Things you dislike about 4th edition.

[Erk]

Wow. I'm frankly amazed at the amount of people grossly offended by 4e's simplified verissimilitude, since I find that a benefit. As DM or player, I use the sparser rules to define the game much more fluidly. I like the descriptions being open for me to rewrite. I felt in 3e my players were constantly ignoring their abilities simply because there was no reason to use them. Smack the monster! Done. Complaining that the current abilities sometimes are hard to describe seems to be ignoring the wider boon that players now actually have abilities to use.

Having a wide range of powers and abilities for every character has led to the most rewarding play experiences my players have had in a long time. Instead of me coercing them, they are now begging me to get out the game books. This is a good sign.

Things I don't like about 4e
Dragonborn and tieflings. Dragonborn should have been half-orcs, and tiefling should never have left the MM. Both are ridiculous. However, Dragonborn can be quickly reskinned to some kind of Orc or similar just by changing their racial encounter ability. I have to bring myself to do similar to tieflings; I may try to convert them to gnomes.
Heavy integration of "default" cosmology. In 2nd edition, there was a basic assumed planar cosmology, but almost everything else - from gods to history - was the DM's job. That was perfect. In 3rd, they decided to introduce some 'suggested' gods and their mythos. That was annoying, but still OK; the gods were generic and easy to replace, and there were plenty of tips on how to do it. In 4th, I feel like I have to retroengineer large portions of the game to remove the horrendously cheesy and inappropriate backstory that's been tagged on. In practice, thanks to the flexible nature of the classes and powers, this has been easier than I thought it would be, but I still find it annoying as hell that it has to be done at all.
Downplaying of randomisation during character creation. We like rolling dice, thankyouverymuch. I'd have liked even a small suggestion for more ways to roll character stats, HP, etc if we want to. Thankfully I am a veteran of many editions and can just read older docs.
Weakening of multiclassing... but I no longer feel strongly about this. After trying it, I like the new version, but it still feels like a downgrade. A good start would be to homebrew a wider range of multiclass feats, so (for example) multiclassing to rogue doesn't mean you have to take Sneak Attack, you might take a rogue's ability for surprise instead (twice per day you get combat advantage in a surprise round?). Aside from that the MC system is pretty ok. Nothing like 3e :( and that is the top thing I miss from 3rd edition.
Can only find a couple hours a week to play it.
A little too much emphasis on PCs being tougher than everyone else. Essentially the game starts at level 3, and homebrewing a way to start lower, such as the peasant boy learning to be a hero, is going to be a Pain In The Butt to the extreme. Healing surges are too good, too. But that part was easy to homebrew away.
They went a bit too draconian with skill removal. I had to add a couple back in, creating a 'secondary' skill system.

Interestingly, only two of these things are hard to fix. The others were retooled in a teeny list of homebrew notes. The rest of my notes are all about campaign setting. By comparison, my homebrew notes for 3e are 16 pages long before I even get to the setting.

Things I like about 4e? well, I can already say "a lot more than 3e". My players don't get bored as quickly. We get more accomplished in a session. We don't sigh when we have to pull out the dice for combat. I don't even know if I want to make my trademark low-magic worlds anymore, because magic looks too fun in 4e so far. I haven't played with anyone more magical than a paladin yet, so we'll see how that colours my experience.

As a closing comment, 4e - and d&d in general - has never even approached realism from a book standpoint. Anyone reading the books should realise intuitively that the game is meant to be told in different ways in different situations. And yes, 4e is a lot more cinematic than 3e. 3e was also about as cinematic as watching a turtle mate with a rock. For me, now that I've been reminded what can be fun about fantasy gaming, it's going to be either 4th or 2nd edition in our games. We can play the cinematics down, but it's pretty hard to create them from nothing.

[tumble check]

Downplaying of randomisation during character creation. We like rolling dice, thankyouverymuch. I'd have liked even a small suggestion for more ways to roll character stats, HP, etc if we want to. Thankfully I am a veteran of many editions and can just read older docs.

A little too much emphasis on PCs being tougher than everyone else. Essentially the game starts at level 3, and homebrewing a way to start lower, such as the peasant boy learning to be a hero, is going to be a Pain In The Butt to the extreme. Healing surges are too good, too. But that part was easy to homebrew away.




Read the big words on the back of the PHB, and you'll see why they did this. I too dislike the default air of awesome that surrounds this entire new edition. I miss the cresendo of character development from n00blet to epic demigod.

[Erk]

Read the big words on the back of the PHB, and you'll see why they did this. I too dislike the default air of awesome that surrounds this entire new edition. I miss the cresendo of character development from n00blet to epic demigod.
I'm not really interested in their reasoning behind it. Their flavour text indicates clearly enough that they envision a different game than I do, just as they did in 3e. But the mechanics are more than sound, they are good... thus the small remaining flaws are easy to deal with.

Once I've homebrewed levels 1 and 2 back in, I'll post 'em :) in the meantime it's not that hard to make the game tougher... I've already put up a few systems for that.

[Shazzbaa]

Well, I haven't played 4e yet because a lot of my gaming friends are opposed to it, but I'm trying to talk them into trying it out. Problem is we're still in the middle of several other games, so... unlikely to happen soon. :/

I used to come on these boards a lot, and it's interesting to read several people's complaints about 4e and be reminded of people complaining about overemphasis of combat in 3.5. In my mind, D&D has always been the system that focused more on combat and balance and such because that's the thing that requires the most rules. You don't need rules telling you how to have a conversation (I'm looking at you, skill challenges), you need rules telling you how combat works. In 4e, they pretty much focused in on that priority and made sure that everything supported making the game fun and balanced. I have no idea if it's fun and I honestly have no idea if it's balanced, because I haven't played, but a lot of the complaints and justifications that I'm reading suggest that it more-or-less succeeded its goals, but at the cost of flavour.
But as with 3.5, I feel flavour is the thing most easily added, so I'd rather they focus on making a balanced game.
EDIT: Erk, I pretty much agree with your opening paragraph.

As to the dragonborn and tiefling... Okay, I've got to share the other perspective, so I'm going to go ahead and admit it: I am that player that plays the chaotic good drow. It's true! I know it's a cliché, but that doesn't make it any less fun. I play the angsty werewolf, I play the aberrant-descended sorcerer who's starting to show physical signs of his heritage, and I love it. I try not to be annoying about it, but I have to admit that I really get a kick out of being "the weird one" or the one with social problems.
In 3.5 it was really hard to do. If I wanted to be a tentacled pariah, I had to spend three feats on Aberrant Heritage. If I wanted to be a drow psion, I had to go digging around for non-level-adjusted variants so that I wouldn't be losing manifesting levels. I don't want all the drow's weird extra abilities... I just want to BE a DROW for character reasons. And really... the 3.5 core books don't have much for a person like me, unless I want to be LA'd to death. I'm thrilled that 4e has options, right in the start, for people who just want to be something that looks cool (or weird or wrong, as the case may be). I know to some people, this makes me a childish roleplayer, but heck, I'm having fun. :smalltongue:

That said, the dragonborn artwork really, really does not sit right with me for some reason. I'm not sure why (I think I'd prefer them more lizardy), but I fully intend to draw my own version once I get the time. :smallamused:

As for things I actually dislike upon reading, skill challenges were the thing I had the biggest knee-jerk reaction to. I don't like them as-worded, for the simple reason that they seem to be imposing mechanics and encouraging meta-thinking while I desperately want to just be role-playing. I'm reminded of one game where we had just finished defeating this monster that had nothing to do with our main over-arcing plot; rather, it was an antagonist of one of the PCs. When we had finished, one of the players looked up at the DM and asked, "So, was that, like, a side quest?" I hope I don't have to explain why I cringed. I want to get into the world, and while combat needs rules to define what's going on and abilities need rules to define what everyone is capable of, I hate it when the whole adventure gets transformed into a series of discernible quest-followed-by-XP encounters, rather than an adventure. Skill challenges seem to do this to non-combat situations...instead of the lip-biting experience of carefully trying to convince the duke to join your cause, you initiate a skill challenge in which everyone must take turns using this skill, that skill, and possibly this other skill to achieve your goal. Or, instead of trying to chase down that guy, it becomes reduced to this kinda transparent list of checks.

Of course, I can devil's advocate my own complaint -- the idea that these rules exist for DMs who have no idea how to create a non-combat encounter, so the most negotiating you ever have to do is get the party face to roll a single diplomacy check. If you are or have a DM who doesn't really know how to make such a situation challenging, these rules might just be a godsend. And if you already know how to make such a situation challenging, you don't need to use the skill challenge rules. So... viewing them as an optional rule actually makes me feel a lot better about them.

There's some other stuff I'm wary of, but as I said, I haven't tried it, so we'll have to see how it plays. Being a fighter looks awesome, but being a wizard looks significantly less fun. Those of you who've played, what do you think?

[The New Bruceski]

<Quite a bit of well-written stuff.>

Thanks for responding well to my rebuttal of your example. I don't really have an issue with people disliking 4e, as long as they do it for actual TRUE reasons, so I get anal about such things.

As for the... tone, if you will... of D&D, I think we're in agreement as to what it is (more or less, there's a lot of wiggle room in there), we just disagree on whether it's good or not. My point regarding magic, which I meant to address but got sidetracked, is that 4e seems to have decided that magic is common, but not world-dominating, which means that the restriction they needed to place on it was power. You can't have all three (though sometimes FR tries. Sometimes they don't.)

Wizards in 4e strike me as 3e Sorcerers most of the time, with mild amounts of Batman if there's advance warning. If they need to stay mobile, they've got whatever spells they have (and prepared for the day, since they get some wiggle) to help control the battlefield or punish enemies for clumping up. There are also Utility spells, which are particularly varied in a Wizard and can be quite useful in or out of combat, but are still more limited than previous Wizards. I find ritual casting to be an interesting resource, but it really requires the Wizard (or anyone who takes feats into it, but the Wizard gets them and rituals for free) to have time to plan, which tends to happen more when working defensively. That's probably why a lot of the rituals are wards and such.

It's definitely a loss in power, but I think interesting things can still be done with the Wizard. Remember that aside from one off-camera Balrog fight Gandalf's skills were mainly knowledge, fireworks, and Create Light. :smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

Or, instead of trying to chase down that guy, it becomes reduced to this kinda transparent list of checks.

As opposed to a bunch of tactical movement? A bunch of checks makes sense in this case, running up to the guy(dexterity), hopping on roof tops(acrobatics), vaulting over a wall to cut the guy off(acrobatics), climbing after the person over a fence(athletics), cutting the guy off because you know the city better(streetwise). Conversation is an entirely different thing however.

[wodan46]

Skill challenges aren't meant to water down roleplaying for those who already do it, but to encourage hack and slash junkies to do at least some roleplaying, by dangling Exp bait in front of them. Its absolutely vital that Skill Challenges be handling in an Organic manner rather than a Mechanical manner.

[Knaight]

I just don't give experience for combat, and people roleplay more. Granted, there will be loot if it makes sense. There will also be law enforcement, angry people, and other stuff like that if it makes sense. Its way more effective at getting hack and slashers to at least try to roleplay.

[Shazzbaa]

As opposed to a bunch of tactical movement? A bunch of checks makes sense in this case, running up to the guy(dexterity), hopping on roof tops(acrobatics), vaulting over a wall to cut the guy off(acrobatics), climbing after the person over a fence(athletics), cutting the guy off because you know the city better(streetwise). Conversation is an entirely different thing however.
Ahh, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. It wasn't that I feel skill checks are mechanising everything -- in fact, (one of) my groups already does this -- "I chase him!" "There's people in the way, you'll have to dodge them, roll an acrobatics check." I don't have a problem with this; that makes sense to me.

What I'm worried about is the fact that they've laid out rules for this about taking turns and having to use these particular skills but not too many times and accumulating this many successes without accumulating failures... it seems that without a skillful DM, it would turn from "Let's chase that guy! I climb the wall, dodge through the people, and use my knowledge of the city to cut through the alleyways and catch him!" into "So, what skills do I need to make checks in to get a success for this challenge?"

As long as this is handled in an extremely opaque way, by which I mean the players can't see the inner workings of the challenge's mechanics (in other words, they can't see the strings), it seems like good structure. But the DMG, while it does provide an example of incorporating these challenges organically, it seems to be set up so that players know when they go into a skill challenge as much as they know when they get into normal combat, and then get experience afterwards, reducing what was once a piece of the adventure into an encounter.

So yeah. I'm... worried about how that'll play out. But this is another case where a good DM can run it fine.

[Prophaniti]

I just don't give experience for combat, and people roleplay more. Granted, there will be loot if it makes sense. There will also be law enforcement, angry people, and other stuff like that if it makes sense. Its way more effective at getting hack and slashers to at least try to roleplay.
Yeah, I stopped doing xp directly from kills after my second session DMing. Mostly now, I give out a small amount each session, depending on how much got done vs how many movie lines we quoted. I've found, with my group, the thing that makes them try roleplaying more is to decrease the chance of a violent encounter going well. When combat is more deadly and they're at more of a risk when they try it, they tend to view other options more seriously.

[Crow]

I've just been levelling up the group each session. We don't play frequently, and are running a conan-esque episodic campaign, so it works well.

Everyone knows they'll level up no matter how they go about "solving" the adventure.

[Oracle_Hunter]

What I'm worried about is the fact that they've laid out rules for this about taking turns and having to use these particular skills but not too many times and accumulating this many successes without accumulating failures... it seems that without a skillful DM, it would turn from "Let's chase that guy! I climb the wall, dodge through the people, and use my knowledge of the city to cut through the alleyways and catch him!" into "So, what skills do I need to make checks in to get a success for this challenge?"

FYI, they errata'd the crap (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates) out of Skill Challenges. No more "initiative" and everything fails after 3 failures... plus they adjusted the DCs downward.

From experience, I'll say that Skill Challenges are pretty easy to use. In my experience, I've found it best to not tell my players when they're in a Skill Challenge - just keep track of successes and failures, and narrate the results as they come. I use the Skill Challenge mechanic to figure out how I'd resolve more complicated social interactions... still haven't gotten them to work right for non-social ones.

[Crow]

FYI, they errata'd the crap (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates) out of Skill Challenges. No more "initiative" and everything fails after 3 failures... plus they adjusted the DCs downward.

From experience, I'll say that Skill Challenges are pretty easy to use. In my experience, I've found it best to not tell my players when they're in a Skill Challenge - just keep track of successes and failures, and narrate the results as they come. I use the Skill Challenge mechanic to figure out how I'd resolve more complicated social interactions... still haven't gotten them to work right for non-social ones.

Yes. Don't tell them what is actually going on. It really makes a difference. The minute you tell them it's a skill challenge, my players say something like "Ok, what do I have to do?".

To that effect, I have been just laying out the situation and letting them choose the course of action (and which skills they want to try), and all I do is describe the situation and mentally check off successes and failures. However I am the opposite of you in that I haven't gotten social skill challenges to work at all. But for non-social ones it's great.

[Gavin Sage]

It's definitely a loss in power, but I think interesting things can still be done with the Wizard. Remember that aside from one off-camera Balrog fight Gandalf's skills were mainly knowledge, fireworks, and Create Light. :smallbiggrin:

I think this exposes another very deep problem with 4e. Gandalf was subtle as all hell. Strictly speaking Gandalf hardly qualifies as a Wizard in anything we'd think of as game terms. There are no mages in Tolkien really. Yet Gandalf's one of the seminal top wizards ever. Why?

Because all too often less is more.

4e is if anything the total inversion of that. Trying to make everyone ultra-awesome, all the time, through thirty levels makes it hard to feel special anymore. When you can already burst forth with unlimited numbers of magic blasts, well so what that you can burst forth with bigger magic blasts only occasionally. Nevermind for all your years of devotion to mind bending secrets or prayers to a higher power.... dumb-ass with a sword over there is just as hyper-super-awesome as you. Oh sure you have tactical different roles persay, unless you are an inevitable swordmage class coming in a future book. But heck you don't even get a different system, just different words for your power source and mere details. Its like going from having ice cream, apple pie, or cake... to the shake machine at McDonalds where its all vanilla mix with different dressings added.

Getting back to less it more though. 3.5 magic is hardly subtle, but the best uses of a mage (most of the time) are about being clever, not rending the heavens asunder. A simple spot of grease to disable your enemies into easy pickings. A few words and a gesture and that orc is your new best friend. And when it IS time to rend the heavens asunder its feels more apropriate to be doing so, because you started out as a squishy weakling with a few tricks up their sleeve.

[monty]

And when it IS time to rend the heavens asunder its feels more apropriate to be doing so, because you started out as a squishy weakling with a few tricks up their sleeve.

After all, that's what epic magic is for.

[Frosty]

FYI, they errata'd the crap (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates) out of Skill Challenges. No more "initiative" and everything fails after 3 failures... plus they adjusted the DCs downward.

From experience, I'll say that Skill Challenges are pretty easy to use. In my experience, I've found it best to not tell my players when they're in a Skill Challenge - just keep track of successes and failures, and narrate the results as they come. I use the Skill Challenge mechanic to figure out how I'd resolve more complicated social interactions... still haven't gotten them to work right for non-social ones.

Can you post it here? I went thru the PHB errata and couldn't find the skill challenges errata. Or is it in the DMG?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Can you post it here? I went thru the PHB errata and couldn't find the skill challenges errata. Or is it in the DMG?

DMG, where the rules for Skill Challenges can normally be found :smalltongue:

EDIT: Oh yeah, and they totally re-did the Stealth Rules in the PHB too. Read those, if you haven't already... much better.

[dentrag2]

4E has lost my heart because *Sniffle* they removed a lot of illusion magic where you could use your ideas to distract, hamper, or route your enemies.

[wodan46]

Nonsense, they removed the broken stuff that made illusions immensely over effective. There are still cantrips, which are quite powerful.

[Morty]

Nonsense, they removed the broken stuff that made illusions immensely over effective. There are still cantrips, which are quite powerful.

No offense, but isn't this thread named "Things you dislike about 4th edition" rather than "Try to prove wrong anyone who voices his/her opinion here {Scrubbed}?

[ZekeArgo]

No offense, but isn't this thread named "Things you dislike about 4th edition" rather than "Try to prove wrong anyone who voices his/her opinion here {Scrubbed}"?

If an opinion can be swayed/refuted by so simple of a sentence, perhaps it is one that lacks any real conviction.

[Morty]

If an opinion can be swayed/refuted by so simple of a sentence, perhaps it is one that lacks any real conviction.

That's not what I meant. What I meant was, trying to argue with every single opinion voiced here is not only rather strange but also against the purpose of this thread. Starting the argument with word "nonsense: isn't very nice either.

[Jayabalard]

Nonsense, they removed the broken stuff that made illusions immensely over effective. There are still cantrips, which are quite powerful.This doesn't really make any sense to me.

You dislike the "nonsense" in 4e... I'm not really clear on what you mean, unless you're just making a generic statement about how you dislike the game mechanics that don't consistently make in character sense?

You're not really giving any reason that you dislike that they removed the broken illusion stuff; I'll guess that you normally like to play illusionist type characters are are disappointed in the fact that not only are illusionists no longer overpowered, but that you can't make one at all in 4e.

And I have to agree with you about cantrips; I can't believe that they did that to them.

:smallbiggrin:

[Siegel]

So. I have a world. In this world there is magic. Because of some cosmic laws magic exist but it can never never be used to make people/things/x/y fly.

So everything that is not 'normal' can be descriped as "A Mage did it" "It works because it's magic" as long as there is no flying intended.

Do i got this right ?


So why can i say "In this world, because of some cosmic laws, normal guts and musclework can archieve awesome thinks like slowing a Iron Golem too."

Then we have world where the 4E fighter is possibyl. That is not a common calactic law in fantasy (or yes it is but people ignore Conan and Boewulf and stuff) but it is for a 4E world. When you say cosmic magic law = awesome magic then you have to accept a cosmic sword law, don't you ?

[Prophaniti]

*snip*When you say cosmic magic law = awesome magic then you have to accept a cosmic sword law, don't you ?
Depends. Thing is, some of us like our worlds to be gritty and realistic, and feel the need to have plausible explanations for awesome things happening. With magic, it's easy to explain the awesome because, hey, it's magic. With muscles and swords, any awesome happening should have a good reason behind it.

Obviously, this isn't a universal feeling. In fact, I've encountered very few who fully agree with me on this. I can and have played in a world/setting where awesome stuff happens without magic and no explanation is offered, it was just awesome because. That's fine, I can enjoy that occasionally. I just like to be able to run setting where things feel more real.

I do NOT generally like playing in settings where people cut stone (or stone golems) in half with swords because swords can't do that. It makes the game feel gimicky and fake to me. Again, not universal, not even common, but that's my reasoning.

[kwdblade]

Before I begin, I must mention that yes, I have bought all the books, so you can't tell me that I don't know what i'm talking about. BUHAHAHA!

- Tieflings in the PhB. Tieflings? I have enough problems with players acting "bad", I don't need WotC to provide them with a PHB race that says its perfectly ok.
- Adding the word "Role" to each class. Excuse me, if I want to be a quiet, non-combative cleric, I damn well will be, thank you. You don't tell me what my role is.
- Spell versatility gone. Since the spell system is completely erased, there is just a generic "I have this ability till next level". Its quite saddening that a wizard or cleric can't repick their spells to modify themselves to the situation at hand. That was always the fun thing I liked about playing a spellcaster. Now everyone is just a 3.5 Warlock effectively.

That sums it up for now.

[Oracle_Hunter]

- Spell versatility gone. Since the spell system is completely erased, there is just a generic "I have this ability till next level". Its quite saddening that a wizard or cleric can't repick their spells to modify themselves to the situation at hand. That was always the fun thing I liked about playing a spellcaster. Now everyone is just a 3.5 Warlock effectively.

Wizards can. That's what a Spellbook does - for Daily and Utility spells. Heck, with Expanded Spellbook, you can choose from, what, 3/4 of every Daily available (under Core).

Though, to be honest, I think the most "situationally" useful spells are actually Rituals these days.

[Morandir Nailo]

My absolute biggest gripe with this edition is that minis and a map are all but mandatory. Yes, I'm sure you can do combat without one, but I for one don't want to keep track of who has pushed/slid who into whose threatened area so the burst 3 affects what? in my head. In all previous editions, minis were optional (I never used a single map in all my 3e games); they should have kept it that way.

They have a separate Minis game, and that's where all the tactical movement rules should go. I'm currently running 4e, and I can't help but feel like I'm watching a chess game whenever we go into combat. The same group that comes up with incredibly descriptive combat stunts when we play Exalted turns into Gary Kasparov & co. whenever the minis come out. It may be different for others, but for us bringing out the mat just kills the imagination.

And 4e's treatment of magic is a huge, IMO tragic deviation from the source material, the writings of Jack Vance. Don't ever let anyone tell you that Gandalf influenced D&D at all, it was mages like Rhialto the Marvellous and Mazirian who provided the inspiration for spellcasters.

3e did have a big caster problem, but IMO this was a result of giving spells too freely (and of course a few problem spells, like the Polymorph line); Batman's strength was his great versatility, and if you take that away (by reducing the number of spells in a mage's spellbook, and making him pay dearly for each and every one) you have a much more balanced class. Turning the wealth of creative, interesting spells from previous editions into "do some damage and maybe a move/status effect" is just plain boring. And this is coming from someone who only played a spellcaster twice in 7 years of playing 3e/d20 (through 20+ characters).

While we're on the subject, I hate the power system. It's nice that someone other than the mage can do more than stab things til they die, but the system as it exists is far too constraining, IMO. I wish they had kept the ToB way of doing things.

Characters starting as heroes, rather than becoming heroes over the course of play does not sit well with me. If I wanted to start as a badass, I'd play Mutants and Masterminds. I want gritty pulp, not epic cinema. That's what Exalted is for.

