the system with the same attitude and effort that I put into every system I've tried, from 3.5 to WFRP, and I simply was not impressed.

I have no problem with comparing 4e to video games. My problems lies with people who insist that the similarities it may share with Morepigs are bad things, which they aren't (an emphasis on balance and teamwork), and that 4e has sold out to please the Morepig market, which it hasn't (those people know what they want and it isn't sitting around with papers for a few hours pretending to be elves)

Also, I'm curious, what kind of encounters did you play? It sounded like you did the Keep on the Shadowfell. Is that what you played?

Cause if that's true, I'm even more confused, as that came with nice big tactical maps, full of opportunities for strategy and the like.

[Jerthanis]

Frankly, playing 4e without the battle grid may be doable, but results either in huge difficulty simulating what's happening or the loss of the heart of the combat system. Play it with colored cubes for all I care, but no battlegrid and there will be trouble. Play by Post excepted, cause of the formating issues.

I disagree, I believe 4th edition is easier to play and get the most out of its ruleset without a battle grid than 3rd edition, and anyone who claims otherwise is either houseruling 3.5 to get rid of all the more complex and gridmap requiring aspects like squeezing, reach, cover and otherwise, they haven't tried playing 4th edition without a map, or they just never do anything more complex than "I close and attack" in other editions, and thus are frustrated by having more colorful abilities that discourage this practice.

I had no complaints whatsoever after running a few gridless 4th edition battles.

[wodan46]

I disagree, I believe 4th edition is easier to play and get the most out of its ruleset without a battle grid than 3rd edition, and anyone who claims otherwise is either houseruling 3.5 to get rid of all the more complex and gridmap requiring aspects like squeezing, reach, cover and otherwise, they haven't tried playing 4th edition without a map, or they just never do anything more complex than "I close and attack" in other editions, and thus are frustrated by having more colorful abilities that discourage this practice.

I had no complaints whatsoever after running a few gridless 4th edition battles.

But what about all the shifting and positioning and the like? How would you describe positions of enemies and allies, and how would you describe what squares are movable to? I just don't see how to do it without either losing detail or taking far too long.

[Prophaniti]

Also, I'm curious, what kind of encounters did you play? It sounded like you did the Keep on the Shadowfell. Is that what you played?

Cause if that's true, I'm even more confused, as that came with nice big tactical maps, full of opportunities for strategy and the like.

No, he just ran his own campaign setting, adapting what he could to the 4e rules. Part of the reason we stopped using the system (aside from no one in the group enjoying it very much) was that the DM had his setting already up and running under 3.5 rules and if we wanted to continue with 4e rules he wanted more time to finish converting it. Technically that's still on hold and we may pick it up again in the future. Next up is my campaign setting, though, for which I decided to use the WFRP rules as a baseline and houserule the hell out of it. Looks like it's gonna be pretty fun, actually.

[shadow_archmagi]

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind nifofd? I mean, as a repitive and consistant battle setup, it isn't the best, but really, ANY map or characters get old after two rounds.

That said, I send my players up against good-aligned folks all the time. You want a holy relic? Its probably gaurded by monks, paladins and clerics. They LIKE worshipping it and take offense to you nicking it to blow stuff up.

[wodan46]

Nifo what?

[Jerthanis]

But what about all the shifting and positioning and the like? How would you describe positions of enemies and allies, and how would you describe what squares are movable to? I just don't see how to do it without either losing detail or taking far too long.

The same way I did it in middle school in 2nd edition, and in high school with 3.0 before we got a battlemat. I'd describe it with words. Shifting is simple enough, and pushing/pulling/sliding is actually more intuitive in your imagination than on the battle grid anyway. The most complicated part is and always has been spell AoEs, and those are no harder today than they ever were. The primary problem that is solved by having a battlemat is the fact that you can't plan your turn ahead of time as easily, slowing combat down a little bit, but even still, I find it runs about as fast as 3.5 combats WITH a battle grid.

[Kompera]

May I point you out the fact that he was an NPC rather than a monster and that while OOTS is mostly good not every party is?
I don't care to argue over labels. Shinjo is both an NPC and a monster, either is an ok label. In any event he is 'GM run', in the context of not being one of the OOTS members.

As for the second half of your sentence, you make my point for me. OOTS is mostly good, why? Ah, it's because it's a representation of a typical D&D party. Mostly good. Typical. Thus, when making decisions about what to include in the MM for core, smart money says you leave out good monsters/NPCs and include the evil ones. Because those will appeal to the majority of your market base. So after publishing the new core rule set you'll have a product which appeals to some arbitrarily large portion of your market. The rest of your market gets to wait for new material to be published, or play differently, or house rule their own evil monsters, or whine endlessly in forums about how much 4e sucks because it doesn't cater to their niche play needs, or just stick with a game that caters more closely to their needs. Not every party is mostly good? WotC appears to not care at all. If they did, they would have published a different set of core MM materials.


I see. Well, here goes any hope for reasonable discussion with you, if you not only don't see how a non-evil party might end up fighting good foes but also utterly disregard other playstyles on account of them not being yours.I'm not disregarding your play style at all. Play any way you and your group choose. What I'm saying is that I think that WotC is disregarding your play style, because they clearly intend that the game be one where good aligned player characters challenge evil NPCs/monsters. I'm not saying that I was invited to their market strategy sessions, but this intent is completely clear to me from how the rules read. So I'm not at all surprised to see that there are many more evil monsters/NPCs in the 4e MM, because that just follows logically from their intent that the game be one of good players vs evil monsters/NPCs.

[OneFamiliarFace]

4e is undeniably designed entirely for a pure gaming stance.

Yarg. I told myself I wouldn't do it, but you got me here again Proph. I enjoyed 3.5 and enjoy 4e only marginally better (basically because it's a way for me to play with my friends who were put off from all of 3.5's rules), but I don't think this is "undeniable."

It can very easily be argued that simpler, more concise combat rules allow for players to explore the world at a more constant pace in order to better immerse themselves without constant book references or tally sheets of how many more rounds they have on their Bull's Strength, Invisibility, and Flight spells. And easier game balance lessens the workload of making sure everyone gets to participate in order that he may concentrate on a more in depth and immersing world. The 4e DMG says that the most common response to players asking if they can do something should be "Yes," so that the players are better able to express themselves in game, rather than before the game starts during character creation.

What I am saying isn't a clear and hard fact. Some people are better immersed by the ability to exactly recreate the character they want with the rules from GURPS. Some people are better immersed by having the cognitive workload of rules made easier that they can concentrate on imagination, rather than exact representation.

I only say this because it bothers me when 4e'ers seem to paint 3.5 as a codgy old rules juggernaut which lumbers along with balance issues and CR troubles, and 3.5ers represent 4e as a miniatures wargame. Because the heart of either game (and all previous editions), in my belief, is the ability to escape the doldrums of reality for a bit, that we might experience what it is like to be a Paladin, a Wizard, a Cyborg, or what have you. Does this make any sense?

Well, that got a little heavy, eh Prophessor?

[Colmarr]

In fact, more than once it was actually undesirable for me to shift my opponent at all, but I was forced to do so anyway because my ability said it happened. We eventually ruled that shifting enemies or allies with abilities is voluntary. (don't know if this rule already existed, but we couldn't find it, and just decided to do it anyway).

The rule does exist. Don't have my books on me at the moment so I can't quote a page reference. It effectively says you can push/pull/slide up to the amount indicated, or not at all, as you desire.

[Helgraf]

The rule does exist. Don't have my books on me at the moment so I can't quote a page reference. It effectively says you can push/pull/slide up to the amount indicated, or not at all, as you desire.

Page 285
Push Pull and Slide
Subheading
Forced Movement
Bullet Point 2
Distance in Squares: The power you're using specifies how many squares you can move a target. You can choose to move the target fewer squares or not to move it at all. You can't move the target vertically.

((Italics mine))

That last bit (You can't move the target vertically) incidentally, also helps neuter the Elemental Maw combos discussed in other threads.

[Sebastian]

But that rule say pull, push and slide, it doesn't mention Shift, which, by the rules is a totally different type of movement. By the RAW that rules clears nothing.

[Kompera]

But that rule say pull, push and slide, it doesn't mention Shift, which, by the rules is a totally different type of movement. By the RAW that rules means nothing.The name of the rule doesn't include shift. So what? The text of the rule doesn't bother with labels, and instead clearly states "The power you're using specifies how many squares you can move a target". The name of the rule is like a finger pointing the way to the heavens. Focus on the finger, and you lose sight of all that heavenly glory.

[Charity]

Push Pull and Slide are forced movement applied to a creature outside it's own turn. Shifting is not forced movement anyone using the term shift should be refering to voluntary movement on the creature in questions own turn.

[Sebastian]

The name of the rule doesn't include shift. So what?

So it don't apply to shift.

[ZekeArgo]

Heres the thing though: read any power that allows an ally to shift. The wording is "An adjacent ally can shift." Not must, or shifts, but can shift. Can implies choice, and may be disregarded at any players discretion.

[Sebastian]

Heres the thing though: read any power that allows an ally to shift. The wording is "An adjacent ally can shift." Not must, or shifts, but can shift. Can implies choice, and may be disregarded at any players discretion.

That sound more correct.
on a related note, what is the adiacent ally is Imobilized? can he still shift?

[ZekeArgo]

That sound more correct.
on a related note, what is the adiacent ally is Imobilized? can he still shift?

Specific trumps general. An immobilized ally specifically can't move, therefore he cannot shift.

[Sebastian]

Specific trumps general. An immobilized ally specifically can't move, therefore he cannot shift.

but the power say that he can. isn't that even more specific? Beside immobilized don't say you can't move, just that your movement is zero.

[ZekeArgo]

but the power say that he can. isn't that even more specific? Beside immobilized don't say you can't move, just that your movement is zero.

No, the power is a general statement: The player can move. Not the player is moved, or must, but can. If the player is unwilling or unable to move, then he doesnt.

[Prophaniti]

Yarg. I told myself I wouldn't do it, but you got me here again Proph. I enjoyed 3.5 and enjoy 4e only marginally better (basically because it's a way for me to play with my friends who were put off from all of 3.5's rules), but I don't think this is "undeniable."
Alright, perhaps I should not have used such an absolute statement. All I'm saying is that the rules and structure of 4e are and were designed purely from the viewpoint of "this is a game" with no other angles. That's fine, of course, because it is a game. I want something a little different from my systems, I want the rules (and this refers primarily to rules for combat or skills, magic of course can do whatever the hell you want it to) to reflect how such things work in reality as closely as is practical. Based on my perspective of what is practical, of course. I like that in a system, and it aids my immersion, because I don't have people doing crazily impossible or illogical things just because the rules say so.

An example of this from 4e would be Healing Surges (and I know that opens up the can of 'HP is an abstraction', but for me that argument only goes so far, and Healing Surges cross that line). Another would be some powers (especially on characters with natural power sources, such as martial) only working once a day. They are fine, functional, and good mechanics for a game. The reason I do not like them is simply that when I try to explain them from an in-game perspective, my immersion is upset, as no explanation feels adequate as to why the fighter can't (don't have the books handy, or I'd list a real Daily) Spinning Death Strike more often.

So that's all I'm saying. Rules have been changed and created without any thought for why it would happen that way in the gameworld. That's what I mean when I say "designed from a purely gaming stance". Of course this won't bother some players, and I can ignore it much of the time, getting into the game anyway. I just prefer it when the system works with my immersion, rather than against it.


The rule does exist. Don't have my books on me at the moment so I can't quote a page reference. It effectively says you can push/pull/slide up to the amount indicated, or not at all, as you desire.followed by posts explaining and expounding.
Honestly, I figured it was in there somewhere. I hoped they weren't guilty of that bad of a game design flaw. When it came up in our (brief) 4e game, someone started flipping through to find out, and the DM said "You know, I don't care what the book says, it's voluntary." And we left it at that. Probably why we didn't find it.

[Morty]

As for the second half of your sentence, you make my point for me. OOTS is mostly good, why? Ah, it's because it's a representation of a typical D&D party. Mostly good. Typical. Thus, when making decisions about what to include in the MM for core, smart money says you leave out good monsters/NPCs and include the evil ones. Because those will appeal to the majority of your market base. So after publishing the new core rule set you'll have a product which appeals to some arbitrarily large portion of your market. The rest of your market gets to wait for new material to be published, or play differently, or house rule their own evil monsters, or whine endlessly in forums about how much 4e sucks because it doesn't cater to their niche play needs, or just stick with a game that caters more closely to their needs. Not every party is mostly good? WotC appears to not care at all. If they did, they would have published a different set of core MM materials.

I'm not disregarding your play style at all. Play any way you and your group choose. What I'm saying is that I think that WotC is disregarding your play style, because they clearly intend that the game be one where good aligned player characters challenge evil NPCs/monsters. I'm not saying that I was invited to their market strategy sessions, but this intent is completely clear to me from how the rules read. So I'm not at all surprised to see that there are many more evil monsters/NPCs in the 4e MM, because that just follows logically from their intent that the game be one of good players vs evil monsters/NPCs.

Yes, WoTC disregards players who want to play less that good characters. And guess what? People don't like it and that's why they "whine" if you want to call it like that. In 3ed, people were encouraged to play good and "neutral but goodish" characters, but they could do otherwise. In 4ed, they're almost forced to do so due to the lack of good monsters and non-good PC options -note that I'm not saying "evil PC options" here, because default cleric prayers don't fit neutral cleric very well either.
TLDR: Disregarding non-good options in core rulebooks might be an understandable decision but it doesn't make it any less bad.

[OneFamiliarFace]

*stuff*

Haha, yeah. We've been over the healing surges on what...2...3 other forums? At least. People should go find those if need be.

Yeah, I understand where you are coming from. Heck, I could probably run a campaign you would love, having read as many of your posts as I have! (There is no better way to know what a person likes than to know what he does not like.)

For the record, pro-4'ers: Things that have been argued ad-infinitum and are not accepted by the 3.x'ers. We've been over it and need to agree to disagree -

1. Healing surges CAN be represented in game. (Doesn't change the fact that it hurts their personal immersion.)

2. Minions are reasonable/a good design choice/helpful to DMs/a fantasy staple. (They still confuse an Abstract Life Energy Sytsem, or ALES for short, which 4e has brought further away from an Actual Respresentation Of Life Energy, or AROLE, and the 3.x'ers don't like that. That's cool.)

3. The classes are totally balanced now. (The 3.x'ers see this as meaning "the same," and that is their point of view. A thousand threads won't change it.)

4. Evil monsters are more useful than good monsters. (I agree, and 3.x'ers are wrong on this one. If worse comes to worst, dish them up a firespawn belcher and slap a Good sticker on 'im. *Wink*)
This last one is so important, I left it out of the spoiler:
5. Important!! Point 'X' was a good marketing or design decision. (This in NO WAY obligates a 3.x'er to like that decision or the system because of it. Period. End of story. Period. Do you like Creed just because they sell well? I don't.)

-Pocket is going to go start marketing his new ALES roleplaying system. (Or ALESRS for short.)

[Jayabalard]

No, the power is a general statement: The player can move. Not the player is moved, or must, but can. If the player is unwilling or unable to move, then he doesnt.They both look equally specific to me, especially if he's correct and immobilize says reduce "movement to 0" instead of "you can't move"


We've been over the healing surges on what...2...3 other forums? At least. People should go find those if need be.I'm not really sure I understand why you think that people on this forum should care what has been discussed on other forums...

[wodan46]

Alright, perhaps I should not have used such an absolute statement. All I'm saying is that the rules and structure of 4e are and were designed purely from the viewpoint of "this is a game" with no other angles.

That the combat mechanics sometimes break immersion is not the same thing as being less able to facilitate roleplaying. While it is certainly a point against roleplaying (why can I do Brute Strike only once per day?), at the same time, the simplified combat system means that combat is more balanced, quicker, and just plain neater, and that in turn means that players have more time to engage in roleplaying. Similarly, while the Skill Challenges seem arbitrary if you insist on presenting them in a mechanical fashion rather than an organic one, their mere presence means its easier to motivate players to do stuff outside of combat.

So, immersion is lost in order to gain time, which can then be used for roleplaying.

[AKA_Bait]

I'm not really sure I understand why you think that people on this forum should care what has been discussed on other forums...

To be fair, I suspect he probably meant other threads on this forum.

[dentrag2]

Now before spamming my inbox with hate mail, listen to my argument.
To be frank, 3.5E, with all its realism, is better than 4e. Check it out.
Here are 4e's faults, as i can tell.
-Removed classes. I can understand that they removed the bard and sorcerer, as the bard was useless, and now with they're new system, sorcerer is indistinguishable from sorcerer. But Druid, Monk, and barbarian? Druid and monk have been in there since Ad&d. They're fun classes to play. And Barbarian was a good choice if you wanted a damage dealing whirlwind.
-No customization. All clerics are healers now. What the crap? I had a necromancer cleric, because of all the spells you could do for that. Now, all fighters have to be hulking armor-tanks, and don't get any real customization other than which weapon they use. You used to be able to build a mounted fighter, a ranged fighter, or a swift, light fighter (like a duelist). Now you're restricted to RR! Me smash! Also, Rogues can no longer be ranged really, as all their 'abilities' require Short Blades. Ooh! Ooh! What about all the really fun wizard spells dissapearing! Yay for ONLY damage spells!
-Weakness removal. Now everyone has at least 14 hitpoints to start, probably more. Is it just me, or does that mean that most commoners have more hitpoints than a third level wizard in 3.5e? I can just imagine the other faults in a boardroom between Mr.a and Mr. b.
"Lets take away a wizards only weakness! Running out of spells! Now wizards have a huge damage potential, and are ridiculously overpowered."
"Brilliant! Also, lets make it so rangers are ranged ONLY!"
"Great! And, lets remove one of the paladin and wizards most interesting features! REMOVE THE MOUNTS AND FAMILIARS!"
"Thats the best idea i've ever heard."
-Classes that shouldn't be. Why did they add Conqueror? How does that make sense? Its a useless class! Warlock, i can understand some wanting it as a main class, but to be frank, it wasn't good enough for PHB in 3.5e. But, it did make it into Players handbook 2.
-No domains. Hmm, there goes all the cleric customization and uniqueness.
-Ridiculous alignment system. Hmm. So now we lost Lawful evil, and Chaotic good. I can understand losing Chaotic Neutral and Lawful neutral, They were hard to role play other than for chaotic neutral to be random and a jerk. Why? Why god why? Why remove Lawful evil, arguably the most used Alignment in 3.5E other than True Neutral.
-Races. Ok, gnomes didn't see much use, but half-orc's were useful. And i love how they threw in something called Eladrin which is essentially High elves. Maybe i can understand Tieflings, but why not add in Aiasmar instead of Eladrin? Don't get me started on dragonborn. WHY DO YOU THINK THERE ARE HALF-DRAGONS IN THE MONSTER MANUAL?!
-The notes in PHB. 'Drawing a new audience while keeping the old one' my ass. What they did is flip off the people who played 3.5E and tried to draw in the WoW crowd. Personally, I'll stay with 3.5E.
-Abilities. Dear god. I love how they took World of Warcrafts spells and abilities and turned it into a system where you could use certain powers once a round, once an encounter, and once a day. This is D&D, not a MMO. The combat is supposed to be slow-paced and tactical!