On a more general note, whoever thought up the Dragonborn should be fired (Dragons are monsters), Tieflings belong in the Monster Manual, and the game should not by any means be built around the assumption that by level X, a player will have magic items Y and Z. What good is the prestige of wielding Excalibur when the guy next to you just sold Orcrist so he could upgrade to Anduril? Bah.

Mor

[Crow]

What good is the prestige of wielding Excalibur when the guy next to you just sold Orcrist so he could upgrade to Anduril? Bah.

If I had the room, I would sig that. My feeling exactly.

[arguskos]

If I had the room, I would sig that. My feeling exactly.
Luckily, I both have the room, and find it hilarious.

Do you (Mor) mind if I sig said quote?

-argus

[Oracle_Hunter]

What good is the prestige of wielding Excalibur when the guy next to you just sold Orcrist so he could upgrade to Anduril? Bah.

Truth be told, that's always been a problem in D&D. I mean, at higher levels you ended up collecting closets of +1 swords, which was kind of silly anyhow. 3e didn't make things better, with their Magic Mart ethos, and 4e certainly has the same idea, though IMHO, it has been curtailed a great deal.

Oh hey, Long Post is Long. I'll spoiler it up for folks:

The Problem With Magic Items in a RPG
The real problem is that magic items really can skew the power-levels of the characters. This, in turn, makes designing challenging adventures more difficult - a monster that is a challenging for Hawthorne the Valiant with his Sword of Light may be untouchable for the rest of his party. Conversely, a monster which challenges Hawthorne's party starts to look pretty silly once Hawthorne can just chop it up without a worry.

How To Solve It
It turns out that it's easier on everyone if the game assumes that characters of certain levels will be certain power-levels - and if the system tells you what those power levels mean!

The nice thing is that you, as the DM, can figure out how those items get into the hands of the PCs, and what they mean. In the same way you can re-flavor a rat swarm into a vicious beetle swarm, you can also reflavor a Sword +5 into The Shard of Heaven, a blade shaped from the shattered throne of the Lost Lord of Heaven when he was slain by the Evil One... it just happens to be a +5 Sword.

In particular, I like how most items presented in the 4e PHB have extra effects aside from pluses. Somehow, this just makes them feel more magical to me, than a simple +1 sword.

Enchant Item Ritual: Better than -1 CON
Oh, and yeah Enchant Item makes it really easy to make magic items, but come on - the old "permanent -1 CON" routine could never explain why there were so many gosh darn +1 Swords around... let alone why anyone would sacrifice a precious point of CON to make one. Another balancing act... though if you want you can say that the ability to make magic items was lost long ago - that'll give you a more LoTR feel for sure.

[Kompera]

And 4e's treatment of magic is a huge, IMO tragic deviation from the source material, the writings of Jack Vance. Don't ever let anyone tell you that Gandalf influenced D&D at all, it was mages like Rhialto the Marvellous and Mazirian who provided the inspiration for spellcasters.You're making a little funny here, yes? I've read Vance. No version of D&D has ever modeled Vancian magic in any way other than the "requires memorization, cast it and it's gone" mechanic. A most potent Vance wizard might memorize six spells, at risk of going insane. Four spells was common for lesser wizards. A 3rd level Wizard in 3.5 has more spells than the most potent of Vance's wizards. Not that 1st or 2nd level spells could rival the potency of the least of Vance's spells. There was no such spell as trivial as a Magic Missile or a Sleep Spell. You jumped right to complete invulnerability or time stop. And why not, if you can only memorize 4 spells at a time? Also, in Vance's stories most wizards were bumbling egoists with little real power, despite the potency of their spells.

4e is a huge deviation from the systems used by all prior versions of D&D, it is true. This was a needed change to address the awful balance issues of spell casting in every version past 1e, where the spell choices were between about 12 spells of each level, with the list shrinking substantially as the spell level increased. But if you're pining about the deviation from the source material you might want to take another look at the source material, just without the nostalgic blinders.

[Covered In Bees]

The bigger problem with Vancian Casters vs. As Long As I've Got HP other classes is that in order to have even a bare semblance of balance, you need to have X encounters per day. If the wizard can blow all of his best spells on one encounter, it's going to go very different than if it's the fourth encounter of the day.

The "15-minute adventuring day" stems from the vancian casting mechanic, too.

[Talic]

The vancian system had precious little to do with a 15 minute adventuring day. The problem would have been the same as if you had a power point system.

Any time you have a limited resource that recharges, and little to no penalty for not managing that resource properly, you'll have this problem.

Spells such as the Magnificent Mansion bypass rest restrictions. They remove the penalty of random encounters. The only other option is storyline penalties, the "you're on a tight timetable" solution, which is DM intervention, and thus not an acceptable RAW fix. It's Oberoni.

Thus, the problem isn't with vancian magic, but with spells that remove the risk in rest. THAT'S why you have a 15 minute day in 3.x.

Now, 4.0's solution? Forcing you to spread your powers out. By giving "encounter powers" and "daily powers" and "At Will Powers", it holds the player's hand, and MAKES him hold back some power. Basically, it's Wizards telling players that since they're not able to do it themselves, the rules will do it for you.

[nagora]

The bigger problem with Vancian Casters vs. As Long As I've Got HP other classes is that in order to have even a bare semblance of balance, you need to have X encounters per day. If the wizard can blow all of his best spells on one encounter, it's going to go very different than if it's the fourth encounter of the day.

The "15-minute adventuring day" stems from the vancian casting mechanic, too.
Everything in this post is incorrect - and I suspect purposely so. I've never seen or heard of a 1e DM run "x encounters per day" in decades of play.

{scrubbed}

[Mastikator]

[snip]It's Oberoni.Just out of curiosity. Would it be Oberoni to not assume that material components are always there?
Example: if you want to cast a fireball spell, you'll first need to go to a batcave and grab some guano.

It cause a lot of bookkeeping, but it would also make things more interesting, such as the feat "Eschew materials" isn't useless any longer. Making sure that you have the right components avalible would easily balance the casters. In fact, they might even be nerfed back to be equal of the martial classes. Or maybe not. I'm a noob when it comes to D&D.

[Kurald Galain]

The funny thing is that 4E also has the "15 minute adventure day" problem.

Players nova in their first encounter, spend all their dailies, and then rest.

Unsurprisingly, most groups don't actually play that way. But then, you should realize that in 3E and earlier, most groups didn't play that way either. It is (or is not) a problem to the same extent as it was earlier, so claiming that this is what made 3E sucky and that 4E has miraculously improved it, is simply disingenious.

[Talic]

Just out of curiosity. Would it be Oberoni to not assume that material components are always there?
Example: if you want to cast a fireball spell, you'll first need to go to a batcave and grab some guano.

It cause a lot of bookkeeping, but it would also make things more interesting, such as the feat "Eschew materials" isn't useless any longer. Making sure that you have the right components avalible would easily balance the casters. In fact, they might even be nerfed back to be equal of the martial classes. Or maybe not. I'm a noob when it comes to D&D.

Actually, it's more along the lines of "willful collective ignorance of spellcasting components". Based on the amount of bookkeeping involved, all the players ignored it. Then came faerun, with Eschew materials, and Lo! All the casters took it. Wizards realized that spreadsheets have little place in D&D, and so they added the 10gp Spell Component pouch to the PHB, which is now RAW for not keeping track of cheap components.


The funny thing is that 4E also has the "15 minute adventure day" problem.

Players nova in their first encounter, spend all their dailies, and then rest.

Unsurprisingly, most groups don't actually play that way. But then, you should realize that in 3E and earlier, most groups didn't play that way either. It is (or is not) a problem to the same extent as it was earlier, so claiming that this is what made 3E sucky and that 4E has miraculously improved it, is simply disingenious.

Phraseology. When a player has 17 abiliites, and all are usable once a day, well, you've gotta burn some... People just don't learn when to stop.

When you have only 1 power that's useable once a day, now it's not a matter of how many you burn. The impulse is to hoard it. By seperating abilities into "powers you're supposed to use all the time", "powers you're supposed to use every encounter", and "powers you get back more rarely", players start with that mentality.

In 3.x, EVERY caster power was what 4.0 would call a "daily" power. There, the challenge was, "how many do I expend".

In 4.0, that is not the case. Characters have standby options. All characters do. So they're not inclined towards using those hard to attain powers off the bat, like 3.x did.

[nagora]

Just out of curiosity. Would it be Oberoni to not assume that material components are always there?
Example: if you want to cast a fireball spell, you'll first need to go to a batcave and grab some guano.

Depends on the component. I generally assume that part of a spell-caster's monthly expenses is used on stocking up on common components from the local apothecary, but anything which costs a significent fraction of those expenses has to be specially sourced (so what counts as "common" increases with level).

However, if there is a reason in-character why the magic user is unable to access the component (eg, stripped and thrown into a dungeon cell) then casting without a material component is limited. This gives casters some more incentive to find/research/memorise spells without material components, or at least without ones that are hard to replace when away from civilization.

[Covered In Bees]

Everything in this post is incorrect - and I suspect purposely so. I've never seen or heard of a 1e DM run "x encounters per day" in decades of play.
I've never seen or heard of a 1e DM care too much for balance, either, so.


{scrubbed}
{scrubbed}

A caster who regularly gets one or two encounters a(n adventr=uring) day can be more free with his spells--and thus, more powerful--than one who regularly gets three or four.

We certainly experienced the "15-minute day" in the 2E game I was in, just like groups tend to in 3E. Casters out of spells? Nap time, if it's possible--and often, it is (and if it's not, it's generally because the DM's going out of his way to discourage it, as see "X encounters per day").

Talic has a point about it not being vancian casting specifically, all per-day resources work this way. I was thinking Vancian, but I meant, and should indeed have said "per day". Rope Trick helps make rest safe, but parties that are reliant on their per-day resources are going to want them back ASAP; thus, the 15-minute day.

[nagora]

I've never seen or heard of a 1e DM care too much for balance, either, so.
If by "balance" you mean "holding the players' hands when they get themselves into trouble" then I agree, but I feel this is a good thing.

[Covered In Bees]

If by "balance" you mean "holding the players' hands when they get themselves into trouble" then I agree, but I feel this is a good thing.

That's not what I'm talking about. But thanks for informing me about your preferred playstyle; I'll be sure to switch my game over to it post-haste.

[nagora]

That's not what I'm talking about.
{scrubbed}

[Covered In Bees]

{scrubbed}

I'm talking about the fact that in a group where there tends to be one encounter per adventuring day, the wizard is a lot more likely to outshine the fighter than in a group where there tend to be four or five.

{scrubbed}

[nagora]

I'm talking about the fact that in a group where there tends to be one encounter per adventuring day, the wizard is a lot more likely to outshine the fighter than in a group where there tend to be four or five.
How can the number of encounters per day be a function of the group? Encounters per day must surely be a function of what is happening in the gameworld and what actions PCs and NPCs are undertaking. As such, it's not something that one can generalise about in that way.

Also, what has that to do with a 1e DM's idea of "balance"?


{scrubbed}
{scrubbed}

[Thurbane]

Nagora, don't sink to his level.

I think all involved should be able to enter this debate without taking petty shots at other posters. :smallfrown:

[Trizap]

what I don't like about 4E:

It exists.

[Covered In Bees]

How can the number of encounters per day be a function of the group? Encounters per day must surely be a function of what is happening in the gameworld and what actions PCs and NPCs are undertaking. As such, it's not something that one can generalise about in that way.

Also, what has that to do with a 1e DM's idea of "balance"?
{scrubbed}


{scrubbed}
{scrubbed}

[nagora]

Nagora, don't sink to his level.

I think all involved should be able to enter this debate without taking petty shots at other posters. :smallfrown:
{scrubbed}

[Covered In Bees]

what I don't like about 4E:

It exists.

Well.
I... I can't really refute that. 4E does, indeed, exist.

Edit: irony senses... tingling...

[nagora]

{scrubbed}
So you're saying that in your games the characters' actions have no effect on what happens in the setting?

(Don't you play an edition with the random encounter tables?)
I saw a car in fire on the motorway once. That looked pretty random to me. Randomness is not incompatable with simulation; ask any weather forcaster.

[Covered In Bees]

So you're saying that in your games the characters' actions have no effect on what happens in the setting?
Where did I say that? And why did you avoid the question?


I saw a car in fire on the motorway once. That looked pretty random to me. Randomness is not incompatable with simulation; ask any weather forcaster.
Rolling "no encounter" isn't incompatible, but the DM up and deciding "no encounter" is?

Edit: it looked pretty random, but, of course, it wasn't. It was because of something that driver or another driver did.

[nagora]

Where did I say that?
You strongly implied that the actions of the PCs and NPCs affecting the number of encounters per day was a simulationist view that you don't subscribe to. So which is it? Do you think character actions can/should make a difference to what happens to them or not?


Rolling "no encounter" isn't incompatible, but the DM up and deciding "no encounter" is?
Perhaps I tried to read some sense into your post that wasn't there but I read it to mean that you think randomness and simulation are incompatable.

[Talic]

As long as the players don't have any way of predicting what's next, it is, for all intents and purposes, random.

DM deciding combats that let players make use of their abilities, and that challenge player tactics? I like that personally. Complete randomness? Not so much. For me, it's enough that my players never know what's behind door number two, but that the fights are always fun, and different... and the non-fights, well, are a mix between "put the pieces together" and "roleplaying and such".

As for actions determining what happens to you... To an extent.

While choosing door one over door two will certainly change what you're going to face... And so will stopping and resting.

Suddenly, where you were moving through quickly, too fast for sentries to react, or even know, now guards have come across corpses. Now bears have wandered through the campsite. Now... well, you get the point. Characters don't always know WHAT will happen based on their actions, and thus can't always choose, "Perfect action Q, that results in no fighting for 8 hours".

[Covered In Bees]

You strongly implied that the actions of the PCs and NPCs affecting the number of encounters per day was a simulationist view that you don't subscribe to. So which is it? Do you think character actions can/should make a difference to what happens to them or not?
And why did you dodge the question?


{scrubbed}
They can be made compatible, but so can the DM just making up what happens. What the Dm comes up with could well be a more accurate simulation than what a chart and a bunch of dice come up with.

[nagora]

As long as the players don't have any way of predicting what's next, it is, for all intents and purposes, random.

DM deciding combats that let players make use of their abilities, and that challenge player tactics? I like that personally. Complete randomness? Not so much.
It's not a satisfying way to run an entire campaign, sure. But if I have a forest which is known to be a haunt of various tribes of orcs, gnolls, and formorians as well as owlbears, normal animals, and trolls etc. and the players one day decide to head into it on a whim then I have no problem with pulling out the random encounter table for the forest and winging a session or two. Likewise, I don't feel that I have to plan every encounter on the way to somewhere if they have a more specific reason for entering that forest. It's enough that the players know that the forest is a dangerous place to go; if they know that and still go there for whatever reason then they have the responsibility to handle the danger that turns up.

The world is a big place and the players can go wherever they choose; it's normally fairer and much easier as well as reasonable to have random encounters than to have every possibility pre-plotted. Otherwise the DM's idea of where the story should be going can start to insidiously override the players' ideas of what their characters should be doing. I personally don't think the DM should do that.

[nagora]

And why did you dodge the question?
Which question? {scrubbed}

[Prophaniti]

Really, CIB, ignoring the fact that you're spending so much effort arguing the opinions of people who don't like your chosen system on a thread dedicated to expressing negative opinions about that system...

You oughtn't write up posts so rife with snide and snark, then chastise people for their snide remarks. It's... crass. Really, unnecessary. And while I rarely agree with you, I do think you're smarter than that.

Moving on... I do think the "15-minute adventuring day" could be a problem with 3.5, one of the few problems I hear about on these boards that I've actually experienced. It is not a game-breaking problem for me, nor an insurmountable one. 4e's changes, as they impact this particular problem, are ok. A bit overkill, I think, and the changes cause or exascerbate other problems for me, but they do help with the "I'm out of spells, we need to rest." when we've only been through one or two fights issue. Since the classes still have encounters and dailies aren't THAT much better (in my experience), the party feels more secure about moving on. At least until we're out of healing.:smallamused:

Doesn't outweigh my other problems with the system, definitely not switching, and no plans in the foreseeable future to even play a game or two with 4e.

[wodan46]

For the record, I do not like the new Power system either. I hated the Vancian system, because its based on obscure novels and not typical fantasy where characters tend to be like Sorcerers or Psions in their casting, and because its horribly unbalanced.

So all 4e decided to do is replace an ungainly, stupid, and unbalanced system with an ungainly, stupid and balanced system. Would it have really killed them to have a system of mana or fatigue, where a caster can cast big spells but they get the caster tired quickly whereupon they have difficulty doing anything, or they can cast smaller spells in order to keep functional throughout the whole encounter?

[Gavin Sage]

The "15-minute adventuring day" is far more a problem of DMs not stomping down on it then any flaw in the rules. There's nothing stopping characters in 4e from spamming all their daily powers then resting anymore then there is 3e mages from doing it. And if mages have now have endless ablities, well fighters and rogues now have daily ones.

In any case the solution remains both the same and simple. The DM first warns his players about adventuring like that, asks them to stop, argues over their justification when stopping (but you all just got up, no one's tired!) and if that all fails...... roll up a TPK encounter and set it up in the next room:

In the 8 hours you were asleep in your Magnificient Mansion a group of 30 Beholders decided to make the dungeon their home. They use their anti-magic cones and set their gladiator ogre slaves on you. HAVE FUN!

Screw random encounters risk, make it a non-random encounter and the nastiest fight of the entire campaign. And by the way any game rules to stop 15-minute days would be essentially this same basic concept.

[hamishspence]

While Beholder's don't get antimagic cones in 4th ed, principle is sound. There are ways DMs can discourage breaking off. Maybe its people playing 3rd ed like a computer game? "save Game point"

[Edea]

I dunno...I think I would merely adjust the difficulty level of the overall campaign accordingly, so that instead of the party resting often and breezing through encounters, they thank the gods that they have access to the spell/s that lets them rest that often; they NEED it. Basically I try to keep in mind that the game world needs to adapt (3.5 DMG fluff about the default medieval setting be damned). In fact, the PCs may well catch enemies resting inside of their own rope trick (probably by using see invisibility and finding a black window floating in space, then making a successful Knowledge (arcana) check), and plot an ambush for when they come out (sending a not-so-subtle message about what might happen when THEY use it :smallbiggrin:).

Launching a TPK attack in frustration is just going to annoy (or hurt, if they're sensitive enough) players who want to make use of that capability, IMO.

[Prophaniti]

In the 8 hours you were asleep in your Magnificient Mansion a group of 30 Beholders decided to make the dungeon their home. They use their anti-magic cones and set their gladiator ogre slaves on you. HAVE FUN!
The problem with this is it can often seem unfair and vindictive to the players. The wizard is out of spells, and thus unable to significantly contribute to any fight the party finds themselves in. What do you expect the party to do? If the melee guy were suddenly unable to swing his sword, or the skill monkey suddenly unable to pick locks or disarm traps, wouldn't you expect the group to stop pushing forward until the problem is fixed? If it could be fixed by a simple rest, why would the group not do so?

Now, your right that it shouldn't be tolerated when it gets excessive, but there are better ways to handle it than killing the party. In one campaign, we had a habit of going somewhere, blasting in as far as we could until we were out of spells, healing, and everything else, then run back to town to safely rest, he had the owners/managers/overlords of these locations take precautions against our eventual return. He made it more difficult to get in, strengthened the garrisons, prepared traps and ambushes at places we were expected to hit, etc. He didn't just throw 30 beholders at us in a fit of pique. Yes, we had some deaths because of his changes, but the way he did it made it feel a lot more like our fault for not killing the guy in charge last time than him punishing us for resting too often.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please follow the Forum Rules in conducting your discussion here. Please report any posts that you feel violate the Forum Rules, but do not flame, troll, or moderate other posters yourself. Thanks.

[Kompera]

In 3.x, EVERY caster power was what 4.0 would call a "daily" power. There, the challenge was, "how many do I expend".

In 4.0, that is not the case. Characters have standby options. All characters do. So they're not inclined towards using those hard to attain powers off the bat, like 3.x did.
This.
In 3.x the nova Wizard is spent. He either has zero spells remaining, or he is down to the few utility spells which won't be useful in the next combat.

In 4e the Wizard always has his at-will powers. Always. Saying that a player can nova in 4e is comparing apples and oranges, because 'nova' can not have the same meaning in both game systems.

[Talic]

This.
In 3.x the nova Wizard is spent. He either has zero spells remaining, or he is down to the few utility spells which won't be useful in the next combat.

In 4e the Wizard always has his at-will powers. Always. Saying that a player can nova in 4e is comparing apples and oranges, because 'nova' can not have the same meaning in both game systems.

Exactly. By doing this, the game has forced players to always have something left over. Basically, WotC is no longer trusting you to ration your resources according to their model, so is forcing you to save some power.

You're essentially saying what I just said. At will powers are closest, from a wizard perspective, to reserve feats in 3.x.

Basically, my chief gripe is EXACTLY what you just posted.

[Kompera]

Exactly. By doing this, the game has forced players to always have something left over. Basically, WotC is no longer trusting you to ration your resources according to their model, so is forcing you to save some power.

You're essentially saying what I just said. At will powers are closest, from a wizard perspective, to reserve feats in 3.x.

Basically, my chief gripe is EXACTLY what you just posted.You might complain that the designers are "no longer trusting" the players, but Kurald Galain complains that 4e didn't manage to fix the issue of nova Wizards.

Funny how no matter which way it's looked at, 4e managed to somehow miss the mark for those who don't care for it. Either the same nova issue exists (which you and I seem to agree that it does not), or the issue is fixed but now the game is set up to condescend to the players (which I disagree with, and if Kurald Galain thinks that the issue still exists then surely he can't also think that the players are being condescended to).

I'd also disagree that "WotC is no longer trusting you to ration your resources according to their model". Their model has changed, and you can indeed expend all of your Daily powers early. But in every combat after that you will still have your Encounter and At-will powers remaining to you. You can't try to insert the Vancian model into 4e and then argue against it, as it does not fit there.


The funny thing is that 4E also has the "15 minute adventure day" problem.

Players nova in their first encounter, spend all their dailies, and then rest.

Unsurprisingly, most groups don't actually play that way. But then, you should realize that in 3E and earlier, most groups didn't play that way either. It is (or is not) a problem to the same extent as it was earlier, so claiming that this is what made 3E sucky and that 4E has miraculously improved it, is simply disingenious.
4e has indeed improved it, by eliminating it. There is no longer any such thing as a nova Wizard, a 15 minute Wizard, the somnolent Wizard, or any similar tropes. Gone for good, and good riddance.

[Morandir Nailo]

Luckily, I both have the room, and find it hilarious.

Do you (Mor) mind if I sig said quote?

-argus

I'd be honored to be sig'ed; it's my first!

Mor

[arguskos]

I'd be honored to be sig'ed; it's my first!

Mor
Most excellent. Sorry about the sig'd steal Crow, hope you don't mind too terribly much.

-argus

[Talic]

You might complain that the designers are "no longer trusting" the players, but Kurald Galain complains that 4e didn't manage to fix the issue of nova Wizards.They didn't. Players that still want to nuke every encounter will seek ways to blow their dailies on every fight. That's a player issue, and the game has tried to apply a mechanical fix to a playstyle problem. What they need to ensure is that there's no "safe rest spells". That in itself should fix the problem. Elegant. Simple. and... IT WORKS. A lot better than spoon feeding players their abilities each fight.