-If you have any more arguments or comments, post them below.

[Edge of Dreams]

I would like to respectfully direct you, sir, to the following thread Things you dislike about 4e. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73469)

[Moff Chumley]

Ah, again, someone outraged that they changed his game.

Listen, D&D, as a game, is not yours. It's not anyones but the people making it. If the people making it decided to change how the game works, great for them. I don't really see how any of your points (except for customizability) actually detract from the amount of fun you can derive from a game. And besides, I think that most of your points can be easily resolved with small amounts of on-the-fly homebrew. "Oh, you want your rouge to use that power with a bow? Sure, why not." You probably haven't even played the game yet.

[dentrag2]

I don't know. Does one module count as playing the game?

[dentrag2]

Removal of pretty much all customization? thats enough for me.

[Cainen]

...I'm not seeing where you're coming from with well over half of your points, and I dislike 4E.

I can't say I'm surprised.

[Cainen]

Multiclassing, retraining, power choosing, etcetera. Customization enough.

Besides, clerics missed their spheres in 3E.

The classes could do with a larger power list, though.

[The New Bruceski]

I think you were looking at the wrong game.
--Aside from having a Cure Minor Wounds, not all clerics are healers.
--Mounted fighting still exists, and what is "RR"?
--Rogues can use crossbows with skills
--Wizards have spells that aren't damage.
--Rangers aren't ranged only.
--There is no Conqueror class.
--If you look at what the alignments >do< rather than what they're called, CG and LE are the new Good and Evil.
--"once a round" -- like many abilities in 3.x such as basic attacks and tripping
"once an encounter" -- Such as the abilities from the Tome of Battle or barbarian's rage.
"once per day" -- like most spells.
Clearly 4th edition is like WoW by using these things present in 3rd. :amused:

[monty]

Try the thread directly below this one.

[dentrag2]

Sorry, i forget the name of the other class. Was it warlord? Most spells of wizards are damage, an overlarge number. The rituals also encompass most of them. Obviously didn't look hard enough at ranger and Rogue. But mostly it seems like they're tabletopping WoW with Brutal strike and such. I checked the alignments, but it doesnt make much sense in my mind to strap together Neutral evil/good with Lawful evil/Chaotic good. The barbarians rage was a deviation, not the standard. I'm not lucky to own most supplements, so i woulden't know about Tome of Battle

It's probably my general rage of them emulating WoW.

[dentrag2]

Interesting, non-melee feats for fighter. Now that seems finicky, but i liked 3.5E as it was. It could have used some changes, but at this point I'm ready to go back to AD&D.

[Anyr]

The barbarians rage was a deviation, not the standard.

I was going to make a long post addressing each point in turn, but other posters will probably do that a lot better. This one stood out enough to provoke a response, though.

A deviation? Along with the Paladin's Smite Evil and Remove Disease? The Monk's Stunning Fist and Abundant Step? The Cleric's Turn/Rebuke Undead? The Bard's music? The Druid's Wild Shape? The Rogue's Defensive Roll? And those are just ones from the Player's Handbook...

Whatever you may think of the current system, this sort of ability is found all over 3.5 as well. 4th Edition just made them all work under the same classification.

[The New Bruceski]

It's probably my general rage of them emulating WoW.

I hear that a lot, and I just don't get it. Rangers can't set traps, Wizards can't polymorph, nothing has a mana bar and there isn't any taunt mechanic for the defenders. Warlocks and Rangers don't get pets, and in WoW nobody has to worry about moving and attacking.

It seems to me that if they had wanted to copy WoW they could have done a much better job of it.

[Zeal]

To the OP: You're not alone, but not everyone agrees either. Personally, I like 4E, but it is not really the same game as D&D 3.5.

[dentrag2]

No taunt mechanic? Unless you have a different version of the PHB there's a taunt-ish power, and a Redirect power for the rogue.

[Knaight]

Which is ridiculous. World of warcraft uses a cooldown time(similar to many monster special abilities in third edition, although static), not per encounter or per day, furthermore everything comes out of a point pool, and all the classes gain this in different ways. Totally different, so learn what your talking about before making these comparisons. Also wizards damaging spells tend to do less damage now, meteor storm is 8d10 or something compared to throwing around 26d6 disintegrates. Count the dice.

Oh and what they did was merge lawful evil into evil and chaotic good into good, and all 3 neutrals together, not whatever weird thing you came up with. Oh and it doesn't matter how much the fighter encompasses, as you can just use a different class to get those other things, although necromancy is notably absent. As for weakness removal its relative. Some games start with a wizard having 50 hit points at 1st level, if the fighter has 300 then the wizard still has the weakness, and really severely compared to D&D. Monsters are upped too, so the wizards hit point weakness is still there. Oh and there is a whole bunch of melee wizard stuff. Special paladin mounts and familiars are gone though, which is a pity, since there really should be a feat for that sort of stuff. Or the familiar as an implement, which can fly around and lets you modify spells through moving close bursts or whatever.

As for races Eladrin seperates the elves, and pretty much cuts down on all the confusion. Meaning that we don't get swamped in elves again. Aasimar were viewed as boring, because apparently Wotc thought most people were using them to just put good into overkill(morons), although the tiefling should stay. As for dragonborn, there have been lizardmen in fantasy since pre-Tolkien.

As for combat being slow paced and tactical, screw that. Why should it be slow paced? Is combat in real life slow paced? Why should it take hours to resolve what happens in less than a minute of game time. As for tactical, its more so now, no more stand and full attack. Although its still slow paced.:smallannoyed:

Oh and I'm really not seeing world of warcrafts abilities here. Maybe some name similarities, but considering the simplicity of most of the names that was inevitable. World of Warcraft probably has fireball and lightning bolt in it.

[dentrag2]

(Cough cough) Brutal strike (Cough cough) Yes, but why did they have to add Dragonborn? Why couldn't it just have been Lizardmen? But, from the Realistic angle, the more powerful a wizard gets, he could improve his spells. Now, they can't improve at all.(Pretty much, although you do get some exceptions.)

[Starbuck_II]

-Removed classes. I can understand that they removed the bard and sorcerer, as the bard was useless, and now with they're new system, sorcerer is indistinguishable from sorcerer. But Druid, Monk, and barbarian? Druid and monk have been in there since Ad&d. They're fun classes to play. And Barbarian was a good choice if you wanted a damage dealing whirlwind.

Because Druid is overpowered in 3rd. They need time to figure out to how to balance it.
If balance isn't an issue for you, than too bad, the designers want it.



-No customization. All clerics are healers now. What the crap? I had a necromancer cleric, because of all the spells you could do for that. Now, all fighters have to be hulking armor-tanks, and don't get any real customization other than which weapon they use. You used to be able to build a mounted fighter, a ranged fighter, or a swift, light fighter (like a duelist). Now you're restricted to RR! Me smash! Also, Rogues can no longer be ranged really, as all their 'abilities' require Short Blades. Ooh! Ooh! What about all the really fun wizard spells dissapearing! Yay for ONLY damage spells!

Clerics were always allowed to heal in 3.5. Clerics heal as a minor action so you can do other stuff.

Fighter= armored warrior. You can still be mounted warrior with Fighter. Yes, Rangers and Rogues are better ranged warriors.

A swift, light warrior is a Rogue.

Rogues can use slings and crossbows.


-Weakness removal. Now everyone has at least 14 hitpoints to start, probably more. Is it just me, or does that mean that most commoners have more hitpoints than a third level wizard in 3.5e? I can just imagine the other faults in a boardroom between Mr.a and Mr. b.
"Lets take away a wizards only weakness! Running out of spells! Now wizards have a huge damage potential, and are ridiculously overpowered."
"Brilliant! Also, lets make it so rangers are ranged ONLY!"
"Great! And, lets remove one of the paladin and wizards most interesting features! REMOVE THE MOUNTS AND FAMILIARS!"
"Thats the best idea i've ever heard."

Rangers are melee too. Have you tried one yet? If the answer is no, than stop being ignorant (ignorance is having no knowledge). You must lack it if you haven't played them (we all born ignorant).



-Classes that shouldn't be. Why did they add Conqueror? How does that make sense? Its a useless class! Warlock, i can understand some wanting it as a main class, but to be frank, it wasn't good enough for PHB in 3.5e. But, it did make it into Players handbook 2.

What? The Warlock wasn't in the Core 3.5 Players handbook because it wasn't invented yet. Not because it sucked.
The PHb was invented before the Complete Arcane book.

By Conquerer: do thou mean Warlord. If so, he rules (pun intended).


-Races. Ok, gnomes didn't see much use, but half-orc's were useful. And i love how they threw in something called Eladrin which is essentially High elves. Maybe i can understand Tieflings, but why not add in Aiasmar instead of Eladrin? Don't get me started on dragonborn. WHY DO YOU THINK THERE ARE HALF-DRAGONS IN THE MONSTER MANUAL?!


Yes, the split up the schitzofrentic Elves into Wood elfs /Arcane elf types: Elves/Eldarin.

So you agree that 1/2 dragons were popular in 3.5. Than inventing a base class for the PHB was genuis.


-Abilities. Dear god. I love how they took World of Warcrafts spells and abilities and turned it into a system where you could use certain powers once a round, once an encounter, and once a day. This is D&D, not a MMO. The combat is supposed to be slow-paced and tactical!
.

What was the last point? Because it has abilities...that makes it WoW?

[dentrag2]

The abilities were a near-direct emulation of WoW, The reason for playing a ranged fighter was because of bonus feats. I haven't played ranger, but i stated earlier i was wrong about ranger and rogue. What about monks? The druid was unbalanced, yes, but after this much time, wouldn't they have figured out how to balance it? I realize the warlock did not exist before PHB2, thank you for informing me. As far as i know, in all the campaigns i DMed, i saw but one Half-dragon. So why they needed to put it in the PHB is beyond me. They took out most faults, so why not add intelligence and Dex to elves, thus fusing Eladrin and Elves roughly, allowing rangers, rogues and wizards to be favored classes.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Despite contributing to a flame-ready thread, I really am curious:

Dentrag2, you said you played one module of 4e, but few of your complaints seem to stem from gameplay. How did your module go, and how did that inform your impressions of 4e?

[Aron Times]

If anything, it is WoW that's emulating D&D, not the other way around. Besides, what's wrong with an internally consistent system of powers? Yes, 3.5 had more power systems, but most of them ended up doing the same thing.

In before lock, I guess.

[Knaight]

Brutal strike is very likely everywhere. Its like "spinning kick". As for improving spells, that is annoying. 3.5 had it scarce enough, but fourth edition just has you replace them with more powerful versions. It would have been so easy to do something better too, kind of like the power point augmentation, in multiple ways, which could also have applied to attacks. What fireball should be would be something like this:

Fireball level 7
30 foot diameter sphere(or blast 6)
+5 foot diameter(1 square blast) per 2 levels spent
+5 foot diameter per wisdom modifier.
3d10 damage
+1d10 damage per 3 levels spent.
+1 damage per die per charisma modifier.
Int vs. Reflex
+1 to hit per 4 levels spent.

These levels would be the levels above the spell, so at level 20 with 13 levels you could spend 12 of them to increase the diameter by 60 feet, if there is a large group clustered together(oh and a 90 foot diameter fireball is just awesome. Possibly a 115 foot diameter if wisdom was increased a lot and started high.), or you could spend 4 adding 1 to hit, 3 adding an extra die of damage, and 6 adding 15 feet to the diameter. The same thing could have been done with martial exploits too. But no, we get lame static spells with only a little input due to attributes.

Oh and the taunt mechanic you mentioned. One power that does that the mark is basically paying more attention to a particular enemy.

Coming back to the powers and such though, with the whole add 1/2 level to attribute modifiers, they could have easily done a DC thing. Something like:

Furious Slashing
Strength DC 25, first attack does full damage, cumulative -4 penalty
Strength DC 30, first attack does full damage, cumulative -2 penalty
Strength DC 35, all attacks deal full damage.

Dexterity DC 20, you get 2 attacks
Dexterity DC 30, you get 3 attacks
Dexterity DC 40, you get 4 attacks

Constitution DC 25, first attack has full attack bonus, cumulative -2 penalty
Constitution DC 30, first attack has full attack bonus, cumulative -1 penalty
Constitution DC 35, all attacks get full attack bonus.

As a general rule for all of these you would have to declare what you were aiming for with each, if you fail any of the 3, you just do a normal attack. That said, you only get 1/2 the overflow to push it up from what you roll when you succeed(so if you declare constitution DC 25, then roll a 40, you only get to apply 7 points of that, so it counts as a 32, which gets you a 30.

That would be so awesome if that had been how fourth edition had done it, and serves to illustrate that with your realistic angle complaint, you really have a point. The rest of them are kind of off though.

Edit: You know what, I'm going to go convert this to Fudge right about now. I'm liking the DC system, and that does seem the natural outgrowth from Saga. Plus even with martial DCs intelligence and charisma are going to play a part, and with magical, dexterity. Not that I use mental stats if I can avoid it.

[dentrag2]

Mmmh. Mostly, we died. We weren't well coordinated, and we were slowly killed off by monsters and traps. Oh, and the three in a row 20's didn't help.

[Knaight]

That could sour ones opinion. Thats what happened to us(3 people, 5 person module, big fight. Enemies rolled ridiculously well.) when playing KotS.

[Kyeudo]

Mmmh. Mostly, we died. We weren't well coordinated, and we were slowly killed off by monsters and traps. Oh, and the three in a row 20's didn't help.

Sounds like you either didn't have a well rounded party or were playing the classes like they were their 3.5 equivalents. I suggest you give it more time than one module.

[Crow]

I remember when I said months ago that an exception-based ruleset will cause all sorts of inconsistencies and confusion....The 4e mafia came down hard on me for that one.

Just wait until we get more splatbooks. Then things are going to get really messy.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Your post seriously made me LOL. Many of your points were just outright wrong, while the many more seemed to be nothing than ignorance. Let me post some of my favorites:


"Lets take away a wizards only weakness! Running out of spells! Now wizards have a huge damage potential, and are ridiculously overpowered." At first I thought this MUST have been sarcasm, but I dont think you were joking were you?


-Removed classes. I can understand that they removed the bard and sorcerer, as the bard was useless, and now with they're new system, sorcerer is indistinguishable from sorcerer. But Druid, Monk, and barbarian? Druid and monk have been in there since Ad&d. They're fun classes to play. And Barbarian was a good choice if you wanted a damage dealing whirlwind. bard was useless? far from it. And dont worry, all of those classes will be coming back later.


-Classes that shouldn't be. Why did they add Conqueror? How does that make sense? Its a useless class! Warlock, i can understand some wanting it as a main class, but to be frank, it wasn't good enough for PHB in 3.5e. But, it did make it into Players handbook 2.
Useless? Is it useless or just not appealing to you. Think about that for a sec.


-Abilities. Dear god. I love how they took World of Warcrafts spells and abilities and turned it into a system where you could use certain powers once a round, once an encounter, and once a day. This is D&D, not a MMO. The combat is supposed to be slow-paced and tactical! this was what lead to my tangible laughter. Its such an old and flawed argument it isnt even.. oh wait. It is indeed funny.

I wont comment on the ranger/rogue/fighter/cleric stuff. It looks like thats already been corrected.

[Covered In Bees]

Removal of pretty much all customization? thats enough for me.

Yeah, I hate how you don't get to pick anything, like feats, powers, even class abilities...

lol wut?

[The New Bruceski]

As far as I can tell there isn't a "Brutal Strike" in WoW. There's Sinister Strike, but that's an actual attack, not a passive of increased Sneak Attack damage. Instead of just repeating the name, can you point me towards what I've overlooked?

EDIT: just so I'm clear, I have no issue with people disliking 4th edition. I just prefer they do so for actual reasons instead of mistaken information.

[Skyserpent]

The abilities were a near-direct emulation of WoW, The reason for playing a ranged fighter was because of bonus feats. I haven't played ranger, but i stated earlier i was wrong about ranger and rogue. What about monks? The druid was unbalanced, yes, but after this much time, wouldn't they have figured out how to balance it? I realize the warlock did not exist before PHB2, thank you for informing me. As far as i know, in all the campaigns i DMed, i saw but one Half-dragon. So why they needed to put it in the PHB is beyond me. They took out most faults, so why not add intelligence and Dex to elves, thus fusing Eladrin and Elves roughly, allowing rangers, rogues and wizards to be favored classes.

A lot of WoW influence ISN'T NECESSARILY BAD. WoW is actually not a badly designed game. The only thing that's really irritating is that World of Warcraft is a rather gigantic timesink and money-burner for the socially maladjusted.

Oddly enough, D&D is relentlessly social... But that's something else entirely

The "Marking" abilities of the Tanking classes are different in that they make attacking the Fighter or Paladin a sound tactical decision. Whereas in WoW, the Fighter just clicks a button to make sure that the big guy pays attention to him instead of the rest of the party because if he tries to target anyone else the party is screwed. In 4e it's a little different in that rather than outright TELL enemies to attack the Tank they PUNISH them for NOT attacking the Tank which I feel is a more appropriate system to straight "Aggro"

"Balancing" the druid could be rather tough because of how ridiculously powered he used to be. Anyway Druids are already planned for the PHB2 and I think that's fine, Shapeshifting is a completely new mechanic for 4e.

As far as Races, you probably only saw one half-dragon because the race was, quite frankly, CRAP.

The whole Eladrin/Elf incident was interesting to me, but I kind of think it's an interesting point, because the two "Elf" archetypes are EXTREMELY different. I mean, the Forest Ranger Elf has almost nothing in common with the Arcane spellcastery Elf. honestly, though, I don't think it's such a big deal.


In 4e the more powerful a Wizard gets the tougher his spells are to resist. ALL OF THEM. Because of the way the new Defense system works.

[Fiendish_Dire_Moose]

Yes, but why did they have to add Dragonborn? Why couldn't it just have been Lizardmen?

Because Lizardfolk and Dragonborn are different. For instance, they both exhist in D&D. One is born of Bahaumut, the other is a creepy half man half lizard.

[Jimp]

-Removed classes. I can understand that they removed the bard and sorcerer, as the bard was useless, and now with they're new system, sorcerer is indistinguishable from sorcerer. But Druid, Monk, and barbarian? Druid and monk have been in there since Ad&d. They're fun classes to play. And Barbarian was a good choice if you wanted a damage dealing whirlwind.

They are bringing Druids, Monks and Barbarians back, as it says in the PHB. They operate on different power sources, namely nature and ki, which are still in development. The PHB was only for martial, arcane and divine classes.