Funny how no matter which way it's looked at, 4e managed to somehow miss the mark for those who don't care for it. Either the same nova issue exists (which you and I seem to agree that it does not), or the issue is fixed but now the game is set up to condescend to the players (which I disagree with, and if Kurald Galain thinks that the issue still exists then surely he can't also think that the players are being condescended to).You miss my point. The issue will only remain fixed as long as there is no safe rest. When that happens, the issue is no longer fixed, AND they've condescended to players.

I'd also disagree that "WotC is no longer trusting you to ration your resources according to their model". Their model has changed, and you can indeed expend all of your Daily powers early. But in every combat after that you will still have your Encounter and At-will powers remaining to you. You can't try to insert the Vancian model into 4e and then argue against it, as it does not fit there.No, the alternate model that's being used is much more akin to momma and daddy giving you each bite of that "Vegetable Medley" paste right when you need it, and not before.

4e has indeed improved it, by eliminating it. There is no longer any such thing as a nova Wizard, a 15 minute Wizard, the somnolent Wizard, or any similar tropes. Gone for good, and good riddance.Wrong. Such tropes were created by playstyles that can still carry over. Again, the issue wasn't with rechargable power or limited-resource systems (NOTE: NOT JUST VANCIAN. Mana/PP systems react the same way. I'm frankly sick of people using the word "Vancian" like it's something that needs to be scraped off a boot and disposed of. There's no difference between that and other limited-resource systems, for the purposes you're arguing. So, if you apply it to that system, you apply it to any system that uses abilities as a limited finite resource that recovers in set intervals.

Which, oddly enough, includes 4E. Daily powers and encounter powers, anyone?). The issue is with systems that don't have systems in place to mitigate the "Nova Strike" tactic. When there's risk inherent in recovery, people won't nova/rest so often.

Edit: And I never said I hated the system. I dislike aspects of it, and I'm frank about those aspects. But I have no problem playing the system. Just as I did with 3.x.

[Jack Zander]

Funny how no matter which way it's looked at, 4e managed to somehow miss the mark for those who don't care for it.

I just had to snip this bit here because, well... no duh. If they don't care for it, then there is obviously something that missed the mark, and if everyone has different tastes, there are going to be lots of different missed marks.

[Morandir Nailo]

You're making a little funny here, yes? I've read Vance. No version of D&D has ever modeled Vancian magic in any way other than the "requires memorization, cast it and it's gone" mechanic. A most potent Vance wizard might memorize six spells, at risk of going insane. Four spells was common for lesser wizards. A 3rd level Wizard in 3.5 has more spells than the most potent of Vance's wizards. Not that 1st or 2nd level spells could rival the potency of the least of Vance's spells. There was no such spell as trivial as a Magic Missile or a Sleep Spell. You jumped right to complete invulnerability or time stop. And why not, if you can only memorize 4 spells at a time? Also, in Vance's stories most wizards were bumbling egoists with little real power, despite the potency of their spells.

4e is a huge deviation from the systems used by all prior versions of D&D, it is true. This was a needed change to address the awful balance issues of spell casting in every version past 1e, where the spell choices were between about 12 spells of each level, with the list shrinking substantially as the spell level increased. But if you're pining about the deviation from the source material you might want to take another look at the source material, just without the nostalgic blinders.

You make some good points there, though I must say that the "nostalgic blinders" comment is a bit off; I've never played anything but 3.x and 4e (I didn't start playing until '01).

It's true that Vance-style mages had far fewer, far more powerful spells (Rhialto throws around Time Stops like they're cantrips). Perhaps it would be better to say that what has been removed from the game is the need for resource management. You don't see it so much in Cugel's Saga or in Rhialto the Marvellous, but in The Dying Earth, you have mages who take care to ration their spells, as they're in dangerous situations and don't want to be left defenseless.

That's the feeling I miss; Magic is powerful but limited, and if you blow through your allotment too soon, you'll be in grave danger. The lvl 1 MU in B/X D&D has a single spell, and thus will take great care in choosing when it is most expedient to use it. Of course the problem here is as others have outlined: the 15-minute adventuring day. This isn't a flaw in the system. The ability to rest for long periods of time in a dungeon should not be taken for granted; a good DM (IMO) will foster a great enough sense of paranoia in his/her players that they simply won't risk it. They will instead make sure that they have enough torches/rations/spells to both get in and get out.

When you're rolling d4s for HP, cannot wear armor, and have an average Con, you will be very reticent to "blow your wad" in the first encounter - especially if you're aware of a little something called Wandering Monster Tables. Wizards are capable of great power, but they have to really, really earn it. Playing a Wizard should be an exercise in careful planning and very smart play.

So yeah, this was a problem in 3.x as well, but it was fixable, to an extent - you could control access to spells, the number of spells available per day, and how dangerous it was to rest during an adventure. 4e makes this impossible, and that's my gripe.

(note - it's 2am and I'm tired so if none of this makes sense please ignore it.)

Mor

[Kompera]

They didn't. Players that still want to nuke every encounter will seek ways to blow their dailies on every fight.
And so what? Let them nuke away their dailies at the drop of a hat. Just like in 3.x the GM can not prevent this behavior. But in 4e the GM doesn't need to worry about this, because it's a completely different situation than that which you had with nova Wizards in 3.x.

The dailies are nice, but not orders of magnitude greater than the encounter or at will powers. The Wizard is far less likely to feel helpless since she knows that she still will be able to cast her encounter and at will powers in each additional fight which might occur in that day. And her party members are far less likely to agree to a rest, knowing that she still has access to all save the daily power. The ability of the group to handle an encounter is reduced slightly, instead of dramatically. And that's a difference which makes the game play drastically different between 4e and any prior edition.


What they need to ensure is that there's no "safe rest spells". That in itself should fix the problem. Elegant. Simple. and... IT WORKS. A lot better than spoon feeding players their abilities each fight.Nope. Because guess what? Spells aren't the sole resource players have available to them. With a few spikes and a mallet groups have and will sleep right in the dungeon, and unless the wandering monsters have the ability and desire to try to break down the door entirely you've got that "safe rest" you claim has to be done away with. Or if the adventure area is within hours of a settlement, the group can just shuttle back and forth. Or any number of other mundane and non-magical ways any enterprising group will find to obtain a safe resting spot. Safe rest can not be done away with entirely, and in the final analysis there is nothing which can prevent a player from expending resources such as pre-4e spell slots and then shrugging at the GM and making it his problem to either slaughter the party or deal with the situation in some other way. But in 4e that issue is done away with.

The 4e mechanic is the solution to the problem. Elegant. Simple. and... IT WORKS. A lot better than trying to meta-game away the ability for the players to seek out "safe rest". That is an Oberoni solution if there ever was one.

re: Morandir Nailo
Nostalgic blinders was in reference to the source material, the works of Jack Vance. Not prior versions of D&D.

[Frownbear]

And so what? Let them nuke away their dailies at the drop of a hat. Just like in 3.x the GM can not prevent this behavior. But in 4e the GM doesn't need to worry about this, because it's a completely different situation than that which you had with nova Wizards in 3.x.

The dailies are nice, but not orders of magnitude greater than the encounter or at will powers. The Wizard is far less likely to feel helpless since she knows that she still will be able to cast her encounter and at will powers in each additional fight which might occur in that day. And her party members are far less likely to agree to a rest, knowing that she still has access to all save the daily power. The ability of the group to handle an encounter is reduced slightly, instead of dramatically. And that's a difference which makes the game play drastically different between 4e and any prior edition.

On top of that, EVERYONE gets dailies! You don't get the wizard wanting to rest while the Fighter wants to continue on, so much.[/QUOTE]

[Emperor Tippy]

To be perfectly blunt the DM never should have cared whether or not the players nova in the first encounter of the day. If you kill them, tough. Coming back from the dead is easy, and if you TPK them then you can run a resurrection quest in heaven/hell.

If you only throw one encounter per day at the party and do so consistently then the smart thing for the party to do is nova. If you throw 10 encounters per day at the party then only a fool would nova. 4 is a much more reasonable number.

You say "but what about the party just teleporting away". Have the bad guys play smart. That mook has a contingent Dimensional Lock and a contingent Resilient Sphere on him, set to activate on his death. So the wizard nova's and all the sudden he is trapped inside a TK sphere that he can't port out of. Now the next encounter ports in to kill the party. Your party has about 5 minutes to heal up and prepare before the RS drops and they face the new encounter.

Contingent AMF, or Contingent Disjunction (targeted on whoever kills the wearer, i.e. the PC).

[Sebastian]

Play smart is the key. your player always go nova and play the 15 minutes adventuring day? what you have to do is think in terms of game world. If they do that all the time people will come to know it and act accordingly, maybe mocking them for it (a group that go to sleep after every battle dont sound really heroic doesnt' it?), or preparing your evil lair so that they can't stop to rest or you can easily ambush them if they do. It is not about punish the players, it is about doing what the bad guys would do.
It is not differerent from an enemy preparing a protection from fire if the PCs always use fire spells.

[Kompera]

[...] preparing your evil lair so that they can't stop to rest or you can easily ambush them if they do.Isn't this the definition of Oberoni fallacy? If the GM has to design (redesign?) every evil lair to counter the player's tactics, the GM is basically giving up and proclaiming that a logical game world can not beat the players tactics and that in order to level the playing field special measures must be taken to negate them. This is fine on the hopefully rare occasions when the enemy has foreknowledge of the group's tactics, such as your example of having NPCs use pro. from fire if the players rely on fire spells overmuch. But evil lairs are typically built long before the players were born, or at least before they started adventuring together, and all opponents shouldn't have knowledge of the player's abilities and tactics. If the GM is forced to modify all of the evil lairs and provide all of the NPCs with ways to counter smart player tactics then the players will start to think that smart tactics only serve to bring about a punitive arms war. And that just sucks.

4e eliminates this issue entirely, by eliminating the near requirement that the group rest if at any point any caster is low or out of spells. The group really only needs to rest once they are low on healing surges, and this will typically happen after the 3rd or later combat. Which just so happens to be quite near the suggested amount of encounters per day in both 3.x and 4e.

[arguskos]

the GM is basically giving up and proclaiming that a logical game world can not beat the players tactics and that in order to level the playing field special measures must be taken to negate them
Uh, not really, no, that isn't what they are advocating. Instead, the advice seems to be more along the lines of, "play the bad guys like they are performing recon on the party members, as all smart bad guys should be." Only some will resort to magical means. Others might step up patrols, some might reinforce the dungeon and add more traps in vital chokepoints, etc.

I don't think it's an "illogical" game world to say that the foes of the PC's are making sure they keep tabs on the good guys of the world. Seems smart enough to me. I'll agree though, that EXCESSIVE measures to defeat PC-only tactics doesn't make any sense, and is retarded in most cases, but some simple things can be done by the foes to reduce the effect of novas on the party's part.

Pretty much, it's this:

Play smart is the key. your player always go nova and play the 15 minutes adventuring day? what you have to do is think in terms of game world. If they do that all the time people will come to know it and act accordingly, maybe mocking them for it (a group that go to sleep after every battle dont sound really heroic doesnt' it?), or preparing your evil lair so that they can't stop to rest or you can easily ambush them if they do. It is not about punish the players, it is about doing what the bad guys would do.
The bad guys prepare for the local heroes by doing some homework, finding out their methods, and preparing accordingly. It's a dynamic world, bad guys adapt on the fly. That's the whole idea.

-argus

[nagora]

Of course the problem here is as others have outlined: the 15-minute adventuring day. This isn't a flaw in the system. The ability to rest for long periods of time in a dungeon should not be taken for granted; a good DM (IMO) will foster a great enough sense of paranoia in his/her players that they simply won't risk it. They will instead make sure that they have enough torches/rations/spells to both get in and get out.
Additionally, the party is leaving 23hrs and 45min to the NPCs to get on with their plans, prepare for the PC's next move, setting trapps, or simply fleeing. If that doesn't result in them being very heavily punished for this strategy then something bigger is wrong.

The 15 minute adventuring day is not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw with the DM.

[Kompera]

Additionally, the party is leaving 23hrs and 45min to the NPCs to get on with their plans, prepare for the PC's next move, setting trapps, or simply fleeing. If that doesn't result in them being very heavily punished for this strategy then something bigger is wrong.This again assumes that all challenges are so dynamic as to actually logically cause a penalty for a delay in reaction. Too many "The Princess will be killed in 48 hours." quests and your players will get tired of the railroading very quickly. And what happens when in 3.x the players nova and decide that it's either the Princess who dies alone, or the players and the Princess die, since they have spent all their spells and no longer pose a credible threat to the Big Bad?

And what about ye olde typical "The village elders have asked the adventurers to please stop the group of Goblins from raiding their farms"? If the party takes an extra day and a farm is sacked, and then they take another day and yet another farm is sacked, how do the players even become aware of this, unless the GM gives them this knowledge via meta-game? Instead, the players take however long they take, and if that means holing up in the woods another day to regain spells, they won't even know that another farm was sacked 5 miles away until they return. At which point it's a done deal and they'll just shrug and tell the village elders "Hey, we did it as fast as we could, but we aren't being paid enough to make a suicidal charge while out of spells." That last can be paraphrased in many ways to come across less callously, but in the end this is the long and short of it. Even an all good party doesn't have to be stupid, and as so many 4e detractors have reminded me, not all groups play the good guys.

The 15 minute adventuring day is not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw with the DM.
It is a flaw in the system, if the system has mechanics which support nova tactics. That includes every version of D&D prior to 4e. The GM has better things to do with his campaign design hours than railroad the players into a false sense of urgency just to avoid a poorly designed game mechanic.

[DrowVampyre]

And what about ye olde typical "The village elders have asked the adventurers to please stop the group of Goblins from raiding their farms"? If the party takes an extra day and a farm is sacked, and then they take another day and yet another farm is sacked, how do the players even become aware of this, unless the GM gives them this knowledge via meta-game? Instead, the players take however long they take, and if that means holing up in the woods another day to regain spells, they won't even know that another farm was sacked 5 miles away until they return. At which point it's a done deal and they'll just shrug and tell the village elders "Hey, we did it as fast as we could, but we aren't being paid enough to make a suicidal charge while out of spells." That last can be paraphrased in many ways to come across less callously, but in the end this is the long and short of it. Even an all good party doesn't have to be stupid, and as so many 4e detractors have reminded me, not all groups play the good guys.

They don't need to become aware of it at all, actually. They can go in, go nova, and retreat/rope trick to rest and regain magic, but it's unlikely the goblins won't notice that their friends have gone missing and their bodies are lying around (or blood is, or signs of battle, or whatever). So the next day, the PCs strut into the goblin lair to find the goblins now alert, expecting attack, with new traps laid, more guards posted in greater concentration, etc. And assuming they manage to do this 2 or 3 times despite the stiffer resistance...well, if you were a goblin, and your lair was being systematically eliminated by adventurers, wouldn't you pack up and leave, at least for the short term?

[Oslecamo]

This again assumes that all challenges are so dynamic as to actually logically cause a penalty for a delay in reaction. Too many "The Princess will be killed in 48 hours." quests and your players will get tired of the railroading very quickly.


Please tell me a challenge that isn't dynamic by that definition.

Claiming that the rest of the world freezes when the PCs decide to rest is absurd.

If it doesn't need to be solved quickly, then there's no need to call the PCs in the first place, because it isn't a threat to anyone anyway.

I would like to see what type of campaigns you play. Stop the entropy of the universe that will happen in some trillions of years maybe?

[Kompera]

And assuming they manage to do this 2 or 3 times despite the stiffer resistance...well, if you were a goblin, and your lair was being systematically eliminated by adventurers, wouldn't you pack up and leave, at least for the short term?Isn't this the goal of the party? To get the monsters to leave the village alone? Sounds like a win for the good guys.


The bad guys prepare for the local heroes by doing some homework, finding out their methods, and preparing accordingly. It's a dynamic world, bad guys adapt on the fly. That's the whole idea.
Yes, of course. The bad guys prepare for the heroes every freaking time, time after time. And every game challenge involves an evil genius overlord who receives reports of the hero's activities and can respond with perfect clarity to their actions. Nope, the heroes never have to clear out a den of giant snakes who could care less that 5 of them were killed yesterday and have no concept that perhaps the guys snacking on snake soup while recovering their spells might be back tomorrow to kill the rest. Nor are there ever non-linked encounters such that one fight where the players nova has the automatic consequence that every other fight for that day will be prepared with a detailed spell list and magic item inventory of the party so that they can best prepare for what they know is the inevitable fight they will have with the party.

Yes, this is a logically consistent world where player tactics do not invoke a GM arms race as a punitive disincentive to using tactics which the game mechanics supports but which the GM abhors.

And that was sarcasm, my friends.

[Kompera]

Claiming that the rest of the world freezes when the PCs decide to rest is absurd.
You must have missed the word "all" in my post.

[nagora]

This again assumes that all challenges are so dynamic as to actually logically cause a penalty for a delay in reaction.
Which is hardly a stretch; cases where you have all the time in the world are rare.

Too many "The Princess will be killed in 48 hours." quests and your players will get tired of the railroading very quickly. And what happens when in 3.x the players nova and decide that it's either the Princess who dies alone, or the players and the Princess die, since they have spent all their spells and no longer pose a credible threat to the Big Bad?
Eh? What about it? Clearly the players' tactics suck in that case. Who's problem is that if not the players'?


And what about ye olde typical "The village elders have asked the adventurers to please stop the group of Goblins from raiding their farms"? If the party takes an extra day and a farm is sacked, and then they take another day and yet another farm is sacked, how do the players even become aware of this, unless the GM gives them this knowledge via meta-game? Instead, the players take however long they take, and if that means holing up in the woods another day to regain spells, they won't even know that another farm was sacked 5 miles away until they return. At which point it's a done deal and they'll just shrug and tell the village elders "Hey, we did it as fast as we could, but we aren't being paid enough to make a suicidal charge while out of spells."
Again, why is the game system to blame for utterly incompetant players? These guys are clearly idiots.


That last can be paraphrased in many ways to come across less callously, but in the end this is the long and short of it. Even an all good party doesn't have to be stupid, and as so many 4e detractors have reminded me, not all groups play the good guys.
I don't see the connection to what we're talking about. Stupid is as stupid does; alignment doesn't enter into it.


It is a flaw in the system, if the system has mechanics which support nova tactics.
No it isn't. It's a flaw in the system if it supports ONLY nova tactics. Since the system does not only support such tactics the responsibility falls on the DM.


That includes every version of D&D prior to 4e. The GM has better things to do with his campaign design hours than railroad the players into a false sense of urgency just to avoid a poorly designed game mechanic.

Having NPCs that act sensibly and exploit the PCs' poor tactics is not railroading; in fact it's the opposite. Having NPCs that hang about and let the PCs recharge for 24 hrs is in fact a type of railroading - in this case it's the NPCs who are being railroaded.

EDIT: I've just remembered that this thread is supposed to be non-debate. Sorry; I shall not respond further here.

[DrowVampyre]

Isn't this the goal of the party? To get the monsters to leave the village alone? Sounds like a win for the good guys.

Not necessarily. They might move to another cave nearby, or the party might've been sent to kill the leader so that the tribe will fragment. Besides, when the goblins relocate, if there's not another suitable cave, they might just decide to sack the village. ^_- Anyway, yeah, that's all I have to say. *slips back out*

[Sebastian]

And what about ye olde typical "The village elders have asked the adventurers to please stop the group of Goblins from raiding their farms"? If the party takes an extra day and a farm is sacked, and then they take another day and yet another farm is sacked, how do the players even become aware of this, unless the GM gives them this knowledge via meta-game?

-refugee from these farms and near ones that were able to escape the goblin

- the village sent scouts* to check on the goblin advance (*not the scout class, commoners or experts with higher-than-average spot, move silently and hide) that see where the horde is moving ("if you don't stop them bytomorrow they'll reach the Murgin's farm") or see what they left behind ("it could not be later than yesterday, they burned everything, tortured and killed all the adults, and the children, they were, were... oh gods, I can't say it"

- they know where the farms are and how fast can move the goblins. and can do the math.


Instead, the players take however long they take, and if that means holing up in the woods another day to regain spells, they won't even know that another farm was sacked 5 miles away until they return. At which point it's a done deal and they'll just shrug and tell the village elders "Hey, we did it as fast as we could, but we aren't being paid enough to make a suicidal charge while out of spells." That last can be paraphrased in many ways to come across less callously, but in the end this is the long and short of it. Even an all good party doesn't have to be stupid, and as so many 4e detractors have reminded me, not all groups play the good guys.

Hey, fair enough, but one way or the other the party will gain a reputation.
Rumors spread and the world listen.

[Sebastian]

And that was sarcasm, my friends.

Oh, I thought it was a strawman. Near enough. :)

[Talic]

And so what? Let them nuke away their dailies at the drop of a hat. Just like in 3.x the GM can not prevent this behavior. But in 4e the GM doesn't need to worry about this, because it's a completely different situation than that which you had with nova Wizards in 3.x.Agreed. The primary difference is that in 3.x, players had more control over their powers, and in 4.0, the players have practically none. The rules now hold their hand, and force them to expend their powers in one specific way. Is this good? Well, I hold that anything that restricts player's ability without a very good reason is bad. But hey, if you like curtailed options and a system that holds your hand when you cross the street for those very reasons, that's your right to do so, and I'll not besmirch you for it.

The dailies are nice, but not orders of magnitude greater than the encounter or at will powers. The Wizard is far less likely to feel helpless since she knows that she still will be able to cast her encounter and at will powers in each additional fight which might occur in that day. And her party members are far less likely to agree to a rest, knowing that she still has access to all save the daily power. The ability of the group to handle an encounter is reduced slightly, instead of dramatically. And that's a difference which makes the game play drastically different between 4e and any prior edition.Yup. I agree. That's why I don't like the solution.

Nope. Because guess what? Spells aren't the sole resource players have available to them. With a few spikes and a mallet groups have and will sleep right in the dungeon, and unless the wandering monsters have the ability and desire to try to break down the door entirely you've got that "safe rest" you claim has to be done away with. Or if the adventure area is within hours of a settlement, the group can just shuttle back and forth. Or any number of other mundane and non-magical ways any enterprising group will find to obtain a safe resting spot. Safe rest can not be done away with entirely, and in the final analysis there is nothing which can prevent a player from expending resources such as pre-4e spell slots and then shrugging at the GM and making it his problem to either slaughter the party or deal with the situation in some other way. But in 4e that issue is done away with.Because no monster in the dungeon is capable of breaking down a door, or oozing under it, or waiting in ambush outside of it, or any of a hundred other things. And all dungeons, of course, are going to be equipped with doors, moreover, ones that open inward into the room you're resting in, which is what's required for such a tactic to work. Face it. A hammer and a nail is not on the order of magnitude of Rope trick/MMM. They don't remove the RISK from resting. Sorry, that's like saying that a can of Raid is sufficient when you're stuck in Arachnophobia. There's a vast gulf between mitigating the danger or resting, and removing it altogether.

The 4e mechanic is the solution to the problem. Elegant. Simple. and... IT WORKS. A lot better than trying to meta-game away the ability for the players to seek out "safe rest". That is an Oberoni solution if there ever was one.You don't need to meta. All you need is to NOT introduce abilities that say, "for the next 8 hours, no creature may access where I am by any means short of a carefully worded Wish spell." The 4e mechanic is a lot like removing the problem of unruly fingernail growth by chopping off everyone's arms. Yeah, it may solve the problem, at the cost of having 30 "different" characters that are really all the same.

So, we're left with my proposed solution, which keeps player variety, but trims off the most direct cause of players going nova (because they can, and safely)...

Or yours, which trims off players going nova by making it absolutely impossible to ever exhaust a player of abilities, or allow a player to go all out in the few fights where it might be necessary. Which removes player options wholesale, chopping off entire sections of abilities and such.

This isn't about Oberoni. It's about manicure versus amputation.