-No customization. All clerics are healers now. What the crap? I had a necromancer cleric, because of all the spells you could do for that. Now, all fighters have to be hulking armor-tanks, and don't get any real customization other than which weapon they use. You used to be able to build a mounted fighter, a ranged fighter, or a swift, light fighter (like a duelist). Now you're restricted to RR! Me smash! Also, Rogues can no longer be ranged really, as all their 'abilities' require Short Blades. Ooh! Ooh! What about all the really fun wizard spells dissapearing! Yay for ONLY damage spells!
You can still be all those things as a fighter. While they lack special ranged powers, you can pick up some Ranger ones with multiclass feats if you want. Fighters are more customisable than EVER in 4e. Weapon choice, paragon choice and power choice yield many different effective ways of fighting, rather than 3e's two or three ways of playing a useful fighter. Also, they get skill points now. My friend who loves fighters rejoiced!
Rogues can use crossbows or slings and I think thrown daggers or shurikens with many of their powers. Combat Advantage, and therefore sneak attack, still works at a range to the best of my memory.
Those wizard spells ended up with the batman situation which was one of the greatest faults in every previous edition. They get some crowd control and status effect spells now too, they're not pure damage. Many utility spells from 3e have been changed to rituals that wizards can cast.



-Weakness removal. Now everyone has at least 14 hitpoints to start, probably more. Is it just me, or does that mean that most commoners have more hitpoints than a third level wizard in 3.5e? I can just imagine the other faults in a boardroom between Mr.a and Mr. b.
"Lets take away a wizards only weakness! Running out of spells! Now wizards have a huge damage potential, and are ridiculously overpowered."
"Brilliant! Also, lets make it so rangers are ranged ONLY!"
"Great! And, lets remove one of the paladin and wizards most interesting features! REMOVE THE MOUNTS AND FAMILIARS!"
"Thats the best idea i've ever heard."

So fewer games end at first combat at first level before anyone gets to really explore their concept? The HP increase at low levels is a blessing. Remember though that even with more HP, damage from combat is still pretty high at those levels. 14 HP only means you go down in two hits rather than one, the point is that you can survive the first hit and hopefully end the combat before the second, thusly allowing the game to continue.
Rangers are either close combat or ranged fighters, as you can see from their power and class feature lists. They aren't limited to ranged at all.
Mounts are handy for going here and there, but so are the ones you can pick up in a town for a few gp :smallbiggrin:. Familiars were awesome and I miss them but who knows, they may return in a splatbook as a feat or power.



-Classes that shouldn't be. Why did they add Conqueror? How does that make sense? Its a useless class! Warlock, i can understand some wanting it as a main class, but to be frank, it wasn't good enough for PHB in 3.5e. But, it did make it into Players handbook 2.

The Warlock wasn't created until Complete Adventurer. It's a very popular class and I don't know anyone who's angry with seeing it getting more support in 4e. Warlords are similar to Marshals and Knights in 3e, close combat military style leader with some healing ability but mainly buffs for allys in combat. Marshal is from the Miniatures Handbook, Knight from PHB2. That aside, the Warlord class is great imo. Huge buffs to the melee fighters, a helping hand in combat healing and retraining some decent damage output themselves. I'm planning to play one as soon as I can.



-No domains. Hmm, there goes all the cleric customization and uniqueness.

Aside from different power selections, which is where a lot of combat-related customisation comes from in 4e, Clerics can take a feat that gives them a power dependant on their deity. This is basically the same as a domain power, except you don't gain bonus spells. Some of the powers are quite nice. It's not a big deal to take it either since you get more feats in 4e than 3e and don't need them for Prc entry.



-Ridiculous alignment system. Hmm. So now we lost Lawful evil, and Chaotic good. I can understand losing Chaotic Neutral and Lawful neutral, They were hard to role play other than for chaotic neutral to be random and a jerk. Why? Why god why? Why remove Lawful evil, arguably the most used Alignment in 3.5E other than True Neutral.

They simplified it to just plain good and evil, with LG and CE being the most extreme ends of good and evil. This change is loved by some, hated by others. I can't really say anything more about it other than that I've used Unaligned instead of the Neutral alignments for an awful long time and I'm happy to see it as part of the new core.



-Races. Ok, gnomes didn't see much use, but half-orc's were useful. And i love how they threw in something called Eladrin which is essentially High elves. Maybe i can understand Tieflings, but why not add in Aiasmar instead of Eladrin? Don't get me started on dragonborn. WHY DO YOU THINK THERE ARE HALF-DRAGONS IN THE MONSTER MANUAL?!

Gnomes and Orcs as player races are in the back of the MM in their own section with others such as Drow and Githzerai.
The Eladrin/Elf split is due to the fluff that said elves were both woodland dwellers and agile warriors AND mystical magic users. Mechanically it's difficult to combine these very different traits into one race. Previous elf racial traits were basically just compromises between these, but in 4e they changed so that the hardy wood elves are good at being hardy and magicy elves are good at being magicy. Let's just hope we don't have 50000000 more elven sub species like previous editions :smallbiggrin:.
Tieflings are cooler and more popular than Aisamar, that's about it :smalltongue:.
3e had several BOOKS about dragon-esque and dragon-related races. That aside, the dragon-man race is a staple of many fantasy stories and it's not that far fetched to introduce it early in 4e, rather than in a splatbook a few years on.



-The notes in PHB. 'Drawing a new audience while keeping the old one' my ass. What they did is flip off the people who played 3.5E and tried to draw in the WoW crowd. Personally, I'll stay with 3.5E.

Most WoW players into RPGS I know played 3e before WoW was released, most of them still do play 3e. I'm still trying to convince them to try 4e :smalltongue:. The ones who don't like RPGS are just as repulsed by 4e as they are by 3e, GURPS, Shadowrun, etc.



-Abilities. Dear god. I love how they took World of Warcrafts spells and abilities and turned it into a system where you could use certain powers once a round, once an encounter, and once a day. This is D&D, not a MMO. The combat is supposed to be slow-paced and tactical!

Slow paced and tactical? 4e has moved things more IN that direction. In my experiences tactics in previous edition boiled down to either 'Wizard makes them suck/die, we clean up' or 'just hold the line for a round or two so the wizard can finish this up in one move'. For anyone not a wizard combat tactics are basically 'roll a d20', 'do the trick I'm built to do well' or 'sneak attack'. In the last 2e game I played in no matter how hard the other players and myself tried, when it came down to combat the wizard cast whatever winspell they had readied and that was it. It's a good thing it was a combat-lite RP-heavy session or the night would have sucked. 4e facilitates actual combat tactics a lot more since classes are more level and movement is much more common, leading to a more even playing field with constantly changing combat situations.

EDIT: mod-ninja'd! My semi-angry response thwarted! Hello, different thread :smallwink:.

[F.L.]

...
-Removed classes. I can understand that they removed the bard and sorcerer, as the bard was useless, ...


Not in my experience. I DM a game currently, and the party's bard is my worst nightmare. I basically have to go with mindless enemies to cause an actual combat, otherwise the enemies are convinced not to fight. And the other 2 party members are a druid and a rogue?!



...
-No customization...
...
-Ridiculous alignment system...
...
-Abilities. Dear god. I love how they took World of Warcrafts spells and abilities and turned it into a system where you could use certain powers once a round, once an encounter, and once a day. This is D&D, not a MMO. The combat is supposed to be slow-paced and tactical!



I find your argument for lack of customization probably comes from the fact that at present there are only 4 written D&D4E materials. It hasn't had the time to accumulate the scads of paragon paths, feats, etc. that are customization options in 3.X. Wait and see. That's also a counterargument about class removal; I fully expect something sorceror like or barbarian like to resurface, but not necessarily the monk, as that class doesn't precisely fit with a european fantasy-type setting. But it might be popular enough to return.

As for alignment, it's always been a little ridiculous as a system, it unneccesarily cuts parts out of your character's personality, and the motivations of villains, etc. I can see why they'd want to simplify things, the chaotic good and chaotic neutral alignments were especially problematic in my opinion. But the way it will mess with the outsiders, I don't care for that. I can only foresee the 'loths being redistributed among the demons and devils, for one. But then, I don't care for what they did with a long list of the monsters, such as the lamia, and I think they made a marilith a devil from a demon in 4E. But that's really beside the point.

I believe Dungeonscape has per-encounter abilities, etc, and that's regarded as a good book. It's a decent middle ground between the wizard's miserly resource management, and the fighter's all-day availability. Ensuring that all classes have similar ability totals is the easy way to try for class balance.

As for the mounts and familiars, you run into Heisenberg's familiar at any level above 5, as it currently goes. They cut up so easily in combat that it isn't worth it to get them, almost. It's really a distraction as it currently stands. How is it a way to differentiate characters when it isn't brought into play ever?

And for the current races, I think they're an okay group as it currently stands. I'm becoming a bit tired of the standard fantasy standbys, the scottish dwarves who dislike the elves, etc etc. I'd really rather just pick out 6 or so of the humanoids in the PHB and MM and just have those 6 fill the niches of the world (trade race, amphibious race, cave race, etc.) and work out a dynamic of civilizations from there.

I'm confused. Did I wind up in a teleport field?

[The New Bruceski]

That's also a counterargument about class removal; I fully expect something sorceror like or barbarian like to resurface, but not necessarily the monk, as that class doesn't precisely fit with a european fantasy-type setting. But it might be popular enough to return.

I've seen comments (from people in WotC, I just can't recall enough to cite right now) that the Monk will be coming back with powers based around grappling, making that his specialty. It could be interesting, as long as it's kept pretty simple.

[dentrag2]

/sigh. Now i have to deal with people who didn't read my other posts. Given that most of the campaigns i deal with are either not combat centered or combat centered but many mindless opponents. Anyway, i'll just remove the eladrin and Dragonborn and replace them with homebrew races. yes, the wizard familiars tended to be useless, until level 3, where you could get an invisible air elemental as a servant, (pretty helpful) And you didn't HAVE to have a horse as a mount as a pally. It still seems that fighters have lost some of their customization, but i admit they have more feats than ever on the 16+ different ways to slash or bludgeon an enemy to pieces. Someone told me that warlocks weren't created until later, check the posts. About the wizards, We usually dont have one, because we realized long ago that wizards are overpowered. If i recall our last party in 3.5E had 2 rangers (One for each specialization) a druid with a fleshraker, and a grapple-monk.

Oh yea, brutal strike is Mortal strike for fighters.

[Gavin Sage]

Yeah, I hate how you don't get to pick anything, like feats, powers, even class abilities...

lol wut?

Unless those differences don't mean terribly much. 4e wants to say to 3.5ers the likes of "You get a Feat every level" only most of the levels you can only pick from a small list of options. When you used to be able to crawl through books, or at least pages of options. Doubly so for anything involving spellcasting.

Then there's how different the abilities really are. I saw at least three classes where one of the top ablities was the likes of '7[W]+Stat' to a single target. Only it had a different name, whooo boy that's some choice there.

Then of course there's how many ablities are just ways to do damage, with the variables being amount, range, and targets. While anything not doing damage or moving your character x squares (yay for shoving mini's down are throats) is nerfed where not non-existant.

I lost all faith in 4e when I realized I couldn't play an illusionist at all. I mean what was so broken about Silent Image? I couldn't find a single ablity in the whole that matched the simple utility and fun of that level one spell. I can become a demigod but I can't create an illusionary bug to distract my enemies?

[OneFamiliarFace]

To be fair, I suspect he probably meant other threads on this forum.

Yes, thank you. I am not hip with the lingo. As an aging 24 something, this "Internet" both scares and confuses me. :smalltongue:


Oh yea, brutal strike is Mortal strike for fighters.

Wouldn't that mean that brutal strike would have to deal more damage when the enemy is below 20% health? I miss my Warrior... AND my fighter...


I lost all faith in 4e when I realized I couldn't play an illusionist at all. I mean what was so broken about Silent Image? I couldn't find a single ablity in the whole that matched the simple utility and fun of that level one spell. I can become a demigod but I can't create an illusionary bug to distract my enemies?

I once killed a roomful of assassins in AD&D, by myself, at level 2. There was some obscure rule that if an illusion made it look like a person was going to die, they had to pass a couple of saves or die. In 3e, it was all good because it didn't make any sound. They had an illusionist class up on Wizards for a while, but I didn't like it.

[dentrag2]

I think you're confusing Mortal strike and Execute. Mortal strike does extra damage, and Execute does bonus damage when they're below 20%

[The New Bruceski]

Oh yea, brutal strike is Mortal strike for fighters.

Ok, I found it, it was changed to "Brute Strike." Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of the Brutal Scoundrel.

So you're comparing a power that does extra damage once/day, with a WoW ability that does extra damage every 6 seconds and makes them harder to heal? Yeah, it was obviously copied. WotC was an idiot for using a word that sounded a bit like another word. </sarcasm>

[OneFamiliarFace]

I think you're confusing Mortal strike and Execute. Mortal strike does extra damage, and Execute does bonus damage when they're below 20%

Ah yes, when I say I miss my warrior, I mean he was level 40 and fury spec'd. :smalltongue: However, as Mortal Strike is not a once/day ability (at least, I'm 99% sure it doesn't have a 24 hour recharge), Brutal Strike stands as only having the word "strike" in common, which would also make Steel Serpent Strike a contender for "Copycat WoW Ability." Of course, THAT would be closer to Hamstring.

I'm not arguing for 4e here, I guess I'm arguing against this specific point (and that just for fun). Are you seriously suggesting that having an ability that "causes a fighter to do extra damage" is copying something else, just because they both have strike in the name? Even if they called it "Mortal Strike," then it wouldn't be a copycat ability. Giving a Fighter the ability to do extra melee damage is what a Fighter does. Hence his name: Fighter.

And just for more fun, I noticed that the WoW druid can fill three roles: shapeshifting melee bruiser, damaging nature magics, and healing. That sounds very familiar. I just can't put my finger on it. What I mean to say is that most modern fantasy games have stolen ideas (or just ripped off entirely) from DnD. In return, DnD created its monsters and races as a copy of Tolkien (halflings? dwarves being stout and hardy? elves being lithe, tall, and graceful? orcs?) Other monsters, they ripped straight from mythology (that's what Tolkien did...). That's cool, so long as it makes it more fun to play. Which it does.

So, if DnD 4e were LITERALLY WoW as a roleplaying game, but it is fun, then I'm in. At that point, we're just arguing what name should be on the front of the book, and I'm more concerned with what is inside.

[dentrag2]

Edit: Oops, my mistake. they did change it. But it seems that you really are arguing FOR 4E as you haven't said a word of good for 3E

[Vexxation]

Again, you're thinking of a different ability. Mortal strike, unless they changed it, was a improved version of Heroic strike, and did bonus damage depending on what your Attack power was.

It was changed with the horrid abomination of an addition that was the Arena. It deals damage and reduces healing done by like 50% for a while.

Honestly, the massive emphasis on the Arena (and raids being demanding on my sleep patterns) is the main reason I no longer play Wow. Oh well. My 'lock is always there, waiting for me to come back to him...

[Helgraf]

In return, DnD created its monsters and races as a copy of Tolkien (halflings? dwarves being stout and hardy? elves being lithe, tall, and graceful? orcs?) Other monsters, they ripped straight from mythology (that's what Tolkien did...). That's cool, so long as it makes it more fun to play. Which it does.

Nitpick: Actually, no. D&D took most of its monsters from other authors, along the lines of Lieber and Moorcock, Vance and such. The tolkienisation came from players who'd read Tolkien then came to D&D - not from the 'source'.

[Jayabalard]

huge block of textI see what you did there.

Just a thought: you might want to introduce some white space into that to make it easier to read.


To be fair, I suspect he probably meant other threads on this forum.Even if that's the case, it's not really valid to tell people they can't dislike them in a thread titled "Things you dislike about 4th edition" even if they've been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.

[Gavin Sage]

I once killed a roomful of assassins in AD&D, by myself, at level 2. There was some obscure rule that if an illusion made it look like a person was going to die, they had to pass a couple of saves or die. In 3e, it was all good because it didn't make any sound. They had an illusionist class up on Wizards for a while, but I didn't like it.

Which is just a plain old stupid mechanic, and a DM should be praised for simply saying "No" to it. (Then again I'll go so far as to say that anything that makes you 'save or die' instantly is dumb in an RPG. Its predestined to either be broken to hell, or ineffective whenever it really matters. But I digress)

That's a comparatively simple to fix though next to destroying the inherent creativity of illusions by bringing things down to a few minor tricks. I don't know that I could cover a pit with a fake floor anymore, or hide a turn to fool the pursuing orcs. The sort of stuff that you can't put mechanics on, because its mostly a DM call on how well it works.

And while sure WotC can fix this with a further class, but that means I have to buy another book to cover something I could easily do with core rules previously. That's not a defense or reason to sink money into the whole system.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Brutal Strike and Mortal Strike? Hey, isn't there a Cone of Cold too? And what about Magic missiles copying arcane missiles! Oh, dont even get me started on fireballs.

My gawd, and here I thought WoW took elements from D&D, not the other way around. Color me stupid!

[dentrag2]

Brutal Strike and Mortal Strike? Hey, isn't there a Cone of Cold too? And what about Magic missiles copying arcane missiles! Oh, dont even get me started on fireballs.

My gawd, and here I thought WoW took elements from D&D, not the other way around. Color me stupid!

Do. I have no idea what color stupid is.

[OneFamiliarFace]

Nitpick: Actually, no. D&D took most of its monsters from other authors, along the lines of Lieber and Moorcock, Vance and such. The tolkienisation came from players who'd read Tolkien then came to D&D - not from the 'source'.

*Bows* I stand corrected then. Having only read Moorcock and Tolkien, I am unfamiliar with others.

And Dentrag, it is indeed true that I am more for 4e than I am for 3.x. But I state in numerous posts that it is not because I dislike 3e, and rather because my players like 4e's more concise ruleset better. The beef I normally have is that players on both sides make ineffective or outright wrong arguments. In this case, I disagree with you that 4e is copying WoW. You will note, I do not state disagreements to the effect that 4e sucks, which is your opinion, and that is cool, because it is about finding the system you have the most fun with.

In fact, I will issue my first complaint against 4e: I cannot recreate my favorite class, the Spellsword. I loved that class and never even got a chance to play it. Importantly, the upcoming swordmage probably still won't duplicate it properly, because my build always used the more obscure status spells, over the damage dealing ones. (Sweet, a return to the OP!)

And my first outright compliment of 3.5: They made significant improvements in game design and choices for players while still keeping the DnD feel. (And, I think, 4e has done the same.)

@Gavin_Sage: I know that! :smalltongue: And you'll notice, I said 3.x got rid of that. The DM was a very permissive one, and we got away with a lot during that campaign. It was a fun break from our more serious ones.

[Jade_Tarem]

Brutal Strike and Mortal Strike? Hey, isn't there a Cone of Cold too? And what about Magic missiles copying arcane missiles! Oh, dont even get me started on fireballs.

My gawd, and here I thought WoW took elements from D&D, not the other way around. Color me stupid!

I know that this was sarcasm, but it struck me that it would be really interesting to try to figure out who's borrowing what from who now. I remember a friend of mine and I laughing way back when hero classes were just a rumor (and there was no such thing as BC) - we thought that they would basically be prestige classes, and the first one we thought of was Magic Archer, since Blizzard switches out the word arcane for magic and vice versa whenever they need to take something specific from DnD but don't want to get sued. The second one we thought of was Archmage, since they actually have an archmage NPC template already. The list goes on...

[Kurald Galain]

Because Lizardfolk and Dragonborn are different. For instance, they both exhist in D&D. One is born of Bahaumut, the other is a creepy half man half lizard.

The creepy one being the one with the boobs, I suppose? :smallbiggrin:

[OneFamiliarFace]

Yeah, I'll join in on that one. I like the 4e artwork, but I am very confused as to why female dragonborn have mammary glands.