[Frownbear]

Yeah, it may solve the problem, at the cost of having 30 "different" characters that are really all the same.

I don't understand this. I've played a Ranger (briefly), a Warlock, a Warlord, and a Wizard, and they didn't feel or play the same. It looked like the other characters played pretty different, too.
Why do you say they're really all the same? Is it just because they all have Powers?

[Talic]

I don't understand this. I've played a Ranger (briefly), a Warlock, a Warlord, and a Wizard, and they didn't feel or play the same. It looked like the other characters played pretty different, too.
Why do you say they're really all the same? Is it just because they all have Powers?

No, because you have 4 roles, and however you try to flavor a striker, all strikers to the same thing.

However you try to flavor the tank, all the tanks do the same thing.

And no matter how you try to instill a little variety into the character, you'll be left with doing the exact. same. thing. every. fight.

That sounds less like a game, and more like a job. No thanks.

[The New Bruceski]

No, because you have 4 roles, and however you try to flavor a striker, all strikers to the same thing.

However you try to flavor the tank, all the tanks do the same thing.

And no matter how you try to instill a little variety into the character, you'll be left with doing the exact. same. thing. every. fight.

That sounds less like a game, and more like a job. No thanks.

Um... what prevents that from being applied to previous editions? The roles didn't just appear out of thin air. If you're stretching things far enough to cover all 4e classes, it can easily cover 3e ones as well.

[Frownbear]

No, because you have 4 roles, and however you try to flavor a striker, all strikers to the same thing.

However you try to flavor the tank, all the tanks do the same thing.

And no matter how you try to instill a little variety into the character, you'll be left with doing the exact. same. thing. every. fight.

That sounds less like a game, and more like a job. No thanks.

This makes even less sense. Would you like to explain how my Ranger and my Warlock did the same thing every fight? Or would you rather I tell you about how two different Fighters in a playtest my group ran played differently?

By your standards, all 3E non-spellcaster charactes are the same because they'll be making attack rolls to do damage!

You're just not making very much sense to me. My Warlock certainly didn't do the exact same thing as my ranger, and his tactics weren't any more repetitive than my 3E characters'. "Striker" just means that a character, broadly, focuses on doing damage to and/or debuffing a single target, and "Defender" just means that the character will make attacking other party members more difficult or less appealing, in some way. I'm not sure how that means they'll do the exact same thing or that it'll be "like a job". Weren't "meatshields" supposed to do this in 3.5, too?

[Prophaniti]

Um... what prevents that from being applied to previous editions? The roles didn't just appear out of thin air. If you're stretching things far enough to cover all 4e classes, it can easily cover 3e ones as well.
The difference now, and my personal complaint with them, is the roles are explicit rather than incidental. I liked it better the other way, where the 'role' of the class was a secondary (or less) design concern, and the concept was primary. I liked trying to find my niche when I ran a Ninja. I liked being able to fill other roles with a simple build change.

With 4e, I'm handed my role, like they think I'm not smart enough to figure it out myself. Class design seems to start with the role and build from there, rather than from the concept. Classes are only effective in one or two roles, for the most part (although this one may change as further material is released).

I just liked it before, when I had to find my role in the party, and when my role could easily change. Honestly, even having the roles listed and labeled in the book bothers me on some level. It encourages meta-gaming, and while I'm not sure I agree that the powers system condescends to the players, as Kompera and Talic have been discussing, I most certainly think the explicit outlining and railroading of the class roles is condescending.

[The New Bruceski]

The difference now, and my personal complaint with them, is the roles are explicit rather than incidental. I liked it better the other way, where the 'role' of the class was a secondary (or less) design concern, and the concept was primary. I liked trying to find my niche when I ran a Ninja. I liked being able to fill other roles with a simple build change.

With 4e, I'm handed my role, like they think I'm not smart enough to figure it out myself. Class design seems to start with the role and build from there, rather than from the concept. Classes are only effective in one or two roles, for the most part (although this one may change as further material is released).

I just liked it before, when I had to find my role in the party, and when my role could easily change. Honestly, even having the roles listed and labeled in the book bothers me on some level. It encourages meta-gaming, and while I'm not sure I agree that the powers system condescends to the players, as Kompera and Talic have been discussing, I most certainly think the explicit outlining and railroading of the class roles is condescending.

I can see how that would be frustrating from your perspective. I'm not sure it adds any restrictions that weren't already there** (wasn't a Fighter always a defender/striker?) but if I viewed it as you do, I would be put off as well.

On the other hand, by clearly identifying the main roles, and what they do, it can become much easier to make sure classes can actually fill a role. For example, the Dwarven Defender is an incredibly solid wall -- who can be stymied by walking around him. 3rd edition "meatshields" in general tended to lack stickiness, some way to hold an intelligent enemy's attention in cases where they couldn't stand in a 5-foot hallway. In looking at that issue, WotC realized that defenders needed a way of punishing the opponent for walking away (being large damage-dealers doesn't count, that just makes them a "striker who can take a punch").

In my opinion they did quite a good job of that in the defenders we've seen so far. Every defender has a mark, which is an automatic penalty for attacking someone else (though some people find it easier to flavor that ability than others). In addition the Fighter can immediately stop anyone who tries to walk past him (with bonuses to counteract Defensive Mobility), and anyone who keeps on trying to get away can't escape freely, and could get pushed into a worse situation. The Paladin's challenge harms the enemy even if he isn't nearby, and he also gets abilities that build off a challenge to add extra debuffs. The Swordmage protects the target, rather than harming the attacker, and shields a very decent amount of damage.

So we've got three main defenders who have special ways of being particularly "sticky" even though the target might want to attack somebody else. In addition the mark ability shows up in some minor powers of the Cleric and Warlord, so they can help fill the role as well if they choose to. The important thing about defining the defender role is that it forms a template for any future class that the designer wants to be a defender: it should have a marking ability, and if majoring as a defender it should also have some further incentive for a marked enemy to attack it.

Similarly the other roles give good guidelines for making new classes.
Striker: some way of doing extra damage to one target.
Leader: buffs/healing in addition to standard actions (as opposed to sacrificing all non-healing for cure spells, for example)
Controller: Modifying enemy movement, whether by reshaping the battlefield, moving foes directly, or simply punishing them for certain tactics (AoE vs clumping).

...I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that there are useful aspects to being up-front with class roles. They didn't do it just to insult you. :smallsmile:

**Rather, I believe any new restrictions would have happened regardless, for classes like the Wizard and Cleric.

[tumble check]

The difference now, and my personal complaint with them, is the roles are explicit rather than incidental. I liked it better the other way, where the 'role' of the class was a secondary (or less) design concern, and the concept was primary. I liked trying to find my niche when I ran a Ninja. I liked being able to fill other roles with a simple build change.

With 4e, I'm handed my role, like they think I'm not smart enough to figure it out myself. Class design seems to start with the role and build from there, rather than from the concept. Classes are only effective in one or two roles, for the most part (although this one may change as further material is released).

I just liked it before, when I had to find my role in the party, and when my role could easily change. Honestly, even having the roles listed and labeled in the book bothers me on some level. It encourages meta-gaming, and while I'm not sure I agree that the powers system condescends to the players, as Kompera and Talic have been discussing, I most certainly think the explicit outlining and railroading of the class roles is condescending.

I agree completely. But, condescending to some equals accessibility to others.

The more and more I read this thread and other ones as well, the more I realize how many changes in 4e were made for a painless entry into D&D.

Between the powers that you can't blow through completely in one encounter, the less of a chance that you can choose feats that nerf your character, the explicit role definition, and ability to resolve rules questions without even opening a book, just to name a scant few... all of this really dulls the sting of playing for the first time, puts training-wheels on your first D&D bikeride so that you don't fall.

I realize that the aim of it all is to reduce the D&D snobbery and exclusivity that was so intimidating to new or prospective players... but as a D&D snob, how am I supposed to like this?

[Talic]

This makes even less sense. Would you like to explain how my Ranger and my Warlock did the same thing every fight? Or would you rather I tell you about how two different Fighters in a playtest my group ran played differently?

By your standards, all 3E non-spellcaster charactes are the same because they'll be making attack rolls to do damage!

You're just not making very much sense to me. My Warlock certainly didn't do the exact same thing as my ranger, and his tactics weren't any more repetitive than my 3E characters'. "Striker" just means that a character, broadly, focuses on doing damage to and/or debuffing a single target, and "Defender" just means that the character will make attacking other party members more difficult or less appealing, in some way. I'm not sure how that means they'll do the exact same thing or that it'll be "like a job". Weren't "meatshields" supposed to do this in 3.5, too?

Simple. I can design a 3.x Fighter to be a Tank. A Striker. A CC.

I can design a cleric to be a healer. A tank. a striker. A CC.

I can design a wizard to be a striker. A CC. In some cases, a tank.

I can design many classes to do many roles, and I can shift things up to suit me, on the fly.

Now, in 4.0? If you're a striker... You're a striker. Your 1 daily is geared towards striking. Your encounter powers are geared towards striking. Your at wills are geared towards striking.

In 3.x ? I can build a spiked chain CC fighter that can switch to Striking whenever he likes, and with nothing more than a bull rush, get the bad guys off the squishies, filling a tank role. ONE character, many roles.

4.0 pegs you in a slot and then... Well, dang. That's your spot. So much for versatility.

There is a time for party roles, and there is a time to acknowledge when those roles become straitjackets. AD&D 2nd realized this with alignments, and poof! Alignment became more flexible.

It's just a shame to see backsliding over the very nuts and bolts of the characters.

[The New Bruceski]

Simple. I can design a 3.x Fighter to be a Tank. A Striker. A CC.

I can design a cleric to be a healer. A tank. a striker. A CC.

I can design a wizard to be a striker. A CC. In some cases, a tank.

I can design many classes to do many roles, and I can shift things up to suit me, on the fly.

Now, in 4.0? If you're a striker... You're a striker. Your 1 daily is geared towards striking. Your encounter powers are geared towards striking. Your at wills are geared towards striking.

In 3.x ? I can build a spiked chain CC fighter that can switch to Striking whenever he likes, and with nothing more than a bull rush, get the bad guys off the squishies, filling a tank role. ONE character, many roles.

4.0 pegs you in a slot and then... Well, dang. That's your spot. So much for versatility.

There is a time for party roles, and there is a time to acknowledge when those roles become straitjackets. AD&D 2nd realized this with alignments, and poof! Alignment became more flexible.

It's just a shame to see backsliding over the very nuts and bolts of the characters.

So do you have anything to say about Striker abilities that help control enemies? (Hunter's Bear Trap [Rng1D], Positioning Strike [Rog1E], Dire Radiance [Lock At-Will])
How about Leader powers that focus the enemy on them? (Healing Strike [Clr1E], Viper's Strike [Wrld At-Will])
The Wizard can either be built as very solid striker or controller, and his utility spells are all over the place.

What's all this about being stuck in one role according to your class?

[Totally Guy]

Or there is multiclassing. Really I think they just made something explicit that was previously implicit. This way you can kind of guess what sort of thing you might be doing when you pick the class. At least there's not a class role: lodestone.:smalltongue:

[Morandir Nailo]

A small attempt to get this thread back on track...(apologies to the OP for helping turn what is supposed to be a non-debate thread into a debate thread).

One of the advertised pros of 4e is that it's supposed to require less bookkeeping on the part of the DM. It might seem odd, but I actually find myself having to keep track of more stuff. Before, a monster had 2 conditions: alive and dead. Now, it might be bloodied, cursed, marked, etc. I have to remember to make recharge rolls for powers. I have to remember to use its immediate reaction, if it has one (like the Kobold's shifty ability). I have to change AC or attack bonus depending on whether or not its standing next to another of its kind.

In short, I have to become a master tactician, instead of a narrator and referee. Say all you want about spell durations, but it was never a problem in my group. When an encounter came up, the player would simply ask me if his spell was still running, and I would rule yes or no depending on the situation. I did my very best to be fair about it and never had any complaints. I guess part of this is related to group playstyle. We tended to stick to low-level games (rarely seeing 10th level or higher), and no one ever played a buff-monkey (or Batman, for that matter). So I never really encountered some of 3e's most talked-about "problems."

Now to balance this out, I feel compelled to say that prepping an encounter is about a gazillion times faster with 4e than it was with 3e, and I'm definitely happy about that. But I really am becoming very, very unhappy with the tactical miniatures combat aspect of this game. It's too bad I can't convince my group to switch to Classic...

Mor

[tumble check]

*words*


Oh man, you should see mid-to-high-level bards. The thing is, though, I really enjoy the bookkeeping in DnD, which is probably why I love bards.

Between spells and songs, I needed to keep a notepad with a turn-by-turn log of which spells he cast, which songs he sang, and on whom, because many of the songs only apply to a certain radius or to a certain number of targets. I mastered the whole process, and it became so mechanical for me, I really just embraced it and utterly enjoyed it.

[TwystidMynd]

So do you have anything to say about Striker abilities that help control enemies? (Hunter's Bear Trap [Rng1D], Positioning Strike [Rog1E], Dire Radiance [Lock At-Will])
How about Leader powers that focus the enemy on them? (Healing Strike [Clr1E], Viper's Strike [Wrld At-Will])
The Wizard can either be built as very solid striker or controller, and his utility spells are all over the place.

What's all this about being stuck in one role according to your class?

I'd just like to reinforce Bruceski's point. "Roles" in 4e aren't static. Every class has a variety of abilities to choose from, and depending on which abilities a character has, that character can bleed very heavily into another Role. I know that my Artful Dodger Rogue operated as my party's Controller for a good, long while, since we lacked a Wizard. When a player dropped out and we got a new one who wanted to play a Wizard, I dropped one of my Controller abilities and started focusing more on my Striker side.

Coincidentally, the Wizard we got is capable of giving my Rogue a run for her money in certain situations and, if he were specced for it, I bet he'd be an effective Striker.

You know what else is scary? A Paladin with a Spiked Chain. Plate Mail + Reach + 2d4+7 damage makes a pretty solid front-line DPS too.

[Shademan]

i dont like the whole deal with fighters not getting plate proff'.

[Frownbear]

Simple. I can design a 3.x Fighter to be a Tank. A Striker. A CC.

I can design a cleric to be a healer. A tank. a striker. A CC.

I can design a wizard to be a striker. A CC. In some cases, a tank.

I can design many classes to do many roles, and I can shift things up to suit me, on the fly.

Now, in 4.0? If you're a striker... You're a striker. Your 1 daily is geared towards striking. Your encounter powers are geared towards striking. Your at wills are geared towards striking.
You can't design a 3.x fighter to be a "tank", actually, or at least not very well, and certainly not a controller! I'm well aware of reach and tripping, but those are short range and work against a minority of enemies.

The cleric can melee, but he's not going to "tank" or control any better than the fighter. The rogue? He's a striker... sort of.
Meanwhile, the wizard can do more-or-less anything.The Druid can be a tank, a striker, and a controller at the same time.


In 3.x ? I can build a spiked chain CC fighter that can switch to Striking whenever he likes, and with nothing more than a bull rush, get the bad guys off the squishies, filling a tank role. ONE character, many roles.
A spiked chain doesn't make you a crowd controller--look at what the wizard's doing. By those standards, the 4E fighter can control, too.


4.0 pegs you in a slot and then... Well, dang. That's your spot. So much for versatility.

There is a time for party roles, and there is a time to acknowledge when those roles become straitjackets. AD&D 2nd realized this with alignments, and poof! Alignment became more flexible.

It's just a shame to see backsliding over the very nuts and bolts of the characters.
With the roles, each class will actually be good at what they do. And classes have secondary roles. You can play up the Leader aspect of a Paladin. Or you want to look at the Fighter?

The Fighter using a maul and damage-adding powers acts as a secondary striker. Does a lot of damage. So does the Fighter using a spear--but in a different way.
The Fighter using a heavy blade and the group powers like Come and Get It and Sweeping Blow is a secondary controller, keeping enemies on him and from moving away.
But he still has a role he's good at. You can't make every class good at every role.

What's more, sharing a role doesn't mean they play the exact same way. If "they both do damage mostly to single targets" means they play "Exactly. The. Same." just about every single melee class in 3E must have been the same."
My Warlock and my Ranger were very different play experiences. An archery Ranger and a melee Ranger are different play experiences. And an archery ranger and a Warlock (which pact? Fey Pacters play differently from Infernal Pacters)... also different.
So it looks like you're stuck on "they both do damage to a single target". Sorry, I don't see your point.

[Prophaniti]

i dont like the whole deal with fighters not getting plate proff'.
yeah, that kinda bugged me too. But, since we started at 1st level, and I'm used to not having plate at 1st level because of the cost, it didn't matter so much yet that I couldn't wear it anyway.

Back to class roles for a moment... Let me put forward what some of you may consider to be a totally insane concept: The classes should not be about their combat roles, in any way. At all. Now, hear me out;

I know D&D, compared to many other pen & paper rpgs, can be considered combat-heavy. Now, most of that I have to take other people's word for, since every other system I've tried is just as combat-heavy. But, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that's true. That does not mean the explicit design view of each class has to involve its place in combat. It's still an RPG, first and foremost, or at least, so the developers and cover and marketing would have us believe.

In an RPG, even a class-based one, the concept should come first, be it a soldier, a sailor, a vagabond or waif, the idea behind the class should be the base upon which all aspects of the class are built. Any particular niche a class is good at in a combat situation should be either A) incidental, or B) based on the concept itself (ex: a fighter could conceivably be potent in a number of combat roles, based on training and equipment, whereas a thief would only be good at a few, simply because of the nature of that class, and a scholar-type class wouldn't really be good at any of them, since he's spent his whole life among books and can count on one hand the number of times he's raised a weapon {That's right, I believe there should be classes that aren't skilled in combat at all! *shock and amazement*}).

There is, however, another tabletop game genre where combat roles are the primary focus and concept of different 'classes'. A wargame. Really, when you look at 4e from this angle, the "4e is a tactical miniatures wargame" argument becomes harder and harder to refute.

Bottom line: combat is only one small part of a full RPG experience, and it is disturbing to see an edition of the quintessential RPG come out with everything geared toward combat. I'm not saying that combat takes up most of the actual rules, or that even if it did, that's a bad thing. Combat is the most complicated part, and needs the most rules. What I'm lamenting is combat being the central theme behind design and execution of every class, and the attitude of "everyone must be equally special in a fight" that permeates the work (and the community). I really don't understand this attitude.

You can't design a 3.x fighter to be a "tank", actually, or at least not very well, and certainly not a controller! I'm well aware of reach and tripping, but those are short range and work against a minority of enemies.

The cleric can melee, but he's not going to "tank" or control any better than the fighter. The rogue? He's a striker... sort of.
Meanwhile, the wizard can do more-or-less anything.The Druid can be a tank, a striker, and a controller at the same time.
So, you're in the camp that decries 3e, shouting "wizards can do it all! Just play a wizard and you've won!" then, when you run into a creature with spell resistance, or an anti-magic field you claim that the DM is resorting to cheap tactics to stop your godmoding, but when the fighter runs into creatures he can't trip or disarm, it just demonstrates how inferior he is? Did I get that right?

Sorry, I just hear that viewpoint a lot, and it gets old.

[Oracle_Hunter]

There is, however, another tabletop game genre where combat roles are the primary focus and concept of different 'classes'. A wargame. Really, when you look at 4e from this angle, the "4e is a tactical miniatures wargame" argument becomes harder and harder to refute.

Say, ever wonder why classes have always been about combat roles in D&D? It's because D&D is descended from a tactical wargame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game))! :smalleek:

Also: Soylent Green is made of People! :smalltongue:

Honestly, if you don't like classes that center on combat roles, D&D is not the system for you. In the same way that, if you want to play swords & sorcery, Shadowrun may be a poor choice for a system.

[CASTLEMIKE]

4E is more like McDonald's with fewer choices and more of a fixed menu (Give WOTC a year and that should change:smallcool:) and 3.5 is more like Burger King where you can have it your way and when that guy in front of you makes the special order it doesn't delay your order like it does at McDonald's.

[The New Bruceski]

Bottom line: combat is only one small part of a full RPG experience, and it is disturbing to see an edition of the quintessential RPG come out with everything geared toward combat. I'm not saying that combat takes up most of the actual rules, or that even if it did, that's a bad thing. What I'm lamenting is combat being the central theme behind design and execution of every class.

Would it be correct to place "compared to previous editions" in your comments? My apologies if not. That's where I'm finding issue with comments like this, because I don't see very much difference. I look at a class in 3rd edition, and I usually see entry after entry of new combat abilities. The exception is an occasional flavor class (such as the Exemplar) who doesn't get >anything< useful for combat, and so gets to sit on the sidelines with the out-of-spells wizard.

To put it another way, I would rather see a game built around class equality in combat and out than one where people can walk away from the table for half an hour without contributing any less to the game. For example, look at the Decker from Shadowrun; an important role for the team, but his actions on the net are a completely different world from the rest of the characters, and wherever the DM's focus is the people on the other side get to sit there and watch, instead of interacting.

WotC seems to have the same idea. Combat is focused around teamwork instead of one person locking down the situation. Encounter traps are now the norm, involving the whole party instead of giving the Rogue a few dice-rolls to justify their existence. Skill challenges make a point of trying to involve everybody (though I take issue with where some DMs choose to use them, when simply talking will do). Different classes, and different people within those classes still excel at different things, but WotC seems to be trying to avoid situations where one character is completely helpless to contribute (due to game design anyway. If you want to kidnap a character and tie them up in a basement for a session, that's not the game's fault).

[The New Bruceski]

4E is more like McDonald's with fewer choices and more of a fixed menu (Give WOTC a year and that should change:smallcool:) and 3.5 is more like Burger King where you can have it your way and when that guy in front of you makes the special order it doesn't delay your order like it does at McDonald's.

I dunno, some of the complaints I've been reading bring to mind someone standing outside BK saying "but I don't WANT pickles!"

[Prophaniti]

Say, ever wonder why classes have always been about combat roles in D&D? It's because D&D is descended from a tactical wargame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game))! :smalleek:

Also: Soylent Green is made of People! :smalltongue:

Honestly, if you don't like classes that center on combat roles, D&D is not the system for you. In the same way that, if you want to play swords & sorcery, Shadowrun may be a poor choice for a system.I'm well aware of the origins of D&D. What I'm wondering is why we're going backwards.

As for "not the system for me", I've been over that many times. D&D is THE RPG in many circles, easily recognizable and accessible. Is it really asking so much that the RPG that defined the genre stay an RPG, and be designed and implemented in new editions as an RPG? Apparenly that is asking too much.

Would it be correct to place "compared to previous editions" in your comments?Yes, that would be entirely correct, I probably should have stipulated it. Also, I'm aware that no edition of D&D lives entirely up to my ideal, that's simply because I didn't design it. They were made by other people with other ideas. But, as CASTLEMIKE points out, previous editions (at least 3.5) were more easily adaptable to other perspectives and preferences, as one specific viewpoint was not hardcoded into the system. Another example of this is the overall level of awesome that 4e characters are meant to exude. That quality is inherent in the system itself, and is not so easily adaptable to a campaign where awesome is rare and remarkable.

So, if I want to run a campaign where the characters are normal at the start, and not everyone is skilled in combat, it would require a lot of alterations and work on my part to use 4e. Not so much to use 3e. Less still to use other systems, but as I stated above, that is not always possible. I guess I'd just hoped that 4e would continue the expansion of versatility and adaptability that 3e added to D&D, but instead they bent their will to make a well-balanced system within a narrow scope. Unfortunately for me, the scope they chose to focus on seems to be the opposite of the one I want to play in almost every regard. I'm one of those 'outside looking in' people, who don't want what they're selling right now, and can only hope that they'll make something more appetizing (sorry, I'm hungry) appealing to me in the future.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I'm well aware of the origins of D&D. What I'm wondering is why we're going backwards.