I guess technically, they don't have a "reptile" qualifier or anything, so they could be like half lizard/half human, but that just confuses me now that dragons lack the ability to polymorph into humans.

Either way, I dislike Dragonborn mammary glands. Instead, I think males should just have colorful frills or do some intricate mating dance to denote their sex. Yeah...

[Zeebiedeebie]

At the risk of sounding prejudiced: I FREAKING HATE 4E! I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT!!!!1!111!

Pshew.

[Sebastian]

to answer the thread question the two things I really dislike about 4e (because , why yes, I *do* dislike 4e, but certainly not because it have weaking healing potions ;) that is just a bonus ) are:

a) bluntly put, it is boring. Lame, bland, uninteresting, pick you choice, I've read the phb, the dmg, the monster manual even if not completely) and I read some f the new Dragon articles and there was nothing that really "wow!"ed me, or elicited a response stronger than a "meh!", the best thing were probably the rituals, and even those are seriously lacking.
2) and probably it is related, the total disconnection between what the rules say and what actually happen in the game world, not only you have no idea how a power works, it don't even matter, you attack the enemy and it is slowed (save ends), how? you don't know and what is worse you don't care, it just happen, you can come up with a rationalization if you want but is an exercise in futility because it make no difference. Now you had situations like that even in previous edition (like the legendary "you fall from 200 feet and survive") but where those things in previous editions were considered bugs, glitches that a good dm could and should try to fix, applying home rules or simply common sense, in 4e those are considered features. I know many have no problem with it and good for then, but these are the things that make impossible for me to enjoy 4ed as a roleplaying game.
OTOH I can't wait for the videogames based on it, tho. :D (I've heard the new expansio for NWN2 will use the 4e rules, I wonder if that is true.)

[OneFamiliarFace]

OTOH I can't wait for the videogames based on it, tho. :D (I've heard the new expansio for NWN2 will use the 4e rules, I wonder if that is true.)

Actually, that's a good point. Now I might not have to despair when turning on power attack just gives me a flat +5/-5, because that's what it already does (kind of)! I hope it would mean that NWN would start using more team based stuff though, instead of the single player with a cohort thing. DnD just gots to have 4-6 players. It gots to!

[Covered In Bees]

you attack the enemy and it is slowed (save ends), how? you don't know and what is worse you don't care,
No, YOU don't care. I describe it.
How does this not apply to the Stand Still feat in 3E, say? It's just that melee characters can actually do this thing on a regular basis now.
How does Thicket of Blades slow the ogre? Because my fighter came in, whacking/hacking at its legs, hurting it and making it hobble until it can shake off the pain (make the save). How about the giant bat? He's swatting it around as it tries to fly off.

What did you want? A detailed description that will apply in every situation the power can be used in?



it just happen, you can come up with a rationalization if you want but is an exercise in futility because it make no difference.
Well, presumably, you want to describe what your character's doing. 4E gives you much more of a springboard for that than 3E's full attack, full attack, charge, five-foot step, full attack. Did you expect something like Exalted's Stunting mechanic? It wouldn't be that hard to add it to 4E.

[Sebastian]

No, YOU don't care. I describe it.

good for you, for the game it make no difference, I mean there are players that always speak in-character, or even wear costumes when they play, or even write and sign actual songs for their bards, all those thing if they like them are certainly nice, but their are not really necessary nor required for the game, describing what your powers does in 4e is the same thing.


How does this not apply to the Stand Still feat in 3E, say? It's just that melee characters can actually do this thing on a regular basis now.

did you read my post? Apparently not


How does Thicket of Blades slow the ogre? Because my fighter came in, whacking/hacking at its legs, hurting it and making it hobble until it can shake off the pain (make the save). How about the giant bat? He's swatting it around as it tries to fly off.
what about a gelatonous cube? a swarm of bees? an irom golem? a ghost? a colossal dragon? a zombie? an air elemental?

Of course you can come up with a description for each of thesebut a) it would be a different description of this and each power for every different monster (and this rise the question, what kind of tecnique or special move change depending on who or what you use it against?) too often the rationalizations are so convoluted and improbable that *I* think they are not worth the effort.


What did you want? A detailed description that will apply in every situation the power can be used in? I want a system that at least try to make sense, even if it fail at it so when I have doubt I just apply common sense to it to see where it goes, not one that just handwave the "making sense" part and leave it as a job for the player.


Well, presumably, you want to describe what your character's doing. I want, in 4e I just can't, or better I think is just not rilevant and not worth the (to me considerable) effort

[Jayabalard]

What did you want? A system where design and balance considerations are less important than "making sense", not the other way around.

[Sebastian]

A system where design and balance considerations are less important than "making sense", not the other way around.

I'd even set for "equally important".

[Kurald Galain]

A system where design and balance considerations are less important than "making sense", not the other way around.

That's a good point. It's what, to my knowledge, every pen-and-paper RPG other than D&D4 does. So I suppose this makes 4E unique, which certainly has some market appeal.

At least in this fashion, 4E is closer to a boardgame (such as Descent or Runebound) than to a storytelling game, because the former are not expected to have verisimilitude.

[Totally Guy]

Perhaps a house-rule along the lines of "If you can't describe why the effect happens it doesn't happen." would be handy. Rewards imagination and puts an onus on the player to justify the effect rather than the DM.

Disclaimer, this is not part of the argument for or against 4E I'm just suggesting house rule idea.

[The New Bruceski]

Which slowing effects do you take issue with? The flavor text on ones I've seen seem to suggest a generic method of effect. Sure, "stabbing viciously at a foe's knee or foot" (Steel Serpent Strike, Fighter E1) wouldn't hamper a flying enemy, but it's not hard to imagine the same actions against a wing. Oozes and ghosts could be an issue, but since I don't have the MM, I don't know if they have abilities addressing that. For example, oozes I've fought shift in their movement instead of a walk. I don't know if that ability specifies effects.

So really I'm confused about where the line is drawn. What makes it ok for someone to break the laws of physics with their fingers, but not with a sword? Dragons can breathe incredibly caustic acid, but a Warlord better have an explanation how he can make allies get up and keep fighting without magic?

[Reinforcements]

A system where design and balance considerations are less important than "making sense", not the other way around.
Those are commonly known as "bad games".

[dentrag2]

So, you support 4E to the death then reinforcements? As far as i know, all other RPG's of note needed things to make SOME sense.

[Sebastian]

So really I'm confused about where the line is drawn. What makes it ok for someone to break the laws of physics with their fingers, but not with a sword?

Because breaking laws of phisics is part of the job description for magic, but not for a sword, the job description for a sword is "cutting things"


Dragons can breathe incredibly caustic acid, but a Warlord better have an explanation how he can make allies get up and keep fighting without magic?
But that is my point, it don't need to have a description, it is unnecesary, which certainly make it a good game, but it totally ruin that "roleplaying" thing for me.

[Kurald Galain]

Those are commonly known as "bad games".

So, I take it you've never played Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Paranoia, Ctulhu, Warhammer, Indy Jones, Amber DRP, TORG, GURPS, or FUDGE? Just to name a few...

I'm sure the fact that nobody ever buys those games and their respective companies went bankrupt in a matter of weeks underlines how bad all those games are. Yep.

[Prophaniti]

What makes it ok for someone to break the laws of physics with their fingers, but not with a sword? Dragons can breathe incredibly caustic acid, but a Warlord better have an explanation how he can make allies get up and keep fighting without magic?
I'll try to explain: In a fantasy setting, you usually accept that magic exists. Once you've done so, magic can be used as an explanation for anything and still not break verisimilitude or immersion, provided it doesn't violate any rules you've laid out for magic. Ex: It is perfectly reasonable and realistic to have someone fly in a fantasy setting with magic, unless you laid out earlier that magic cannot be used to fly (some kind of quirky cosmic limitation or something). It is not reasonable or realistic to have someone fly without magic (see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). In most fantasy settings, the world works on the same basic principles and physical laws as ours. It must for sake of our comprehension if nothing else. Magic exists as a way to bypass those principles and laws, a way to get the 'fantastic' into fantasy.

That's why it is ok for people who use magic to do things people who don't use magic cannot replicate. Yes, this absolutely makes magic very powerful, that is why nearly every fantasy setting with magic liberaly applies limitations (hard to use, tiring, requires sacrifice, people hunt you, etc).

I can count on one hand the number of settings I'm familiar with where magic cannot outdo the physical (if you know more, feel free to point them out). That's the way it works in most settings, that's the way I want it to work, and that's the way that 4e chucked out the window and said "everything should be as powerful as magic, that way no one cries." It seems they also decided everything would be explained as little as magic is, too. That's why a human fighter (ostensibly with no magical power) can move a Red Dragon just because he used [insert shifting power name here] on it. Not because he made that ridiculously hard strength check, but just because his 'power' says the target is shifted.

[Sebastian]

Perhaps a house-rule along the lines of "If you can't describe why the effect happens it doesn't happen." would be handy.

But that would means overpower the wizards again

"how did you stunned that gelatinous cube?" I ... uh.. I hit it on the head" "it don't have a head" "..."

"how do you did that?" "magic" "...Ok!"

[tumble check]

Yeah, I'll join in on that one. I like the 4e artwork, but I am very confused as to why female dragonborn have mammary glands.


Either way, I dislike Dragonborn mammary glands. Instead, I think males should just have colorful frills or do some intricate mating dance to denote their sex. Yeah...

Does this really surprise you? Versimilitude is not 4e's strong point.

[Prophaniti]

Does this really surprise you? Versimilitude is not 4e's strong point.
Exactly. Especially with the player race changes, Dragonborn and Tieflings were made base races specifically, and by their own admission, because they're 'cool' and it would increase their sales. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I like capitalism, and if it works, good for them. But I am not looking for a RPG system governed solely by the Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool), I have other things I care about in my games and settings. So my money will be given to other companies who have priorities closer to mine.

[The New Bruceski]

I can count on one hand the number of settings I'm familiar with where magic cannot outdo the physical (if you know more, feel free to point them out). That's the way it works in most settings, that's the way I want it to work, and that's the way that 4e chucked out the window and said "everything should be as powerful as magic, that way no one cries." It seems they also decided everything would be explained as little as magic is, too. That's why a human fighter (ostensibly with no magical power) can move a Red Dragon just because he used [insert shifting power name here] on him. Not because he made that ridiculously hard strength check, but just because his 'power' says the target is shifted.

Last bit first (though I know it's an example, not your only qualm), Fighter abilities seem to refer to "mighty blows" and "forcing the enemy to give ground" as much as they do to an actual push. I don't care how big a creature is, if you land a solid hit it's likely to give ground, and the attack roll is effectively the "strength check" to land a solid and strong hit. I'll also point out that Tide of Iron, the only push I found in the heroic tier, has a size restriction to its effects.

As for magic being powerful, I'd like to note that in such settings magic (particularly strong magic, e.g. Lord of the Rings) also tends to be rare. When it isn't you either end up with a setting like Eberron, where magic has become the mundane, or Forgotten Realms, which challenges verisimilitude in what could be considered the other direction (How have non-magic-users managed to even get close to any position of authority?)

The same stories of heroic fantasy that have shaped the ideas of strong magic have also handed us non-magical characters who were veritable supermen. Conan, Tolkien's writings (notably Boromir and Aragorn), Beowulf, and... others on the tip of my brain, but it's been a while since I've read the genre. They did not need spells to do fantastic feats, and in some cases have held their own against sorcerers. At the least they've been willing to try.

I think it's fairly clear that 4th edition does not seek to model normal limits of fighting -- no more than 3rd edition did with the Tome of Battle or feats like Snatch Arrows. D&D tries to model the Heroic Warrior, somebody capable of standing next to masters of the arcane and hold his own, somebody who fights on when a normal man would be dead three times over. Somebody who would be willing and able to punch a dragon in the face.

[tumble check]

Exactly. Especially with the player race changes, Dragonborn and Tieflings were made base races specifically, and by their own admission, because they're 'cool' and it would increase their sales. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I like capitalism, and if it works, good for them. But I am not looking for a RPG system governed solely by the Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool), I have other things I care about in my games and settings. So my money will be given to other companies who have priorities closer to mine.

I particularly enjoy the part of the PHB that has the "Play a Dragonborn if: you want a character that looks like a dragon."

[Starsinger]

I particularly enjoy the part of the PHB that has the "Play a Dragonborn if: you want a character that looks like a dragon."

Because half-dragon sure weren't popular in 3.5... nope. I never felt like you couldn't spit without hitting a D&D group that had at least 1 half-dragon in it.

[Prophaniti]

Last bit first (though I know it's an example, not your only qualm), Fighter abilities seem to refer to "mighty blows" and "forcing the enemy to give ground" as much as they do to an actual push. I don't care how big a creature is, if you land a solid hit it's likely to give ground, and the attack roll is effectively the "strength check" to land a solid and strong hit. I'll also point out that Tide of Iron, the only push I found in the heroic tier, has a size restriction to its effects.Certainly possible, I haven't played that high yet in 4e. Although that does raise another beef, the inexplicable amnesia that every character gets when they level, and must train new abilities to replace those they just can't remember how to do anymore... Now there's a mechanic that strains immersion to the breaking point. Just as bad as narcoleptic 3.5 wizards in my book, actually worse the more I think about it.


As for magic being powerful, I'd like to note that in such settings magic (particularly strong magic, e.g. Lord of the Rings) also tends to be rare. When it isn't you either end up with a setting like Eberron, where magic has become the mundane, or Forgotten Realms, which challenges verisimilitude in what could be considered the other direction (How have non-magic-users managed to even get close to any position of authority?)Hence my paragraph mentioning how most settings place moderate to severe limitations on magic. The limitations are just as important as the capabilities. 3.5 had the power, but not the limitations. Instead of adding the limitations, 4e decided to chuck the power out too, so now 'magic' is no better, worse, or different from 'martial' power in any way. It is simply a different label.


The same stories of heroic fantasy that have shaped the ideas of strong magic have also handed us non-magical characters who were veritable supermen. Conan, Tolkien's writings (notably Boromir and Aragorn), Beowulf, and... others on the tip of my brain, but it's been a while since I've read the genre. They did not need spells to do fantastic feats, and in some cases have held their own against sorcerers. At the least they've been willing to try.Ok, some of those stories really do strain credibility, some even knock it down and step on it's throat (Beowulf). Others, however, are not so unbelievable. Even Boromir and Aragorn did not do anything that was blatantly impossible. Arguably, perhaps, but not blatantly. If that's the kind of story you want to tell with a system, I guess 4e would work ok, although I would not be impressed with a fighter who killed a 4e wizard at all, since it would be no more or less challenging than killing another 4e fighter. (assuming players of roughly equal knowledge, optomization, and tactical sense, of course)


I think it's fairly clear that 4th edition does not seek to model normal limits of fighting -- no more than 3rd edition did with the Tome of Battle or feats like Snatch Arrows. D&D tries to model the Heroic Warrior, somebody capable of standing next to masters of the arcane and hold his own, somebody who fights on when a normal man would be dead three times over. Somebody who would be willing and able to punch a dragon in the face.True, neither system has been overly concerned with 'realistic' fighting. 3.5 perhaps cared a bit more, but still not all that much. That's why my prefered systems are more like WFRP/Dark Heresy. I don't have a problem most of the time with systems that bring forth a more heroic style to the combat, I just don't prefer it.

I think part of it is that I am bothered by the idiosyncracies of 3.5, and then 4e comes out with even more wieght on my immersion and I decided I didn't want to play it badly enough to suffer through that.

[Morty]

Because half-dragon sure weren't popular in 3.5... nope. I never felt like you couldn't spit without hitting a D&D group that had at least 1 half-dragon in it.

Well, I've never had this impression. Sure, there were half-dragons around, but not that many, and some of them were made with (failed, of course)optimization purposes.

[Reinforcements]

So, I take it you've never played Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Paranoia, Ctulhu, Warhammer, Indy Jones, Amber DRP, TORG, GURPS, or FUDGE? Just to name a few...

I'm sure the fact that nobody ever buys those games and their respective companies went bankrupt in a matter of weeks underlines how bad all those games are. Yep.
Shoot, you got me. Every RPG but D&D 4e favors (your particular view of) realism over good gameplay. Seriously, Warhammer? Why didn't you just post, "You're wrong because 4e sucks." It would have come to the same thing.

Regarding accepting magic as an explanation for every 'unrealistic' thing, what some fans of fantasy need to realize is that's only one way to engage in willing suspension of disbelief. For a lot of people - really a lot - "it's magic!" is NOT a satisfying explanation for seemingly impossible events. I mean, I usually accept it, because I AM a fan of fantasy, but even I get tired of it after a while. Making every supernatural event in your fantasy world explicitly "magical" does not automatically make your world more realistic, logical, or verisimilar than another equally fantastic world with no magic. Different people can suspend their disbelief over different things.

The only other thing I suggest is to stop thinking up hypothetical examples to show why 4e's rules are totally stupid and ruin role-playing and realize what the people at Wizard's finally did, that the rules of the game are RULES for a GAME and should facilitate a fun game as goal #1 and are not meant to simulate a whole world.

[Knaight]

So, I take it you've never played Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Paranoia, Ctulhu, Warhammer, Indy Jones, Amber DRP, TORG, GURPS, or FUDGE? Just to name a few...

I'm sure the fact that nobody ever buys those games and their respective companies went bankrupt in a matter of weeks underlines how bad all those games are. Yep.

Not to be nitpicky, but Fudge stopped being an acronym 3 or 4 years ago. Take a look at the 10th anniversary edition cover, no acronym left. It also showed up in an interview with Ann Dupuis somewhere, possibly in the Fudge Factor interview.

[Frosty]

Because half-dragon sure weren't popular in 3.5... nope. I never felt like you couldn't spit without hitting a D&D group that had at least 1 half-dragon in it.

I've never had one in my group at all. I think the +3 (or was it +4?) LA just sucked balls.

[Prophaniti]

Seriously, Warhammer? Why didn't you just post, "You're wrong because 4e sucks." It would have come to the same thing.
Why is Warhammer a bad example? You do know he's referring to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, and not Warhammer: the game of Fantasy Battles, right? Dark Heresy was released this year, using the same base system, set in WH40k. Really gritty combat system, fits very well with the gothic atmosphere the setting is famous for. Excellent advancement system, not level-based, uses a d10 system (you actually only need d10s to play, which makes my d12 even more sad than usual, but hey it works). Surely you've heard of it?

Quite good, actually, I highly recommend it. I've even found that the brutality of the combat system meshes very well with any setting where you're not trying for the Conan-esque hero. Makes my group much more reluctant to kick in doors and kill everything, which in turn helps them roleplay a lot better and more frequently.

Honestly, WFRP is definitely one of the best systems I have ever used. So tell me, in what way is it an invalid example for systems that place verisimilitude as a higher priority than 4e does?

I've never had one in my group at all. I think the +3 (or was it +4?) LA just sucked balls. We had one half-dragon, once. That's it, just one. They sure are popular, ain't they...

[dentrag2]

If i recall, we had a half-dragon once also, but mostly, their abilities just don't make up for the LA. Yeah. out of the 50+ campaigns we played, we had one half-dragon. Real popular.