As for "not the system for me", I've been over that many times. D&D is THE RPG in many circles, easily recognizable and accessible. Is it really asking so much that the RPG that defined the genre stay an RPG, and be designed and implemented in new editions as an RPG? Apparenly that is asking too much.

Backwards? What is forwards - where were we going? :smallconfused:

D&D may be changing, but it's hard to claim it's no longer an RPG, and it's harder still to argue that it should be moving to some "place" - though I'd like to hear your views on this.

As for the last point - is it really that hard for you youngin's to pick up a new RPG these days? Surely by now you have friends you regularly game with; why don't you ask them to try something new? There are lots of RPGs out there, and several are far easier to learn to play than D&D.

Back in my youth, we regularly played D&D, sure, but every so often we'd pick up a book or two from another designer and give it a go - and this was before this "internet" made finding new systems so easy! I have to walk 10 miles (uphills, both ways) to the local gaming store (no, Barnes & Nobles didn't carry RPGs then!) and find the books myself. *shakes old man cane*

So, I have to know: what is it in your situation that prevents this? I would, in fact, like to know.

[Prophaniti]

Backwards? What is forwards - where were we going? :smallconfused:

D&D may be changing, but it's hard to claim it's no longer an RPG, and it's harder still to argue that it should be moving to some "place" - though I'd like to hear your views on this.

As for the last point - is it really that hard for you youngin's to pick up a new RPG these days? Surely by now you have friends you regularly game with; why don't you ask them to try something new? There are lots of RPGs out there, and several are far easier to learn to play than D&D.

Back in my youth, we regularly played D&D, sure, but every so often we'd pick up a book or two from another designer and give it a go - and this was before this "internet" made finding new systems so easy! I have to walk 10 miles (uphills, both ways) to the local gaming store (no, Barnes & Nobles didn't carry RPGs then!) and find the books myself. *shakes old man cane*

So, I have to know: what is it in your situation that prevents this? I would, in fact, like to know.As far as other systems go... the main block to trying new things is easy access to the books. This mostly stems from money, as all of us have other things to spend it on. Well, except one guy, incidently the only one of our group to buy 4e so far. Really, though, I'm the main one in the group who actually wants to try new systems. Everyone else is largely comfortable with using 3.5 and changing it to our desires. This may be because more than half our group hasn't been using 3e as long as I have, so they don't have the same craving for a change of pace.

Really, though, it's about the money. If I suddenly had copies of GURPS or Shadowrun or what have you, I don't doubt I could convince my group to try at least one game with them. Permanently switching is very unlikely, however, some of us have a lot of 3.5 books, and don't have the issues with the system that so many board members seem to.

As for 4e, and the 'backwards' comment... I just mean that it's closer to the wargame that spawned 1e than 3e was. Perhaps the term 'backwards' is laden with reactionary prejudice... it still fits, since D&D has continually moved away from it until this latest edition, which moved closer.

My main lament is simply the narrow scope of view (necessary for the level of balance they wished to achieve) that 4e was designed in. It just happens to be a view that I'm not interested in playing most of the time, and already have systems that I can easily use to play from the view that I want, so it doesn't interest me. 4e being the latest edition of the RPG that got me and so many people I know playing RPGs, it saddens me that this version has nothing to offer me.

[Gavin Sage]

Oracle_Hunter,

You realized you are refuting the point of "Is it too much to ask the most well-known RPG to be an RPG?" by saying "Go and play other RPGs then, its very easy!"

Which while always a fair point isn't much of a defense for 4e you know. I think a bunch of us just might do that. And if enough do what does that mean for D&D when people either stop playing or just keep using 3.5 stuff? Hopefully the answer is 5e and not no edition.

[Helgraf]

As for 4e, and the 'backwards' comment... I just mean that it's closer to the wargame that spawned 1e than 3e was. Perhaps the term 'backwards' is laden with reactionary prejudice... it still fits, since D&D has continually moved away from it until this latest edition, which moved closer.

No, I'd argue that 3.0/3.5 started the 'backward' move toward more tactical combat.

[Prophaniti]

No, I'd argue that 3.0/3.5 started the 'backward' move toward more tactical combat.
Possible. I'm really not as familiar with editions before 3 as I'd like to be. My dad played them, but since 3e came out he won't go back, and since he no longer has any of the sourcebooks... It's pretty clear that 4e is closer to the tactical combat roots than 3e, though.

[Oracle_Hunter]

You realized you are refuting the point of "Is it too much to ask the most well-known RPG to be an RPG?" by saying "Go and play other RPGs then, its very easy!"

Ah, no.

My point was "how is 4e not an RPG?" It certainly has a well-developed combat system that is grid based, but there is nothing in 4e that impacts your ability to "role play" (under most definitions of "role play" anyhow :smalltongue:)

However, I readily recognize that not all rules systems are equally good at running all flavors of RPG. As I said, if you wanted to play a swords-and-sorcery game, Shadowrun is not the sort of system you would like to use.

Prophaniti dislikes combat-focused RPGs (or so I gathered from his comments) and so I suggested using a less combat-focused system. If he is not wed to swords-and-sorcery, there are plenty of narrative-style games which revolve more around non-combat interactions available.

Now, the money issues is well taken, but have you checked out DriveThruRPG.com (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/index.php)? Most stuff there is far cheaper than WotC stuff, and you can actually buy an entire system for less than a single 4e book! It's well worth a look-through if you want to expand your gaming horizons.

[TerrickTerran]

Loss of my favorite class and race were enough. (Monk and Gnomes respectively)

[DrowVampyre]

Y'know one of the things I really dislike about 4e? How they made it (from what I've seen, anyway - I've looked through the books but have no actual play experience) so that it's much more difficult to get by with a small party. I'm used to playing in groups with only 2 PCs, 3 if we're lucky, so anything that makes it harder to run shorthanded is bad in my book.

[Frownbear]

{That's right, I believe there should be classes that aren't skilled in combat at all! *shock and amazement*}).
That's fine for some games, but in a game that's fundamentally about adventurers who fight stuff?


There is, however, another tabletop game genre where combat roles are the primary focus and concept of different 'classes'. A wargame. Really, when you look at 4e from this angle, the "4e is a tactical miniatures wargame" argument becomes harder and harder to refute.
That's not an argument, that's blinders! 4E intentionally makes skills more versatile and easier to acquire, and even includes an explicitly non-combat conflict resolution mechanic. 3E doesn't have that. 4E acknowledges that D&D has been and is a game of which combat is a significant part, and takes that into account.


Bottom line: combat is only one small part of a full RPG experience, and it is disturbing to see an edition of the quintessential RPG come out with everything geared toward combat. I'm not saying that combat takes up most of the actual rules, or that even if it did, that's a bad thing. Combat is the most complicated part, and needs the most rules. What I'm lamenting is combat being the central theme behind design and execution of every class, and the attitude of "everyone must be equally special in a fight" that permeates the work (and the community). I really don't understand this attitude.
4E is no more geared towards combat than previous editions. It's not like there were any 3.x or even AD&D classes that didn't get combat abilities!


So, you're in the camp that decries 3e, shouting "wizards can do it all! Just play a wizard and you've won!" then, when you run into a creature with spell resistance, or an anti-magic field you claim that the DM is resorting to cheap tactics to stop your godmoding, but when the fighter runs into creatures he can't trip or disarm, it just demonstrates how inferior he is? Did I get that right?

Sorry, I just hear that viewpoint a lot, and it gets old.
Is there even any point in me responding to this? You're perfectly willing to make up my viewpoint for me!

[Frownbear]

Y'know one of the things I really dislike about 4e? How they made it (from what I've seen, anyway - I've looked through the books but have no actual play experience) so that it's much more difficult to get by with a small party. I'm used to playing in groups with only 2 PCs, 3 if we're lucky, so anything that makes it harder to run shorthanded is bad in my book.

How is it more difficult? Scaling encounters is a lot easier, just use 2 standard enemies (or the equivalent--one elite, etc) instead of 4 or 5!

[The New Bruceski]

Y'know one of the things I really dislike about 4e? How they made it (from what I've seen, anyway - I've looked through the books but have no actual play experience) so that it's much more difficult to get by with a small party. I'm used to playing in groups with only 2 PCs, 3 if we're lucky, so anything that makes it harder to run shorthanded is bad in my book.

I've found it to be rather straightforward. I've had a few sessions where out 5-man group was reduced to four or three, and the DM's been able to quickly remove some xp from the encounters. Multi-mob combat as a standard helps there, as you have something to remove rather than finding a whole new creature.

[Shadowtraveler]

Have only read the core books so far, I think the only thing I dislike is that everything feels so...helpful. It's all laid out so that the party can kill the dragon and loot the room with minimal fuss.

Where's the part where it's all "Now you all DIE! DIE!! DIE!!! MWHAHAHAHA!!!!"?

Seriously, that really annoys me...:smallannoyed:

[Gavin Sage]

Ah, no.

My point was "how is 4e not an RPG?" It certainly has a well-developed combat system that is grid based, but there is nothing in 4e that impacts your ability to "role play" (under most definitions of "role play" anyhow :smalltongue:)

Which wasn't how the post sounded to me. Why bring up other systems at all then, ya know?

Though on that point, one can roleplay in a Warhammer40k battle fairly easily. Doesn't make that really an RPG though. Not that 4e is near completely a wargame, but the game makes far more sense to me as a warcraft heroes-ish tactical fighting game, then one focused on storytelling which I think is the central hallmark of an RPG. Ablities will be ridiculously easy to implement on a video game control, they seem rather made for hotkeying.

No I don't need a speech about how "but you can still X, Y, and Z" and the like. Its certainly not impossible to roleplay using 4e, but I feel the emphasis is clear on that regard. Combat is where the effort was spent, and classes like the Rogue, Wizard, are much more focused there. And all the move X ablities show a clear emphasis on grid based rules. Which again, comes down to combat. And I don't like that, thus see no reason to support 4e with say my money. Is 4e still an RPG, sure. Is it one I feel I could say defines RPG anymore, not so sure.



Now, the money issues is well taken, but have you checked out DriveThruRPG.com (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/index.php)? Most stuff there is far cheaper than WotC stuff, and you can actually buy an entire system for less than a single 4e book! It's well worth a look-through if you want to expand your gaming horizons.

There's something to be said for owning books themselves I think.

Though I personally have used download buying to get books for a Vampire the Masquerade LARP since they are out of print and I don't have THAT dedicated a gameshop around me. Its a good option, but this doesn't really help 4e which is what's at issue. I'm getting more enamoured with White Wolf stuff all the time though, sad really to think of it replacing D&D for me.

[Unbeliever]

Ok here it is

I am a long time Gamer who remembers the old AD&D, with fun and enjoyment we had.

However I picked up the new 4th edition and Gave it a go, well lets see here is how most games go.

we see the village, walking through you notice the rolling sludge its black pudding we fight pick up loot and off we go.

at the end of the village we see a group of Kolbolds we fight pick up loot and off we go.

that pretty much sets up 4th ed like most computer games it does not allow a player to think things through and or interact with the creatures and monsters.

it is glorified hack and slash, as an old time gamer I look forward to character interaction with monsters and or NPC's most adventures we rearly have to fight.

4th edition should be consider a basic D&D for beginners, the group I currently DM that is Age 35 + are in agreement we will be going back to old school AD&D 1st edition with tweaked rulles from 3.5.

Wizards have really shut out the older generation here from what I have been reading on a lot of the posts.

I will respect all comments from people but I am not a fan of 4TH ed and I refuse to call it D&D.

[Frownbear]

However I picked up the new 4th edition and Gave it a go, well lets see here is how most games go.

we see the village, walking through you notice the rolling sludge its black pudding we fight pick up loot and off we go.

at the end of the village we see a group of Kolbolds we fight pick up loot and off we go.

that pretty much sets up 4th ed like most computer games it does not allow a player to think things through and or interact with the creatures and monsters.
So... because your DM just throws mindless encounters at you, the game is inherently like that?
What you just described is possible in ANY edition. It's possible in any fantasy RPG!

It sounds like you decided it was only good for hack and slash, your DM ran it like hack and slash. Your DM is the only one to blame if there's no roleplaying. My last 4E session involved no combat at all!


it is glorified hack and slash, as an old time gamer I look forward to character interaction with monsters and or NPC's most adventures we rearly have to fight.
If you play it like hack and slash, it'll be hack and slash! Hack and slash is possible in every edition! (I remember a number of very hack-and-slashy AD&D modules.)


4th edition should be consider a basic D&D for beginners, the group I currently DM that is Age 35 + are in agreement we will be going back to old school AD&D 1st edition with tweaked rulles from 3.5.

Wizards have really shut out the older generation here from what I have been reading on a lot of the posts.

I will respect all comments from people but I am not a fan of 4TH ed and I refuse to call it D&D.
"I refuse to call it D&D because I don't like it" is just silly.

[DrowVampyre]

How is it more difficult? Scaling encounters is a lot easier, just use 2 standard enemies (or the equivalent--one elite, etc) instead of 4 or 5!

Because all those little "do X damage and move the opponent Y squares" sort of powers don't really mean a whole lot when you don't have people to be taking advantage of forced movement for the monsters, and a whole lot of the powers heavily emphasize that movement aspect.

Basically, in making 4e a "team oriented game" (that is, placing much heavier emphasis on multiple party members working together) they made it very difficult for shorthanded parties (2, in my usual case) to do things. At least in my experience, when there's only 2 party members, you need to both be individually powerful, because you can't always count on someone having your back.

[Helgraf]

Y'know one of the things I really dislike about 4e? How they made it (from what I've seen, anyway - I've looked through the books but have no actual play experience) so that it's much more difficult to get by with a small party. I'm used to playing in groups with only 2 PCs, 3 if we're lucky, so anything that makes it harder to run shorthanded is bad in my book.

Ummm, if your DM knows the group will have 2-3 players (and he darn well should) then frankly he should know how to design encounters appropriately. They go to great lengths in the DMG to explain the many ways you can do this.

[Crow]

{That's right, I believe there should be classes that aren't skilled in combat at all! *shock and amazement*}).

I thought I was the only one. That was one of the things I really liked about d20 Modern.

4e characters, even at level 1, seem to exude a "killing machine" feeling from them for me. You have your skills, and if you're not in a fight, that's about it.

I miss the bard and his useful bardic knowledge. I miss the druid being able to walk through tangled bramble without effort, or cause a peasant's field to ripen in moments. I miss the monk being to speak the language of any beings you meet. I miss the baron's advisor ducking out of the room to avoid the Paladin who would know with a glance that his heart was black as tar.

[Colmarr]

Your DM is the only one to blame if there's no roleplaying. My last 4E session involved no combat at all!

I'll second this. Three hours of my last four hour 4e session was spent talking to NPCs. There is nothing about 4e that makes it any less suited to a diplomatic approach to adventuring.

In fact, the intimidate rules in 4e strike me as much more usable (for the purposes of forcing an opponent to surrender) than the 3.5 rules.

[nagora]

Ok here it is

I am a long time Gamer who remembers the old AD&D, with fun and enjoyment we had.

However I picked up the new 4th edition and Gave it a go, well lets see here is how most games go.

we see the village, walking through you notice the rolling sludge its black pudding we fight pick up loot and off we go.

at the end of the village we see a group of Kolbolds we fight pick up loot and off we go.

that pretty much sets up 4th ed like most computer games it does not allow a player to think things through and or interact with the creatures and monsters.

I'm not convinced that what you've outlined is an issue with the system, although 4e seems very combat-oriented. I think the scenario designer was more of a problem. I say that as someone who agrees that 1e is probably a better role-playing game all round than 4e (1e>4e>>>3e). But bad DMing is bad DMing and no system can fix that.

[dentrag2]

My points may not make sense, but now it's time for some circular logic.
Yes, i assume we could say 4E is a rpg, but then again, a piece of garbage counts as food too. The emphasis of actually ROLE-PLAYING food has shifted to this.... tactical garbage. Yes, there is still some scraps of food left, but it is vastly outnumbered and tastes very bad. I think the loss of all the extra spells (I once went an entire day in a dungeon with no damage dealing spells, and we survived, and came out for the better.) really hurt the game, with spells like someones Levitating Disc were taken out, was a loss (Speaking of that, we had our wizard stand on that and shoot crossbow bolts at them. Height advantage!) but overall, we're one step closer to chainmail. Come on, lets go play descent, it's moving in that direction rapidly.

[Corrin]

(I once went an entire day in a dungeon with no damage dealing spells, and we survived, and came out for the better.) . . . spells like someones Levitating Disc were taken out, was a loss (Speaking of that, we had our wizard stand on that and shoot crossbow bolts at them. Height advantage!)

None of that is Roleplaying. That's just hacking'n'slashing with the massive toolkit of spells that 3.x casters had. You don't miss roleplaying - you miss the 3.x full caster and how much they owned the other classes.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal - being able to master the 1,000+ different spells at your command and come up with the perfect spot to use each of them for devastating effect is a very fun thing to do. However, speaking as a DM and as a melee character player, it gets really tiring really fast being in a game with that player when you're not that player. Even if we're all friends and all having fun, I'd rather not deal with that. 4e for me.

(Final point remains - no one has yet produced any evidence that 4e hampers role-playing - it only hampers the god complexes of 3.x casters who could cast a spell to solve any problem).

[dentrag2]

((To whit, time to solve all the arguments pointed at me with their sharp, sharp spears. Note, i deal mostly with combat encounters, i have another DM friend who does the roleplaying encounters for me. I'm good at mechanics, not at roleplaying.)) If you read the DMG, it betrays its intentions towards the combat. "Combat is where the game happens." I don't think there's really a god complex until you're above 5th level spells. Most of the spells before then are just damage or utility spells, which if used cleverly, could give them an advantage. Another question presents itself fluff-wise. If you spend 15 years mastering arcane secrets that take forever to learn, why is Fighter Mc-stupid over there just as powerful as you are? this makes no sense that if you spent so long learning to be a wizard, and in the end are only as powerful as a sword-guy, why not just play a sword guy?

[Corrin]

That's why it doesn't take 15 years of training to be a Wizard anymore. 1-2 years, tops, and then they turn you loose to level up. How long do you think you have to train to be a martial arts master like a fighter/ranger/rogue/warlord?

By the way, your response only confirms my own point - "why play a wizard if you don't get to be more powerful than anyone else?" - if that's the way you want it, stick to 3.x :)

[Charity]

(Final point remains - no one has yet produced any evidence that 4e hampers role-playing - it only hampers the god complexes of 3.x casters who could cast a spell to solve any problem).

and they are not likely to.
You can roleplay while playing cluedo if you want, and yeah the game is better for it, roleplaying depends on the personnel not on the system, let them get back to hating on the nasty new game now eh...

Corrin this isn't just directed at you, but your posts are a good example...

The folk here venting bile are not going to be swayed regardless of how pursuasive you think you are, this thread only sits at the top of the forum because folk like your good self are under the misapprehension that logic will sway opinion.
Nobody comes to this thread looking for a balanced opinion about 4e, so there is no need to worry about folk being 'put off' the game by mis-information. This thread is like quicksand the more you struggle the faster you are dragged down.

[dentrag2]

brilliant. You ignored my statement about the god complex.
For those wondering about where my statements come from ((there are very few of you, but i know you're there.....JK.))
I am a vindictive, merciless, heartless DM. Doing this is very much harder in 4E, because of my guiding philosophy: The orc's wouldn't have mercy and neither should you. However, that doesn't mean that you should set up 30 orcs on them on the first day, however, stack the odds against them, make it hard, make it harder, make it almost insurmountable, so when they do get past it, stained with blood, sweat, and tears, they finally think they have won, and treat them like that. If they manage to beat the spider lord and his orc minions, good. give them a treat. My friend will do the roleplay, setting up the brutal, vindictive, heartless, and cruel combat, where if you fall behind, you stay behind.

Oh yeah, and i would have to drop monsters much above there CR just to make it a true challenge for the PC's.

[Corrin]

{Scrubbed}

[tumble check]

Some people need more in-book fluff and character creation options in order to effectively role-play characters. For me to call my Fighter a sailor without anything on his sheet to back it up, I find it a little unsettling and uncomfortable, and am not able to roleplay it as if I had the crunchy figures to back it up. If you think I suck at roleplaying then, fine.

Also, some people don't want to have to create their own fluff for monsters, races, and classes. To us, the amount of background given in the PHB and MM for these things is simply unacceptable, and it lessens the depth of the world/setting that WotC has given to us to work with.(Granted, this might change with the new settings coming out) It lends a very bland feel for just about everything in 4e. If your reponse is, "Spice it up, then!", it will fall on deaf ears. Some of us get no satisfaction in having to "house-rule" our fluff.

Someone back me up here, I know I'm not the only one on this board who feels this way, because I've had this discussion on these boards before.

[Prophaniti]

4E is no more geared towards combat than previous editions. It's not like there were any 3.x or even AD&D classes that didn't get combat abilities!Ok, second sentence is probably true, though I lack the encyclopedic knowledge of 3.5 to be certain, and I lack any significant knowledge of AD&D to have any idea. First sentence, though, is almost certainly false, and definitely arguable. There's lines all through the DMG that allude, sometimes outright say, that combat IS the game. These lines, added to the obvious emphasis of design and structure on grid combat, lend a great deal of credence to the argument that 4e is the most combat-centric edition yet. Skill Challenges? Please. It's a whitewash, and its structure screams to me "See? We're all about combat. Here's some rules that give non-combat situations the same structure as combat!" (side note: I haven't read the errata and this may no longer be entirely true, so take it for what it's worth).


Is there even any point in me responding to this? You're perfectly willing to make up my viewpoint for me!No, not really. I was being rhetorical and facetious. Of course, if I really was wrong on any of those points, you're welcome to explain how.

(Final point remains - no one has yet produced any evidence that 4e hampers role-playing - it only hampers the god complexes of 3.x casters who could cast a spell to solve any problem).That was never my intent. The point is not that 4e hampers roleplaying. As has been discussed, you could roleplay with just about anything you want. The point has been that evidence of 4e being an RPG (a game specifically designed to be roleplayed) is scant, while evidence of it being a tactical miniatures wargame is rife. Do I even have to point it out?

I'm not saying 4e is impossible to roleplay, or even that it's hard. We roleplayed just fine in our one-shot game of it. What I'm expressing is a simple wish that the latest edition of the most famous RPG in history and the one that defines the genre for a great many people be designed with an emphasis on the R. Instead, they emphasised the G.

[Roderick_BR]

Lotsa stuff. Scroll up
Yeah, that's not 4E, that's bad DMing. I remember people still complaining that 3.0 (and later 3.5) was "all about combat, that it was not D&D anymore." It's not different now.

I'm still waiting a good response on how 4E keeps one from playing as a typical D&D game. More combat rules? Yes, a lot more. Less "RP rules"? D&D ever had RP rules? Really, tell me how AD&D and 3rd ed are more Role Playing games than 4E.

Example of a game I made with 3.0:

PCs arrive at village at dusk. They see a little weird commotion near the center. They stealthly approach and find out the place if full of undead.
They start battle, and see a small pack of soldiers arriving to help. The soldiers had no hope of fighting the monsters alone, so they just tried to keep the villagers safe. With the PCs arrival, they see a chance to get hid of the undead. After a quick battle, the PCs are received as heroes, and start to ask around about what's going on, following clues, and tracking the monsters back to it's lair, maybe looking for a battle with a necromancer.
Battles, investigation, character interaction, skill checks, roleplaying...
I can do the exact same plot in 4E, with the only difference that the battle part will have more fancy moves, players using powers to destroy the undead, and when they start their investigations, They'll use skill challenges instead of only skill checks. The talking part will still be the same.


Ok, one thing I didn't like was the "sleep a night, and recover from that lethal blow in the 8 hours long war to full HP". Even my players found it weird. I want to keep from houseruling so soon, but if it gets too ridiculous, we may make a change to something like, spending the rest of your healing surges, meaning just that if you used too much, you'll have less to heal by night.
Other than that, haven't seen much I dislike. I'm still reading the books, though, so more things can come up.

[Prophaniti]

The folk here venting bile are not going to be swayed regardless of how pursuasive you think you are, this thread only sits at the top of the forum because folk like your good self are under the misapprehension that logic will sway opinion.
Nobody comes to this thread looking for a balanced opinion about 4e, so there is no need to worry about folk being 'put off' the game by mis-information. This thread is like quicksand the more you struggle the faster you are dragged down.
I realize a number of my posts sound quite extreme, and could be the voice of someone vehemently against 4e in all instances. Really, though, I simply don't want to spend my money on it, with very specific reasons why, and any bile is usually in response to people telling me those reasons are stupid or that the reason I didn't like it was that I was 'playing it wrong'. I come to this thread to voice exactly what the thread title is, no other reason. If you'd like to discuss my opinions in a reasonable manner, I'd love to, and have done so already numerous times in this thread. If you want to come in here and talk about how closed-minded I am, to imply that my distaste is entirely due to mis-information and dismissal of logical arguments...

Well, then you'd better expect some bile, 'cause you're gonna get it.

*snip*Yes, I agree, definitely with your first paragraph. The second, not as much.

I've said before I prefer the mechanics on my sheet to match the concept in my head as closely as possible. I can and have dealt with shortcomings in this, but the fewer they are the happier I am, and the more easily I can get into character.

As far as monster fluff, I can deal with it's absence, since I often rework it anyway. I would appreciate at least a little to work with on some of them, the ones I'm not as familiar with or don't have a solid idea of what I want them to be like. Really, it just would've been nice to see them put some effort into it, so I know they actually want you to use these creatures as more than just chunks of xp with different skins and special moves. Now, of course, there's nothing stopping you from doing that anyway, but some in-book fluff would at least have made clear that doing so is not the 'default' mode of the system.

[Morty]

I realize a number of my posts sound quite extreme, and could be the voice of someone vehemently against 4e in all instances. Really, though, I simply don't want to spend my money on it, with very specific reasons why, and any bile is usually in response to people telling me those reasons are stupid or that the reason I didn't like it was that I was 'playing it wrong'. I come to this thread to voice exactly what the thread title is, no other reason. If you'd like to discuss my opinions in a reasonable manner, I'd love to, and have done so already numerous times in this thread. If you want to come in here and talk about how closed-minded I am, to imply that my distaste is entirely due to mis-information and dismissal of logical arguments...


A fact: if you don't like something, no matter how many reasons you give, someone, probably a lot of someones, will come and say that you're just "venting bile", are close-minded and can't be swayed by logic, because apparently logic=having the same taste as this particular someone. Strange, but true.

[dentrag2]

((Note: talking to self now, admitting sins))
It's not as if 4E is a bad game, but to me and those who don't like it, It's just not what we like. No logic will change my distaste for the game. I can't say the same for others, but chances are that logic won't change their perspective either. 4E is a perfectly well balanced game, but it's not the game we want it to be. It wants to be something that it's not. I don't know what yet, but I'm pretty sure that we'll find out.

((On a side note: If they were doing martial, arcane and divine powers, and the reason monks and druid's aren't out yet is because Ki and Nature haven't been fully developed, why aren't bards and barbarians in the game? Sorry for my questions.))

[Prophaniti]

I'm still waiting a good response on how 4E keeps one from playing as a typical D&D game. More combat rules? Yes, a lot more. Less "RP rules"? D&D ever had RP rules? Really, tell me how AD&D and 3rd ed are more Role Playing games than 4E.
So, the overzealousness in the condensing of non-combat skills and the implementation of a system that turns the use of such skills into "skill-combat", those are not "good" responses? I've mentioned them before. D&D has indeed had RP rules, both guidelines and ideas chapters in the manuals, and systems for resolution of non-combat situations, if you want them. I never said 4e cut these out entirely. I'm not certain they could have done that and still put a D&D label on it. Someone would have put a stop to it at some point, I would hope. What I'm saying is, it sure looks like they tried. Every major effort and overhaul of the system was made from a purely combat-centric viewpoint, and everything else ignored. Even the changes with skills seem to come from a combat view, as in "These have nothing to do with combat directly, so let's trim them down so there's not so many to take up space in our combat manuals."

How many feats do you see in 4e that don't have something directly to do with combat? How many powers? Even many of the utility powers are designed for combat. Now, I'm well aware that D&D has always had more rules for combat than anything else. Very few systems are structured otherwise, since it is combat that calls for the most structured adjudication. Again, I'm simply lamenting the emphasis of the G in RPG, rather than the R.

[nagora]

Now, I'm well aware that D&D has always had more rules for combat than anything else.

1e had many more pages for each of magic, campaign/adventure design, exploration, and character generation than combat. That's not to say that combat was unimportant, just that it was much simpler.

[Prophaniti]

1e had many more pages for each of magic, campaign/adventure design, exploration, and character generation than combat. That's not to say that combat was unimportant, just that it was much simpler.
Noted. Like I've said, the last time I looked through the 1e books I was about 6 I think. My dad no longer has them, and I haven't found them for sale in town. Does that dragonsfoot website have the actual manuals? All I could find on it were adventures and maps and supplements...

[tumble check]

I will agree about the Utility Powers even. Most of them are useless out-of-rounds. I guess "Utility" here basically refers to "no-damage", and that's about it.

[nagora]

Noted. Like I've said, the last time I looked through the 1e books I was about 6 I think. My dad no longer has them, and I haven't found them for sale in town. Does that dragonsfoot website have the actual manuals? All I could find on it were adventures and maps and supplements...
They're still officially for sale as PDFs from the usual PDF sites. They're about $4 each I think.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Is 4e still an RPG, sure. Is it one I feel I could say defines RPG anymore, not so sure.

I must ask: what "defines" a RPG. Was 3e the "standard" for RPGs? Why?

[Jayabalard]

I must ask: what "defines" a RPG. Was 3e the "standard" for RPGs? Why?I think the claim is that D&D was the standard for RPGs, not 3e in specific... and I'm pretty much of the opinion that it was.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I think the claim is that D&D was the standard for RPGs, not 3e in specific... and I'm pretty much of the opinion that it was.

Alright - so what made it the standard for RPGs? And what was it about "D&D" that became lost in 4e that makes it no longer the case?

[Knaight]

. Another question presents itself fluff-wise. If you spend 15 years mastering arcane secrets that take forever to learn, why is Fighter Mc-stupid over there just as powerful as you are? this makes no sense that if you spent so long learning to be a wizard, and in the end are only as powerful as a sword-guy, why not just play a sword guy?

Because said fighter has spent just as much time learning how to kill people with a sword. And you would play a wizard instead of a sword-guy because you want to play a wizard, it might work better with some characters. Sometimes you want to play a sword guy, since thats the character you want to play. That said what is annoying is how combat focused the game is. Skills are linked to level, all the classes are based primarily around what they do in combat, etc. Playing a noncombatant is extremely difficult. And before you so much as think "I don't see how thats better than 3.5, your just being irrational" I'm not coming from 3.5 here. The thread is about what we dislike about fourth edition, not what we wish they hadn't changed from third. And D&D is the standard for RPGs, because its what most people play. In a few years that will be fourth edition, due to its growth, at the height of third it was third, at the height of second it was second. The standard is what most people play.

[Frownbear]

So, the overzealousness in the condensing of non-combat skills and the implementation of a system that turns the use of such skills into "skill-combat", those are not "good" responses?

You're taking something that *doesn't* focus on combat, namely skill challenges, and calling it "skill combat"?

At this point, you're just seeing what you want to see. If the skill challenge mechanic makes you think "combat"...!

Condensing non-combat skills makes each character more versatile. Combined with the ease of picking up new skills, this makes characters *more* skillful than before!

[Ulzgoroth]

Condensing non-combat skills makes each character more versatile. Combined with the ease of picking up new skills, this makes characters *more* skillful than before!
Do you think making characters more skillful in some way makes non-combat play work better? I...really think you're going about things backward.

'You can have all the skills, no problem!' means writing off situations where you don't have access to the first skill you might apply to the situation, and have to do something more interesting than the obvious. Or where you apply some eccentric skill in interesting ways. ('You took accounting? What exactly can you do with that?!' 'I can tell you that these goblins are hiding a lot more gold in here someplace...')

[Prophaniti]

You're taking something that *doesn't* focus on combat, namely skill challenges, and calling it "skill combat"?

At this point, you're just seeing what you want to see. If the skill challenge mechanic makes you think "combat"...!

Condensing non-combat skills makes each character more versatile. Combined with the ease of picking up new skills, this makes characters *more* skillful than before!What? No, what I'm saying is that they take something that isn't combat and give it the exact same structure as combat, with rounds and initiatives and everything. (note: I haven't read the new errata, this may have been partially/completely fixed) And how am I just seeing what I want to see? This is exactly what I don't want to see. I'll be quite pleased if the aforementioned errata changes the idiotic structure of 'skill challenges' into something I would actually use the next time I play 4e. More likely, it will still fall short, and I'll just use skills the same way I do in 3.5, and the same way I do in any other system. Really, since I don't give experience on a 'per encounter' or 'per kill' basis, this mechanic is entirely unnecessary to me, but I was still appaled that they set it up so much like a combat encounter, almost like they were trying to hide the fact that the whole game is not about combat.

As for improvements on the skill system in general... Not that I saw. I agree that some skill condensing from 3.5 is good, but disagree with most of their choices and with how far they went. I also think that the main issue with the d20 skill system, apart from specifically broken skills like Diplomacy, stems from only two things: the cross-class system, a good idea but poorly implemented, and the severe lack of skill points granted to most classes. Both of these things can be fixed with some simple tweaking and leave you with a very decent and well-structured skill system. 4e was just overzealous here, fixing the broken things a bit too much, and fixing many things that weren't broken to begin with.

[Xion_Anistu-san]

A lot of people lately have been going back and forth over one issue: aptitude, capability, or just old-fashion intelligence.

It is well documented that designers were given the task of making the game to be more starter-friendly. So players can make good choices and not have to worry about making bad choices early on and having to deal with them later. Cleave at 1st level was the example most often used. The designers were given the impossible task of making a fool-proof game. They changed the game so much so wizards do not have to conserve spells as any smart one would, fighters can mechanically do cool things in combat as opposed to just describing them, and every class gets the same toys so no one can complain.

Another argument has been 'My DM does this' or 'Your players should do that' in the case of role-playing vs. hack-and-slash or encounter building. Posters have said words to effect of 'Well if your DM knows (issue) than should do (action)' or 'In 3.X I could do (cool thing), but now I can't in 4E.' It is all about how players, and the DM is just a player make no mistake, use what is between their ears or the use/ misuse of intelligence.

No game is inherently smarter than any other game. It is an object. The players bring the game to life. They determine how the game is brought to life as well. I've played in long-standing groups and several convention games from local ones up to the big daddy of the all--GenCon. Each group was different and the styles and results were just as varied as those who played. It boils down to how much effort the players feel they want to put into the game to have fun.

I do not feel that 3.X or previous editions of D&D were all that complex to start or play. 4E is unbelievably easy to start playing, but much more complex to play specifically in combat. The record keeping of buffs and debuffs was straight-forward though durations could be bothersome if you weren't keeping track very well. Now the same things happen way more often and cause headaches for everyone who needs to keep track (player and DM alike). Instead of just changes to AC, saves and attack bonuses primarily before combat started; it also includes bloodied, cursed, inspired, marked, and moved (as per sliding) multiple times during combat now. It seems that this edition traded one kind of complexity for another in that respect. And yes I have played 4E since its release in June.

On a personal note, I do not call 4E D&D either. I simply call it 4E.

[Kompera]

If you spend 15 years mastering arcane secrets that take forever to learn, why is Fighter Mc-stupid over there just as powerful as you are? this makes no sense that if you spent so long learning to be a wizard, and in the end are only as powerful as a sword-guy, why not just play a sword guy?
This is known as Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards), a trope which draws heavily on D&D versions pre-4e and OoTS for examples.

The problem with this perception that 15 years learning to master magic being 'obviously' superior to 15 years learning to master all forms of arms and armor is this: If being a Wizard is so obviously superior, and we're all sitting around a table choosing which character classes we're going to play in this game called D&D, why would anyone choose to be the Fighter?

It comes down to balance: Without balance between the classes, you won't see some of the classes represented. Or you will, and those players who didn't know how things were going to turn out might feel a bit miffed that their selection came with an inherent gimp which no one bothered to tell them about before they played their Fighter for 8 levels and slowly watched the casters outpace them in capability. And in a game, capability can very much equal fun. Why should the player of the Fighter or the Rogue take a back seat in character capability to the Wizard? The Wizard by 8th level can duplicate all of the useful problem solving abilities of the Rogue, is a better combatant than the Fighter, and has a pile of other utility spells as well. Why should this be the case, in a game played by a group of equals?

And so the game with balance will have a cosmology of magic which does not allow the person who spends 15 years learning magic to completely dominate the person who spends 15 years learning the martial arts. Because that contributes to the most fun for the most people.

And it's not at all as unrealistic as some people like to make it out to be. All it requires is the imagination to envision a different set of rules for magic which don't make the practitioners gods, or the practitioners of the martial arts relegated to merely human feats. There are plenty of examples of such rules of magic and martial arts in literature, or you can use your own imagination to help provide the basis for understanding. Yes, this is different than the status quo in 3.x. But don't fear change, as this change is a good thing.

[Ulzgoroth]

And it's not at all as unrealistic as some people like to make it out to be. All it requires is the imagination to envision a different set of rules for magic which don't make the practitioners gods, or the practitioners of the martial arts relegated to merely human feats. There are plenty of examples of such rules of magic and martial arts in literature, or you can use your own imagination to help provide the basis for understanding. Yes, this is different than the status quo in 3.x. But don't fear change, as this change is a good thing.
How about hating the change?

There's no reason magic has to ramp up faster than mundane techniques. You're entirely right. Indeed, it's probably poor game design if it does, and definitely poor game design if, as in 3.5, it does without being addressed in any way.

This doesn't have to imply magic swordsmen. It could mean that the straightforward capabilities of magic in combat are kept balanced with the things that could be done without magic. Alternatively, you could throw in the 'everything is magic' fluff and take the roof off, but this is an enormous fluff disconnect from...well...the vast majority of the fantasy material I've read. (I know anime, martial arts movies, myth, and possibly medieval legends sometimes adhere to 'everything is magic'. I don't see the relevance.)

A side thought on fluff to keep wizard ramping down: Wizardry is an academic discipline. The standard career path of a wizard is to more or less spend 40+ years primarily in libraries and laboratories, and incidentally wield cosmic power in the process, yes? This is, presumably, really the best way for a wizard to develop their powers. Not dropping fireballs on orc warbands. On the other hand, you get better at fighting by fighting, as best I can tell. So in this regime, you can have magic be much more powerful than mortal muscle, but keep the party fighter in the same weight class with the party mage...because the mage is pretty much wasting his time, as far as advancement goes, while the fighter is getting good training on a regular basis. (Of course, if you want your fighter to punch Elminster in the face, this doesn't help you any.)

[Roderick_BR]

If you spend 15 years mastering arcane secrets that take forever to learn, why is Fighter Mc-stupid over there just as powerful as you are? this makes no sense that if you spent so long learning to be a wizard, and in the end are only as powerful as a sword-guy, why not just play a sword guy?
As the others said, if you spent 15 years fighting, you are a dammed of a good fighter, not a simple warrior. You fight dragons, hordes of zombies. You know as many ways to enter battle as a wizard knows spells.
Think it this way: Said wizard of a certain level can fight a certain monster. Let's say, a 10th level wizard can take on a young dragon. A fighter of the same level (same experience, same time fighting monsters and solving puzzles), should be able to take on the same dragon on his own way. There's no reason NOT to. Basically a high level wizard is something more than a simple human, so do the fighter. If he were "just" a McStupid, he'd be a low level warrior or commoner. Or, seeing from another point of view: WHY is the wizard learning so much thing? Shouldn't magic be hard? Looks like any idiot with a few points above 10 in Int can get a "spellcasting for dummies" book and go around throwing spells.

[Jayabalard]

But don't fear change, as this change is a good thing.It doesn't have anything to do with fearing change, and everything to do with disliking the change because it's not a good thing. I like Linear Fighters and Quadratic Wizards, and that's while playing the fighters. I'd prefer that practitioners of martial arts are limited to human feats (things that are possible, not necessarily things that are likely), and the fact that they're not in 4e (that mundane = magic) is one of the primary reasons that I dislike 4e.

[Thurbane]

The problem with this perception that 15 years learning to master magic being 'obviously' superior to 15 years learning to master all forms of arms and armor is this: If being a Wizard is so obviously superior, and we're all sitting around a table choosing which character classes we're going to play in this game called D&D, why would anyone choose to be the Fighter?
In my 25+ years of D&D, I have yet to see an all Wizard party. Heck, I've yet to see a majority Wizard party. In fact, I can only recall being in one game where there was more than one Wizard in the party.

One would imagine if Wizards were so irredeemably broken in 3.5 and earlier versions of the game, a vast majority of players would all take Wizards, yet in practice, I've never seen this happen.

[OneFamiliarFace]

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.

This is what I think is weird. I agree with almost everything everyone who is adamantly pro 3.x (or at least not for 4e) says in what they want out of a game. And I think 3.x and many other systems present these things just fine. But, still agreeing with what people want at the core of their game, I find no problem in 4e. (An example is that I like magic to be more powerful than weapons, and I find that such is the case with Ritual Magic, to which wizards have far easier access.) Excepting one thing:

It seems that many people would like a rule to exist for what you specifically want your character to have. They want the crunch to be there for character creation.

I am not saying this is the only complaint, nor the only valid complaint. It's just the one thing that excepts what I said about my view of the game world coinciding with others'. Just noting a curiosity is all. As I don't think 4e is a better system. I just happen to prefer it for whatever reason.

[Knaight]

I like Linear Fighters and Quadratic Wizards, and that's while playing the fighters.

I'd prefer that practitioners of martial arts are limited to human feats (things that are possible, not necessarily things that are likely)

These aren't even linked. There are tons of games where the second works without the first, often by making magic risky.

[Jayabalard]

These aren't even linked. There are tons of games where the second works without the first, often by making magic risky.Nor did I say that they are; I like both of them, and that dislike 4e because these aren't the case. Which is, after all, the topic of the thread.

[Knaight]

You said you like linear warriors quadratic wizards, then said you like warrior types to be realistic, implying a link. That said neither third nor fourth edition was realistic enough for me. If you keep it low level, fine, but whirlwind attack+improved trip lets you try to trip 20 people with a spiked chain, then hit them all again as they fall. 40 attacks in 6 seconds. Yeah right. Then fourth edition has suck a bunch of people in and whack them all away, again in 6 seconds.

[Kompera]

A side thought on fluff to keep wizard ramping down: Wizardry is an academic discipline. The standard career path of a wizard is to more or less spend 40+ years primarily in libraries and laboratories, and incidentally wield cosmic power in the process, yes? This is, presumably, really the best way for a wizard to develop their powers. Not dropping fireballs on orc warbands. On the other hand, you get better at fighting by fighting, as best I can tell. So in this regime, you can have magic be much more powerful than mortal muscle, but keep the party fighter in the same weight class with the party mage...because the mage is pretty much wasting his time, as far as advancement goes, while the fighter is getting good training on a regular basis. (Of course, if you want your fighter to punch Elminster in the face, this doesn't help you any.)The problem with this solution, and I think it would be an elegant one if applied to PC casters in 3.x, is that the game isn't set up for it. I would have been happy with a 4e which still savagely curtailed the powers of full casters while leaving the non-casting types pretty much alone, but I think every detractor of 4e would still have hated it. There exists a vocal minority of the fan base which simply does not care about class balance. To them, magic should be quadratic while the martial arts should remain linear. Because it's magic we're talking about here! It's gotta be overpowered or it's just no fun.

And don't bother them with any blather about balancing a game so that all of the players can enjoy it equally, have equally powerful characters, have an equal impact on the destinies of their own characters and the world setting, etc. All that is immaterial to the mantra: Magic is just supposed to be that good, and be damned with the game system, balance, or any of that other irrelevant stuff. Let the fighters eat cake, wizards should always win.


I like Linear Fighters and Quadratic Wizards [...] I'd prefer that practitioners of martial arts are limited to human feats (things that are possible, not necessarily things that are likely), and the fact that they're not in 4e (that mundane = magic) is one of the primary reasons that I dislike 4e.

See?

[Sebastian]

Speaking of things I dislike about 4e, Am I the only one that think that the introductory quotes for classes and paragon paths are some of the cheesiest things I've ever read? They make swartzenneger's movies looks like hamlet in the confront. They are not even in the "so bad they are" good territoy, they are just simply plain bad.

Or it is just me?

[Jayabalard]

You said you like linear warriors quadratic wizards, then said you like warrior types to be realistic, implying a link.The link is that I like both of them, and dislike 4e because that isn't the case.


Because it's magic we're talking about here! It's gotta be overpowered or it's just no fun.If you're going to quote someone as an example, you should probably avoid exaggerate thier position for effect. Magic should to be more powerful than non-magic, which doesn't mean that Fighters and non-magical folk can't enjoy the game, or that they have no control over their destiny or the shape of the world's events.

[Prophaniti]

Speaking of things I dislike about 4e, Am I the only one that think that the introductory quotes for classes and paragon paths are some of the cheesiest things I've ever read? They make swartzenneger's movies looks like hamlet in the confront. They are not even in the "so bad they are" good territoy, they are just simply plain bad.

Or it is just me?Oh, hell, I'd forgotten about those... Must've blanked them from my memory. They're even worse than the crap that was in a lot of the 3.5 books. They definitely fall into the So Bad it's Horrible (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlew9bltta3dv6n?from=Main.SoBadItsHorrible) territory. It would've been much better if they got someone better, like the Frank & K tome series guys. They had some great class quotes... "I stab people... in the face."


There exists a vocal minority of the fan base which simply does not care about class balance. To them, magic should be quadratic while the martial arts should remain linear. Because it's magic we're talking about here! It's gotta be overpowered or it's just no fun.And, of course, it's different from your point of view, so it must be wrong and stupid, right? I myself hold a similar view, though mine is: Magic should be powerful, but difficult and risky. Obviously, 3.5 completely ignored the second part, and that is where the problem lies. It is much easier, though, to add some difficulty and risk to a system than it is to add power, for me anyway. At least, for some reason the players feel less angry when I tell them "all spells have a chance of triggering wild magic" or "this spell is not in this game" than when I say "I'm increasing the damage that this ability does" or "all wizards get a bonus to spell damage from their chosen element".

The restriction is easier for me to add than the power, thus it makes more sense to start with the system that got at least part of my "magic should be X" right, rather than the one that got none of it right.

[Jayabalard]

They make swartzenneger's movies looks like hamlet in the confront. Hey, Some of his movies were pretty good, especially once he broke a little ways out of that Conan the Speech Impaired mold


The restriction is easier for me to add than the power, thus it makes more sense to start with the system that got at least part of my "magic should be X" right, rather than the one that got none of it right.Agreed.

[Swok]

In my 25+ years of D&D, I have yet to see an all Wizard party. Heck, I've yet to see a majority Wizard party. In fact, I can only recall being in one game where there was more than one Wizard in the party.

One would imagine if Wizards were so irredeemably broken in 3.5 and earlier versions of the game, a vast majority of players would all take Wizards, yet in practice, I've never seen this happen.

You, personally, might have never seen this. This does not mean it did not happen. And the much more common thing was a party of all full spellcasters. That happened...well, quite a bit.

[dentrag2]

There are certain problems with the wizards, sure, but to be frank, they are majorly weakened at the end of the game if you go for Direct Damage. Spell Resistance. Around 14-20th level, spell resistance gets high enough to become ridiculous. Thus, to overcome their damage reduction, all fighters have to do is use a special sword or club. Unfortunetly, (No idea if i spelled that right.) Wizards who bothered to pick up Tensers Transformation become fighters with spellcasting. Not good. The answer is simple. Dms, say no.

((Oh, and on a side note, if you want magic to be risky, for every round that they cast a magic spell consecutively, they have a +1 in 20 chance of the spell backfiring on them. Maybe they screwed up the words or gestures.))

[tumble check]

Reminder:

Some of us have never been smacked with the problem of balance. There exist gaming groups who do not look to "play" the system. There are players who do not feel left out when they don't get an equal amount of play time or as many kills as others. They realize that adventuring groups have roles, and by roles, I do not mean different ways to kill things.

Our Cleric has no problem with laying on a few buffs and stepping back for the most of the encounter to let the Fighter attack and cleave to high heaven. Our Fighter has no problem with pounding a bit, and then backing off to have the Wizard rain fire to kill more enemies than the Fighter ever could. Our Wizard has no problem backing off to let the Bard Dominate that one enemy who dodged the Fireball. And later on, our Bard has no problem with holding back one of his spells so that the Rogue can use some impressive skills, even though he could just as easily burn the spell and get it over with.

Except for some stupid, trappish prestige classes, our group has never had a problem with balance. It is a game of teamwork, nobody is trying to outshine the other. In fact, as I've said, we intentionally hold back in order to let others shine. If you think that's inefficient, then you're just playing a game. Enjoy 4e.

(And no, the "hold back" issue is not a case of the "nerfing your character = good roleplaying" fallacy. I'm not even talking about roleplaying. IMO, there was no need to rubber-coat the classes so that no one would end up crying.)

[ZekeArgo]

There are certain problems with the wizards, sure, but to be frank, they are majorly weakened at the end of the game if you go for Direct Damage. Spell Resistance. Around 14-20th level, spell resistance gets high enough to become ridiculous. Thus, to overcome their damage reduction, all fighters have to do is use a special sword or club. Unfortunetly, (No idea if i spelled that right.) Wizards who bothered to pick up Tensers Transformation become fighters with spellcasting. Not good. The answer is simple. Dms, say no.

((Oh, and on a side note, if you want magic to be risky, for every round that they cast a magic spell consecutively, they have a +1 in 20 chance of the spell backfiring on them. Maybe they screwed up the words or gestures.))

Tenser's Transformation? The spell that gives you full BaB, some enhancement bonuses and makes you unable to cast spells for the duration?! Yeah, thats really something to worry about there, espically since you won't even have the feats to make use of that marginally increased attacking ability.

Nevermind I don't really get what your saying here, wizards are weakened if they go for DD spells? SR stops anything? (it doesn't, even in core)? Whats your point?

[Prophaniti]

SR stops anything? (it doesn't, even in core)?
I'll be sure to tell my DM that all those times monsters with SR cause me to waste powerful spells for no benefit didn't really happen. Also, I need to let him know that, as a full caster, I should be dominating everything, so he's not allowed to make his saves anymore. Like he does all the freaking time...:smallannoyed:

I'll second most of what tumble check said up there, and further emphasise that the class roles he speaks of are the ones that matter. Not what their job is in combat, but what their job is in the party. There are other elements to adventuring besides fighting, and if as much effort had been put into defining the PARTY roles of the classes as was put into the COMBAT roles, 4e would undoubtedly be a more appealing system to me.

[Thurbane]

You, personally, might have never seen this. This does not mean it did not happen. And the much more common thing was a party of all full spellcasters. That happened...well, quite a bit.
Well, yes - but some people play the game to create and play a character that fits the vision they have in their head, not neccessarily be "the bestest with the mostest".

All this talk of "Batman Wizards" and "CoDzilla" really only applies to powergamers and uber-optimizers.

[Knaight]

Screw. That.

Its bad enough that we have this skills available crap, and that we had that cross class skills crap last edition. What a character does in combat shouldn't dictate who they are out of it. My character might have a battle frenzy, but why does that mean that they are ignorant savages who can't read(barbarian class). Why can't a swordsman know magical theory, but never have developed a knack for spells in combat(arcana not being an available default skill in fourth edition, although at least they had rituals.), or just abhor magic and not want to use it, so they have no practice and couldn't actually pull it off. Just because a character specializes in delivering blows to vitals when teaming up against someone doesn't mean that they should also be an inordinately skilled jack of all trades. Classes defining combat I'll put up with, but they can keep away from everything else.

[Edea]

...wow. This thread has been so completely derailed, I'm not sure why it's even open anymore o_O.

On topic, I also saw someone saying they didn't like the way monster defenses scaled in the new edition (pretty much requiring the proper +weapon/implement to reach the expected 50% hit rate), and I must agree with them; that irks me.

[Prophaniti]

A valid point, Knaight. I've actually vastly preferred class-less systems ever since I first tried one. But since the virtues of a class system vs a class-less one are not the topic...

I really don't like Rituals. It offends one of the most basic tenets of the way I like to run magic, which is that Magic is Hard to Learn. In my hombrew system, it takes years as an apprentice before you have a strong enough grasp of the Arcane Language to reliably cast the most basic cantrips. And because I also feel Magic must carry Risk, it is very dangerous to attempt to learn on your own. Only the most knowledgable and practices Arcane casters even think about creating their own spells, and usually proceed at a snail's pace to avoid catastrophy.

As I've said before, 3e RAW does not do it right for me, either, but they start closer to my preferred ideal than 4e does, and all I have to do is add in the risk and difficulty.

[Knaight]

Class based systems have virtues?

I always figured rituals were there for people for whom magic was a major part of their back-story, it was incredibly hard to pick this up, a huge amount of work was put in it, and they still aren't good enough to manage quick combat skills under pressure. Although I personally prefer magic that doesn't act scientifically, spells are not learned, you improvise on the fly, and things can still go wrong. And when they go wrong, there are consequences, often permanent consequences. There is no arcane language, there is just force of will, and magic surges, sometimes with powerful surges crashing through when casters leave themselves even slightly open to the forces of magic. There are no spells, and you have to be born with the ability to connect to magic at all, which is not that difficult. Whats difficult is controlling it.

Basically rituals don't offend your sensibilities if you think about them. Its people who have still put a lot into learning how to use magic, and they still need books, and scrolls, and reagents to pull it off.

Oh and by the way, I'm just going to have to suggest you find the door to shadow magic system for Fudge, and read the general rules. That sounds like exactly what your after (except for there aren't individual spells, although if you just changed the skills from categories of magic to the abilities of individual spells you do get that.)

[Frownbear]

...wow. This thread has been so completely derailed, I'm not sure why it's even open anymore o_O.

On topic, I also saw someone saying they didn't like the way monster defenses scaled in the new edition (pretty much requiring the proper +weapon/implement to reach the expected 50% hit rate), and I must agree with them; that irks me.

How is this any different from the old edition? A +X to hit is +X to hit. If you design monsters and take that into account, you start needing the weapons to hit regularly; if you design monsters and don't take that into account, then having the weapons means you're almost always hitting!

[quick_comment]

I really dislike that they took out tactics. They claim its more tactical, but just about every combat is: trip them and play init games to beat them while they are down and granting CA. Oh, and the squishies provide fire support.

No sunder, no disarm, no grapple. Barely any OAs (hell, standing up doesnt even provoke)


And as for wizards being weak in the endgame: lol.

[burninnapalm]

I really dislike that they took out tactics. They claim its more tactical, but just about every combat is: trip them and play init games to beat them while they are down and granting CA. Oh, and the squishies provide fire support.

No sunder, no disarm, no grapple. Barely any OAs (hell, standing up doesnt even provoke)


And as for wizards being weak in the endgame: lol.

agree totally, that and now dragonborn and tieflings are playable races. and the gnome is gone, and the bard and barbarian are gone, and spells are gone, and the cleric is almost usless because everyone has "healing surges" now.

I think my favorite quote was said at Gencon "4E is not meant to be overly hard or complicated, it is not meant for groups of people to meet together and sit and play, it is not meant do have struggles with the monsters. It is meant for everyone to win, it is meant for everyone to "feel good" it is meant to be played online so that you can "pwn som noob ar$e" My friends, 4E is not a Role-playing game, it is a Roll-playing game. 4E D&D is D&D the Video Game"

I dislike 4E so much that i am flat out Protesting it because i think that it is a load of dragon dung.

[Knaight]

I really dislike that they took out tactics. They claim its more tactical, but just about every combat is: trip them and play init games to beat them while they are down and granting CA. Oh, and the squishies provide fire support.

And their buddies just watch? The idea is that its more tactical because there are a lot more enemies at any one time, and you have to account for that. Now once you get to solos, then the majority of tactics get thrown out the window. That said, it really lacked polish. Case in point being that a few weeks after the skill challenge system came out they had to errata it, because they didn't realize how painfully obvious it was that all of the different difficulties had the same success/fail ratio. Nice.

[Prophaniti]

*snip*O.O

Now that's vehement. I agree with many of the points, though not to the same extent or with the same ardour.

*snip*
Well, the magic I described there is Arcane magic in my setting. I also have Innate magic, which is the whole 'force of will shaping magical energy' idea. I'm playtesting a spell-seed system for it, a bit complex, but allows the caster to create their spells from the ground up, and encompasses the idea that such spells have no in-game classification, save by their effects. As in, he didn't cast Burning Hands, he set that guy on fire with his eyes.

I've set up, in my setting, so Arcane is currently the least common kind of magic, but is the only one capable of permanently enchanting items, thanks to its use of the runes and symbols of the Arcane language.

It's in the links in my sig, but all that's the first draft stuff. I haven't updated them in a while.

I also have Divine magic, and a pantheon of fickle greek-esque gods who grant it.

*snip*
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the thread title say "Things you dislike about 4th edition" not "things you dislike about 4th edition that were not present in 3rd edition"?

[Edea]

How is this any different from the old edition? A +X to hit is +X to hit. If you design monsters and take that into account, you start needing the weapons to hit regularly; if you design monsters and don't take that into account, then having the weapons means you're almost always hitting!

This is what I mean by 'thread derail.' OP specifically asked not to make comments like this. Just list things you don't like about 4e (and perhaps why, if you're inclined to do so). If you're not posting something along those lines, it shouldn't be in here.

[Frownbear]

I really dislike that they took out tactics. They claim its more tactical, but just about every combat is: trip them and play init games to beat them while they are down and granting CA. Oh, and the squishies provide fire support.


No sunder, no disarm, no grapple. Barely any OAs (hell, standing up doesnt even provoke)

Sunder made no damn sense, was a random invention of 3E, was counterproductive, and isn't tactical. Grapple was not good for the game, and half my groups avoided it just because the rules were so messy (and who wrestles on a battlefield?), and works differently (and simply) now. There are powers that disarm, and although disarming enemies without having beaten them is, again, an invention of 3E, you can do it perfectly well with the DMG p. 42. A Strength attack versus Reflex, possibly with a bonus to the defender, sounds right.

What you describe sounds NOTHING like combat in my 4E games. If the DM is playing the monsters in a remotely tactical manner, it doesn't work that way. That sounds more like 3E, where you just stand and attack!


agree totally, that and now dragonborn and tieflings are playable races. and the gnome is gone, and the bard and barbarian are gone, and spells are gone, and the cleric is almost usless because everyone has "healing surges" now.
Dragonborn and Tiefling were playable races in 3E, just not PHB races. Tieflings were core; half-dragons were core--and popular! I saw more half-dragons than I did gnomes, for sure. Speaking of which, the gnome is perfectly playable; it's in the Monster Manual, with PC stats in the back.
The bard is an Inspiring Warlord multiclassing into Fey Pact warlock. The Barbarian is a Fighter or Ranger who focuses on damage-dealing powers and roleplays getting really angry. Regardless, both classes will be in the PHB II, and the 3E PHB didn't have the Warlord while the 4E PHB does. The classes do change from edition to edition--2E didn't have 1E's monk, for example!

But, "the cleric is almots useless"? It sounds like you never played the game! Healing Surges are used to heal characters BETWEEN fights, not IN fights! Being able to take a standard action to get a little HP back once a fight is NOT enough when you're taking anything more than minor damage. Meanwhile, in 3E, it was counterproductive for the cleric to heal IN combat! He'd just tap them with a wand after! Now, clerics heal in combat--and Leaders are very important. The Cleric is not "useless", and saying that shows that you don't really understand how 4E works!


I think my favorite quote was said at Gencon "4E is not meant to be overly hard or complicated, it is not meant for groups of people to meet together and sit and play, it is not meant do have struggles with the monsters. It is meant for everyone to win, it is meant for everyone to "feel good" it is meant to be played online so that you can "pwn som noob ar$e" My friends, 4E is not a Role-playing game, it is a Roll-playing game. 4E D&D is D&D the Video Game"
Except that this is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS. It's just verbalized spite. 4E is not particularly less lethal--it's just less *arbitrarily* lethal. It's not meant to be played online--it's harder to run a PbP with 4E, for example. It's meant to be played at the table, and a lot of the changes were made to keep turns moving quickly!


I dislike 4E so much that i am flat out Protesting it because i think that it is a load of dragon dung.
It sounds like you're so busy protesting it you don't even know how it works!

[Frownbear]

This is what I mean by 'thread derail.' OP specifically asked not to make comments like this. Just list things you don't like about 4e (and perhaps why, if you're inclined to do so). If you're not posting something along those lines, it shouldn't be in here.
Show me one thread that stays completely on topic and I'll show you... something. A rarity. Threads just don't. People can and will vocalize disagreement with things they find disagreeable!


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the thread title say "Things you dislike about 4th edition" not "things you dislike about 4th edition that were not present in 3rd edition"?
I guess it does, but the fact remains that either you have a problem with magicless characters having a hard time hitting, or you have one with magic-having characters having an easy time hitting. Given that most games will include magic items, the default system taking them into account seems reasonable enough!

[Prophaniti]

Sunder made no damn sense,You're right, it makes no sense at all to try to break your opponent's weapon in a fight. Or to disarm them, or to grapple with them. And I'm sure you arrived at these conclusions from your intensive and thorough combat training, right?

was a random invention of 3EYes, once again, you see the truth of it. No one ever did any of these things in a real fight.

*deep breath* Ok, I'll stop that. I just got mad at someone else earlier for doing it, so I apologize.


was counterproductive, and isn't tactical.They could be counterproductive, but this is mainly due to poor implementation. Not tactical? I think you may need to reread the definition of tactical. Such maneuvers are practically poster children for tactical.

Grapple was not good for the game, and half my groups avoided it just because the rules were so messy (and who wrestles on a battlefield?), and works differently (and simply) now.This is something I never understood. I never had trouble following the grapple rules in 3e. Add your bonuses, make opposed checks, and if you won, pick your action. There was a detailed list of what you could and could not do if you won the grapple. Pretty straightforward to me.

Your question of 'who wrestles on a battlefield' makes me wonder again if you've ever been in a fight in your life, and also if you understand what a 'grapple' really is. It is not WWE-style wrestling. It is close-quarters combat, where the distance between you is seldom more than a foot. This is quite common, even in today's modern firefights, let alone in a time when melee was more common. Seriously, grappling techniques and methods are taught to the United States Marines, for crying out loud! Same goes for nearly every other professional army I can think of these days. Special Forces are even better at it, given their usual emphasis on stealth.

[Knaight]

Or you could have magic weapons that don't affect chances of hitting, and are more powerful, or ignore armor(in games with armor as DR), work well against certain enemies, are unbreakable, etc. And its most fantasy games only.

[Prophaniti]

Or you could have magic weapons that don't affect chances of hitting, and are more powerful, or ignore armor(in games with armor as DR), work well against certain enemies, are unbreakable, etc. And its most fantasy games only.
Yeah. I replace the +1 - +5 enchantment bonuses with mundane 'quality' bonuses. That keeps the balance assumed by the rest of the mechanics and keeps truly magical weapons with truly magical qualities.

[Draco Dracul]

You're right, it makes no sense at all to try to break your opponent's weapon in a fight.



When any you can find, steal, or loot weapon can be sold or used breaking the weapons of the enemies you are going to kill anyway seems a little like using hundred dollar bills as tender for your fire.

[Prophaniti]

When any you can find, steal, or loot weapon can be sold or used breaking the weapons of the enemies you are going to kill anyway seems a little like using hundred dollar bills as tender for your fire.
$1 bills, maybe, not hundreds. The weapons you find on most monsters aren't worth much, and due to the clause that states you can't sunder a magical item without using a magical item of equal or greater bonus and the extra damage that a magical item can absorb, you're not likely to break valuable magical loot without knowing it.

Since I usually play in settings where magic items are very rare to begin with... this isn't much of a worry anyway.

[Draco Dracul]

$1 bills, maybe, not hundreds. The weapons you find on most monsters aren't worth much, and due to the clause that states you can't sunder a magical item without using a magical item of equal or greater bonus and the extra damage that a magical item can absorb, you're not likely to break valuable magical loot without knowing it.

Since I usually play in settings where magic items are very rare to begin with... this isn't much of a worry anyway.

Still burning money when you can acomplish the same end result without doing so is still not a great idea.

[Knaight]

Considering that someones life is at risk, I fail to see the problem here.

[Prophaniti]

There's that, too, the life-at-risk thing. If you can break the ogre's weapon in a few rounds, but you can't kill him in the same time or less, it is definitely a good thing, as an ogre fist doesn't hurt as much as the tree-trunk he was waving around before (though you may not fully appreciate this difference at the time...:smallwink:).

[Akisa]

Sunder made no damn sense, was a random invention of 3E, was counterproductive, and isn't tactical. Grapple was not good for the game, and half my groups avoided it just because the rules were so messy (and who wrestles on a battlefield?), and works differently (and simply) now. There are powers that disarm, and although disarming enemies without having beaten them is, again, an invention of 3E, you can do it perfectly well with the DMG p. 42. A Strength attack versus Reflex, possibly with a bonus to the defender, sounds right.

But, "the cleric is almots useless"? It sounds like you never played the game! Healing Surges are used to heal characters BETWEEN fights, not IN fights! Being able to take a standard action to get a little HP back once a fight is NOT enough when you're taking anything more than minor damage. Meanwhile, in 3E, it was counterproductive for the cleric to heal IN combat! He'd just tap them with a wand after! Now, clerics heal in combat--and Leaders are very important. The Cleric is not "useless", and saying that shows that you don't really understand how 4E works!



I'm sorry to say but I would rather heal after the battle so I can contribute in the battle then be a band aid dispenser. So now when I convert to 4E I have to change to paladin and deal with DM's view of higher standard code for Paladins. I just wish they combined cleric and paladin into one class so not all clerics are heal bots.


When any you can find, steal, or loot weapon can be sold or used breaking the weapons of the enemies you are going to kill anyway seems a little like using hundred dollar bills as tender for your fire.

And D&D 3E sunder and disarm is not invention of 3E. Axe users in real life often broke the shields of enemy defenders as they tried to defend themselves. Sometimes they would also purposely tried to break down their shields so it would become a useless item. And disarming and grappling is also valid depending on the circumstance.

Sometimes you want take a person alive but they're armed, using nonleath force sometimes not even practical. Sometimes close quarter combat happens even today where you're using martial arts to defend yourself or fight in a close quarter combat where a large weapon would be clumsy.

[Knaight]

I'm sorry to say but I would rather heal after the battle so I can contribute in the battle then be a band aid dispenser. So now when I convert to 4E I have to change to paladin and deal with DM's view of higher standard code for Paladins. I just wish they combined cleric and paladin into one class so not all clerics are heal bots.

OK you clearly have no idea about what you are talking about. The majority of the clerics healing comes in addition to an attack, which really raised some hairs. Secondly clerics are still obscenely powerful, they have powerful area attacks that miss allies.

[Draco Dracul]

I'm sorry to say but I would rather heal after the battle so I can contribute in the battle then be a band aid dispenser. So now when I convert to 4E I have to change to paladin and deal with DM's view of higher standard code for Paladins. I just wish they combined cleric and paladin into one class so not all clerics are heal bots.


The palidin's code was removed in 4th ed.

[Akisa]

You could build a battle cleric. Also the palidin's code was removed in 4th ed.

not when the dms I know always have Paladin's held up to unobtainable pedestal (even Paladin of freedom).

[Dhavaer]

not when the dms I know always have Paladin's held up to unobtainable pedestal (even Paladin of freedom).

Paladins of Freedom had a code too. 4e Paladins have no code or alignment restriction.

[EvilElitest]

The palidin's code was removed in 4th ed.

thus ruining the point of the paladin thank you very much
from
EE

[Draco Dracul]

thus ruining the point of the paladin thank you very much
from
EE

I thought the point of the palidin was to make a warrior loyal to a specific god, a mix of a claric and a fighter.

[EvilElitest]

I thought the point of the palidin was to make a warrior loyal to a specific god, a mix of a claric and a fighter.

no, Paladins aren't the fighter clerics. The deity section of the PHB makes it clear that they tend to not worship gods. Paladins are complicated and WotC only made things worst, but basically, they are the upholders of an alignment more than anything else, that of LG. They try to be the embodiment of the LG alignment. And you can't do this with any other alignment (well maybe NG).

Paladin sadly often gets mixed up with Cleric, Crusader, and Knight in 3E. The 4E paladin is basically a knight
from
EE

[Akisa]

The DMs I know would still house rule these in to keep the spirit of the paladin. I make cleric melee fighters for various reason especially when I want them to avoid the paladin code, more of a fighter that relies on their magic to increase their power and not a blaster.

[Oracle_Hunter]

In related news, I hate how 4e got rid of the alignment restrictions on Rangers. I mean, obviously they should only be CG because that's what Rangers have always been.

Duh!

...wait, 3e didn't have alignment restrictions on Rangers either? HOW DARE THEY!!!1!!!111!!! :smallfurious:

Truth in Posting: this post contains sarcasm. If you are allergic to sarcasm, parody, or levity in any form, please do not read this post.

[Dhavaer]

Truth in Posting: this post contains sarcasm. If you are allergic to sarcasm, parody, or levity in any form, please do not read this post.

Shouldn't this be in very, very small writing at the top of the post?

[Akisa]

No the it should be in the main body of text and his post be in the spoiler. Because if I'm allergic I would've been exposed without warning and thus be able to sue ;)

[Oracle_Hunter]

Shouldn't this be in very, very small writing at the top of the post?

Sure, if I didn't want to select against the humor-impaired :smallamused:

[Prophaniti]

While I somewhat agree with EE on paladins, in the end I don't like how they're used in any edition. Of anything. If you want to play a generic holy warrior, play a melee cleric or a fighter with standards.

Paladin was originally an obscure title in the Holy Roman Empire, I really don't understand how it became equated with the Perfect Knight ideal. Still, I move with the culture. I use paladins as a PrC, or in 4e terms, it would be a Paragon Path, open to fighters or clerics. They are holy warriors, yes, but the title and subsequent abilities are granted by a specific church. Only the largest churches in my setting maintain a substantial number of paladins. Their main purpose is to act as commanders if the church ever fields an army, or to protect the buildings and pilgramage roads of the church, and to act as the church's champion if it is ever necessary to directly confront a rival church.

Ok, I'm not really sure why I thought that was relevant... Must be tired.

Back to D&D... In 3.5 Paladins were NOT champions of Lawful Good. they were champions of Good who were also required to be Lawful. Please note how the paladin does not get Smite Chaos, and how he is allowed to associate with chaotic people all he wants, but not with evil ones. Seems clear to me that they simply represent a school of thought that Good is the most important thing, but it should be upheld in a Lawful and honorable way.

[EvilElitest]

While I somewhat agree with EE on paladins, in the end I don't like how they're used in any edition. Of anything. If you want to play a generic holy warrior, play a melee cleric or a fighter with standards.

Paladin was originally an obscure title in the Holy Roman Empire, I really don't understand how it became equated with the Perfect Knight ideal. Still, I move with the culture. I use paladins as a PrC, or in 4e terms, it would be a Paragon Path, open to fighters or clerics. They are holy warriors, yes, but the title and subsequent abilities are granted by a specific church. Only the largest churches in my setting maintain a substantial number of paladins. Their main purpose is to act as commanders if the church ever fields an army, or to protect the buildings and pilgramage roads of the church, and to act as the church's champion if it is ever necessary to directly confront a rival church.

Ok, I'm not really sure why I thought that was relevant... Must be tired.

Back to D&D... In 3.5 Paladins were NOT champions of Lawful Good. they were champions of Good who were also required to be Lawful. Please note how the paladin does not get Smite Chaos, and how he is allowed to associate with chaotic people all he wants, but not with evil ones. Seems clear to me that they simply represent a school of thought that Good is the most important thing, but it should be upheld in a Lawful and honorable way.
1) Paladins existence in real life isn't relevant. Their point in games (2E and 3E at least) was taht they are paragons of the LW alignment. I liked them. I understand that not everybody did and i think they should have made knight a core class along side them because they are easier to work with but
2) They represent both law and good, but i suppose you could say that they are just the most lawful upholders of good. Regardless, they are the the embodyments of Lawful good more than any particular deity
from
EE

[Frownbear]

You're right, it makes no sense at all to try to break your opponent's weapon in a fight. Or to disarm them, or to grapple with them. And I'm sure you arrived at these conclusions from your intensive and thorough combat training, right?
Yes, once again, you see the truth of it. No one ever did any of these things in a real fight.

*deep breath* Ok, I'll stop that. I just got mad at someone else earlier for doing it, so I apologize.
No. No one has ever tried to cut through or smash their opponent's sword in a real fight. It might have happened once in a blue moon, but as a malfunction (warhammer's haft breaking), and I am willing to bet real, physical money on the fact that no one has ever made it one of their primary or even secondary combat tactics.
Grappling only really happened in one-on-one fights (or one-on-many, from the "many" side)! If you're taking someone down to the floor, you're declaring open season on your kidneys and ribs and what-not to every enemy you *aren't* controlling.

Disarming is a separate issue. Any opponent you can consistently disarm (like, 50% of the time, or even 10%) is such an inferior fighter that they're not a thread. Disarming is hard. If you're really good, you might be able to pull it off occasionally, but it's not something you do all the time. In 4E, there are some powers that disarm the opponent. You can also use the DMG p.42 to represent it as "STR vs. Reflex", presumably with a penalty (unless you like disarming and want to see it happening all over the place).



No, they weren't tactical. If you had Sunder, you would try to sunder any weapon-wielding opponent's weapon, unless it was too valuable. No real tactics there. If you had Disarm, it was obviously either worth or not worth your while to disarm them all. No real tactics there!

As for grapple, we always had to look it up, the rules were excessively complicated, and sometimes nonsensical (the low-HD monster with ten fanged tentacles only gets to make one or two checks? The dragon grappling you with its bite does UNARMED ATTACK damage, not BITE damage?!). It also involved tons of opposed checks, as though intentionally designed to slow the game down (not that it was, but it did)!

[quote]Your question of 'who wrestles on a battlefield' makes me wonder again if you've ever been in a fight in your life, and also if you understand what a 'grapple' really is. It is not WWE-style wrestling. It is close-quarters combat, where the distance between you is seldom more than a foot. This is quite common, even in today's modern firefights, let alone in a time when melee was more common. Seriously, grappling techniques and methods are taught to the United States Marines, for crying out loud! Same goes for nearly every other professional army I can think of these days. Special Forces are even better at it, given their usual emphasis on stealth.
What you're talking about--infighting or clinching--is absolutely not what grappling is! Remember, grappling includes, say, a bear holding you in its claws or a dragon that has you in its mouth. Between two humanoids, it makes it impossible for them to use non-light weapons and even gives a penalty to attacking with knives (appopriate for wrestling... I never said "WWE-style", you did... but not for infighting).

Marines learn grappling for one-on-one combat. Grappling someone when his friend is beside him with a knife is pure foolishness. Adventurers operate as a party against multiple enemies--especially in 4E! 4E's grappling is the grab--it does vaguely model what you're after. It limits the enemy's movement, but is fairly easy to escape: it's a clinch, not a takedown.

[Frownbear]

no, Paladins aren't the fighter clerics. The deity section of the PHB makes it clear that they tend to not worship gods. Paladins are complicated and WotC only made things worst, but basically, they are the upholders of an alignment more than anything else, that of LG.

And because it was that way in 2E, it shouldn't ever change?!

Paladins and their code and alignment issues were absolutely one of the most common game-disrupting things in 3E! Playing one without making sure you and your DM were totally eye-to-eye on what constitutes a violation of the code, an evil act, and so on was asking for trouble.

Nothing stops you from playing a paladin with a code, even the 3E code. But the class is now more versatile (classes that are *so* specific aren't really a good idea) and there's no ridiculous "falling" mechanism that takes all your powers away--the consequences of "falling" are going to be spiritual, emotional, and so on. And it won't be as shallow, since there won't be any obvious "lost my powers, whoops, guess that was wrong".

[Oracle_Hunter]

Apropos class origins, behold, for The Other Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_and_influences_on_the_development_of_Dunge ons_%26_Dragons#Classes) has a page on this too!

[Myatar_Panwar]

Yeah, grappling in the middle of a combat where you are surrounded by huge guys with swords is kind of silly.

"Forget this sword! Ima gonna grapple that guy! Im sure his friends will just leave me alone while I'm on top of him with my back perfectly exposed!"

[EvilElitest]

And because it was that way in 2E, it shouldn't ever change?!

Because it worked. If it isn't broken don't change it. 4E has a lot of change for the sake of change, and a lot more unneeded simplification, which is why it as a new edition of D&D is not as good as 3E, and that is saying a lot


Paladins and their code and alignment issues were absolutely one of the most common game-disrupting things in 3E! Playing one without making sure you and your DM were totally eye-to-eye on what constitutes a violation of the code, an evil act, and so on was asking for trouble.

That isn't the fault of the class, that is the fault of immature players, bad understanding of the rules, WotC's general incompetence, and vaugness in the PHB. The Book of Exalted Deeds does a great job, and the only actual problem with the class itself is the presentation and its reputation. There is a very clear line on what counts as a good and evil act.



Nothing stops you from playing a paladin with a code, even the 3E code. But the class is now more versatile (classes that are *so* specific aren't really a good idea) and there's no ridiculous "falling" mechanism that takes all your powers away--the consequences of "falling" are going to be spiritual, emotional, and so on. And it won't be as shallow, since there won't be any obvious "lost my powers, whoops, guess that was wrong".

1) So? I can play a code with a ranger or a fighter, that doesn't make it a paladin. This is just simplification
2) none of the 4E classes are more versatile at all, they are stream lined to an embarrassing extreme
3) And that you can do with any class, the cool concept of the paladin was the actual responsibility of the class. The mechanical falling effect was great for the concept, just WotC screwed things up as per normal
4) Well considering the actions that make you fall, it should be rather self evident. Murder, Torture, rape ect. Of course, if 4E wants to make a class who is based upon responsibility, that would lead to sulky players and we can't have that
from
EE

[EvilElitest]

And because it was that way in 2E, it shouldn't ever change?!

Because it worked. If it isn't broken don't change it. 4E has a lot of change for the sake of change, and a lot more unneeded simplification, which is why it as a new edition of D&D is not as good as 3E, and that is saying a lot


Paladins and their code and alignment issues were absolutely one of the most common game-disrupting things in 3E! Playing one without making sure you and your DM were totally eye-to-eye on what constitutes a violation of the code, an evil act, and so on was asking for trouble.

That isn't the fault of the class, that is the fault of immature players, bad understanding of the rules, WotC's general incompetence, and vaugness in the PHB. The Book of Exalted Deeds does a great job, and the only actual problem with the class itself is the presentation and its reputation. There is a very clear line on what counts as a good and evil act.



Nothing stops you from playing a paladin with a code, even the 3E code. But the class is now more versatile (classes that are *so* specific aren't really a good idea) and there's no ridiculous "falling" mechanism that takes all your powers away--the consequences of "falling" are going to be spiritual, emotional, and so on. And it won't be as shallow, since there won't be any obvious "lost my powers, whoops, guess that was wrong".

1) So? I can play a code with a ranger or a fighter, that doesn't make it a paladin. This is just simplification
2) none of the 4E classes are more versatile at all, they are stream lined to an embarrassing extreme
3) And that you can do with any class, the cool concept of the paladin was the actual responsibility of the class. The mechanical falling effect was great for the concept, just WotC screwed things up as per normal
4) Well considering the actions that make you fall, it should be rather self evident. Murder, Torture, rape ect. Of course, if 4E wants to make a class who is based upon responsibility, that would lead to sulky players and we can't have that
from
EE

[Thurbane]

And because it was that way in 2E, it shouldn't ever change?!
Well, quite frankly, no, it shouldn't. Or at least in the context of a Things you dislike about 4th edition thread, and according to individual posters, it shouldn't. :smallamused:

Conversely, I suppose I should ask: And because it was that way in 3E, it should change?! :smallconfused:

Because it worked. If it isn't broken don't change it. 4E has a lot of change for the sake of change, and a lot more unneeded simplification, which is why it as a new edition of D&D is not as good as 3E, and that is saying a lot
I second this, wholeheartedly.

[Frownbear]

Because it worked. If it isn't broken don't change it. 4E has a lot of change for the sake of change, and a lot more unneeded simplification, which is why it as a new edition of D&D is not as good as 3E, and that is saying a lot
Little to none of the change is just for the sake of change! As for "unneeded"... I disagree.


That isn't the fault of the class, that is the fault of immature players, bad understanding of the rules, WotC's general incompetence, and vaugness in the PHB.
...sounds like the fault of the class to me. The class IS the thing in the PHB (printed by WotC). The fact that you have one view of it is meaningless, because plenty of DMs and players don't have the exact same interpretation!


The Book of Exalted Deeds does a great job, and the only actual problem with the class itself is the presentation and its reputation. There is a very clear line on what counts as a good and evil act.
If it was such a clear line, alignment debates wouldn't happen so often and so consistently! I mean, really, a class it takes a whole separate splatbook to be able to play properly? Morality so rigidly defined that the DM can just consult a book to see if something is definitively good or evil? How are those positive features?!
And, no, the BoED doesn't do a great job. I mean, brainwashing people isn't evil? Really? Maybe it's not, but that's sure as heck not automatically CLEAR!



1) So? I can play a code with a ranger or a fighter, that doesn't make it a paladin. This is just simplification
The paladin is a warrior imbued with divine powers, the martial arm of his faith. Arbitrarily defining the paladin as having to have the 3E paladin's code is quite self-serving.
Speaking of rangers, the AD&D ranger would also fall and lose his powers if he committed an evil act. I guess that should still be around, too?



2) none of the 4E classes are more versatile at all, they are stream lined to an embarrassing extreme
The 4E Paladin is more versatile than the 3E paladin, because he's not limited to one specific, rigid alignment and code! You can play things with the class that you absolutely couldn't with the 3E Paladin... including a paladin who think he's in the right despite being ethically questionable (a 3E paladin would just lose his powers in that situation)!


3) And that you can do with any class, the cool concept of the paladin was the actual responsibility of the class. The mechanical falling effect was great for the concept, just WotC screwed things up as per normal
And with the Paladin, you can do it while being a divinely empowered holy warrior. The "responsibility" consisted mainly of making sure you and your DM had the same thing in mind in terms of good and evil ("did you kill the unconscious orc? You fall!" "Wait, what?"). Alignment debates didn't just happen on forums, they happened in games.

4) Well considering the actions that make you fall, it should be rather self evident. Murder, Torture, rape ect. Of course, if 4E wants to make a class who is based upon responsibility, that would lead to sulky players and we can't have that
from
EE[/QUOTE]
It is AMAZING that you say that it "should be self-evident", when we as a society can't even agree on the things you list!
Murder vs. killing is hard to define. If the Paladin kills people who break into his home on a regular basis, does he fall? And yet AFAIK, in Texas that's considered self-defense, not murder!
There's a HUGE debate about torture in politics right now. The Paladin falls if he tortures a gnoll to find out a piece of information the party hasn't been able to get any other way?
Rape is also a hugely touchy issue. Let's say the Paladin sleeps with someone who was drunk (and therefore wasn't in the right state to consent); should he fall? If they were obviously totally smashed? Just a little drunk? If he intentionally got them drunk "to loosen them up a little"? Someone who was Charmed? Someone who was Charmed, but he didn't know--but didn't double-check, either, despite kinda strange behavior?

I'm sure you can come up with answers, but they won't be self-evident! Other people will come up with different answers, and you could argue with them for quite some time.

What constitues an evil act is NOT clear. It is NOT self-evident. It's almost guaranteed that there's something a player won't consider evil when the DM will, and if that comes up, the player is in for an unpleasant surprise.
This is NOT a good basis for a class. It's horrifically narrow and restrictive, it's subjective but has specific, objective penalties, and because of it, the Paladin class was one of the most problematic!

[Prophaniti]

What you're talking about--infighting or clinching--is absolutely not what grappling is! Remember, grappling includes, say, a bear holding you in its claws or a dragon that has you in its mouth. Between two humanoids, it makes it impossible for them to use non-light weapons and even gives a penalty to attacking with knives (appopriate for wrestling... I never said "WWE-style", you did... but not for infighting).

Ok, look. Grappling does not represent only takedowns. Just knocking someone over is a Trip, and getting down there and holding them on the ground is a Pin, which is merely an option in a Grapple. Where in the grapple rules does it say you both immediately fall prone and roll around on the ground? It says no movement, no threatening, and no Dex against other people. That's it. Infighting is most definitely what grappling is, in most cases. Most monsters that would do things like try to swallow you or crush you had special attacks for it, some of which didn't even use grapple mechanics directly. The grapple rules pretty much represent any time you enter a mode of fighting when your hands directly touch your opponent and you no longer maintain your distance or keep your guard up around you.

OF COURSE it's not a good idea if your target has buddies right there with him! That's a no brainer. Why the hell would you do anything like that if he had friends waiting to join the dogpile?! Why is that even being pointed out?


No, they weren't tactical. If you had Sunder, you would try to sunder any weapon-wielding opponent's weapon, unless it was too valuable. No real tactics there. If you had Disarm, it was obviously either worth or not worth your while to disarm them all. No real tactics there!

{Scrubbed}

Sunder (breaking of opponents equipment) does see less use in modern warfare, as any force unleashed that has a good chance of breaking a rifle or helm or body armor is almost certain to continue through and kill the bearer as well. In the past, this was not so certain, and breaking a shield was a common tactic, both in large battles and single combats.

Disarming - I don't know where you're coming from on this. Disarming is a common theme in almost all modern martial arts, both those used on the battlefield and those used only as an art form. Successful disarming certainly can mean the opponent is incompetent, but just as often (especially in many sword styles, such as epee or fencing) it is like a chess match. You try to trick or lead them into a position that allows a successful disarm.

{Scrubbed}

[wodan46]

I also don't get how you can't be flanked unless you have 2 guys on the exact opposite sides of you. If they attack you from 3 angles with 120 degrees between each, how exactly are you able to fend them off without consequence?

[Oracle_Hunter]

I also don't get how you can't be flanked unless you have 2 guys on the exact opposite sides of you. If they attack you from 3 angles with 120 degrees between each, how exactly are you able to fend them off without consequence?

Whirlwind Strike with a Spiked Chain and Improved Trip, clearly. :smalltongue:

[EvilElitest]

Little to none of the change is just for the sake of change! As for "unneeded"... I disagree.

You do that, however most of the changes are in just around because they want change

Cosmology, alignment, gnomes, world design, NPCs, monsters, class basis. unneeded simplicity


...sounds like the fault of the class to me. The class IS the thing in the PHB (printed by WotC). The fact that you have one view of it is meaningless, because plenty of DMs and players don't have the exact same interpretation!

the view i'm portraying is the one presented, it is just often mis understood. See book of exalted deeds makes it clear. People don't get the class because WotC wasn't clear enough, hence why they published another book


If it was such a clear line, alignment debates wouldn't happen so often and so consistently!
That is because WoTC has terrible organization. And it only covers good and evil, the most hard core alignment debates are about neutral. But WotC did eventually make thing clears


I mean, really, a class it takes a whole separate splatbook to be able to play properly? Morality so rigidly defined that the DM can just consult a book to see if something is definitively good or evil? How are those positive features?!
Actually the book is for defining good in general, the paladin is just the example of this. WotC organization is at fault, not the class itself.
Also good and evil are rigidly defined, right and wrong are not. In the D&D world, good and evil are actual present forces. Right and wrong are up to personal option my friend

And, no, the BoED doesn't do a great job. I mean, brainwashing people isn't evil? Really? Maybe it's not, but that's sure as heck not automatically CLEAR!

meh, that is a good inconsistency, but that is one in consistency. THe fact it addresses the nature of torture, murder, zealotry, radicalism and what not is a great thing


The paladin is a warrior imbued with divine powers, the martial arm of his faith.
We already had that. Traditionally known as a cleric. Also if you wish you can call it a crusader


Arbitrarily defining the paladin as having to have the 3E paladin's code is quite self-serving.
not really it is sticking to its actual meaning in the D&D universe. I mean, making monks into healers with no fighting skills would be bad as well for the same reasons, or Druids simply fighting priests


Speaking of rangers, the AD&D ranger would also fall and lose his powers if he committed an evil act. I guess that should still be around, too?

No because that doesn't make sense considering its theme. I wouldn't ever describe nature as an automatically good force. Paladins however are traditionally the warriors of the good alignment


The 4E Paladin is more versatile than the 3E paladin, because he's not limited to one specific, rigid alignment and code! You can play things with the class that you absolutely couldn't with the 3E Paladin... including a paladin who think he's in the right despite being ethically questionable (a 3E paladin would just lose his powers in that situation)!
1) 3E had that. It was called a knight. or a crusader. Or a cleric. Or a fighter. Take your pick
2) And so they are doing evil deeds, which is not what a paladin represents. Morally questionable actions are the one thing that paladins are traditionally not suppose to be doing. Of course, apperent it is too complicated for players to heal
4E, simplifying things for your own good.


And with the Paladin, you can do it while being a divinely empowered holy warrior. The "responsibility" consisted mainly of making sure you and your DM had the same thing in mind in terms of good and evil ("did you kill the unconscious orc? You fall!" "Wait, what?"). Alignment debates didn't just happen on forums, they happened in games.
1) The responsibly was the DM knew what he was doing when he let you do the paladin class. Alignment discussion happened because WotC didn't make it clear (well until they published another book, but they shoudn't have to do that, but it think its been made clear by now that Wotc doesn't actually care about their game)
2) and that is an example of a bad DM, not a bad class. If your Dm doesn't make things clear for you, that is his fault. If i ever run a game, i make it clear what a paladin can and cannot do




It is AMAZING that you say that it "should be self-evident", when we as a society can't even agree on the things you list!
What hte society things isn't a matter. Good and evil are objective in D&D, right and wrong are not. Because good is an actual force, it doesn't have to be agreeded with. Japan in the 15th century would find the ideals of good absurd. It would make them (and most of world actually) evil, but doesn't make them right or wrong, that is up to personal option
However with the ideals of good, which are an actual living force in D&D, the paladin's do and do nots are clear.


Murder vs. killing is hard to define. If the Paladin kills people who break into his home on a regular basis, does he fall?
If he kills in self defense that is fine. If they surrender, its murder


And yet AFAIK, in Texas that's considered self-defense, not murder!
There's a HUGE debate about torture in politics right now. The Paladin falls if he tortures a gnoll to find out a piece of information the party hasn't been able to get any other way?

1) and what a particular society thinkgs is utterly irrelvant the point of the paladin is they are driven by an exterior force, not personal ideals. Other wise, you'd get a knight, who just serves any cause
2) and yes it is by D&D terms evil because
a) you are commiting an evil aciton
b) You are hurting a living creature in a ruthless, cruel, cold manner that goes against hte virtues of forgivness, mercy, love ect
c) you are lowing yourself to the level of eivl
d) by commiting torture, you are effectivly giving up. There is never a situation where evil is the only option, that is a defeatist situation. And don't try to prove me wrong by making up a super unique one of a kind situation where every single possiblity is gone and there is only one hope because that is just bad DMing. You give up hope and your humainty when resorting to torture
e) it is also totally ineffective, because the victim will only tell what the attacker wants to hear.


Rape is also a hugely touchy issue. Let's say the Paladin sleeps with someone who was drunk (and therefore wasn't in the right state to consent); should he fall? If they were obviously totally smashed? Just a little drunk? If he intentionally got them drunk "to loosen them up a little"? Someone who was Charmed? Someone who was Charmed, but he didn't know--but didn't double-check, either, despite kinda strange behavior?
IF the person was charmed or drunk, that isn't the paladin's fault from a good evil standpoint. There might be a personal moral problem, and certainly a society's morals, but the actual action isn't evil unless he knew that she was charmed or drunk.
So if he knows she is charmed, yes evil
If he isn't drunk and knows she is drunk, evil
If he is drunk, she is drunk, can't blame him
He doens't know she is charmed, not evil


I'm sure you can come up with answers, but they won't be self-evident! Other people will come up with different answers, and you could argue with them for quite some time.

They are certainly self evident from teh D&D good evil perspective is self evident. From a personal moral level, no but Paladins don't repersent personal morals





What constitues an evil act is NOT clear. It is NOT self-evident. It's almost guaranteed that there's something a player won't consider evil when the DM will, and if that comes up, the player is in for an unpleasant surprise.

If the Dm doesn't let his paladins know what is and is not allowed, then he is a bad Dm.

In the world of D&D, good and evil are clear defined forces. What is good and evil (and i say again, not right and wrong which is different) isn't a matter of debate. Now WotC just didn't make this clear for a while sadly


This is NOT a good basis for a class. It's horrifically narrow and restrictive, it's subjective but has specific, objective penalties, and because of it, the Paladin class was one of the most problematic!
The paladin class was only problematic because WotC is moronic and didn't consider the consequences. The class follows the objective ideal of good in D&D to an extreme. It isn't that hard accept that WotC never bothered to explain their own alignement system in the core boks
from
EE

[Sojourn]

Hrm...

Dragonborn. We already have lizardmen, people. I see too little a difference to credibly argue that both races are necessary. Please do not tell me that dragonborn are entirely distinct, because I remember that lizardmen are supposedly of some sort of draconic descent too. I don't remember if it is so in 4.0 (I haven't memorized the MM quite yet), but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have changed that.
That and lack of bards. I don't want'a wait until later to play as a bard. Or monk, for that matter. My favorite classes got left behind :smallfrown: I realize the importance of balanced gaming, and playtesting takes time, but it's two iconic classes that really should have made it in there the first time 'round.

[Jerthanis]

3.5 Grapple was overcomplicated, but I think it did a pretty successful job of modeling real-ish grappling. There were multiple stages of grappling, to represent a difference between an arm or wrist lock and a full-nelson. You lost your Dex-to-AC against opponents who aren't your target, leaving yourself exposed to his allies. I had some issues with it, but the system was adequate from a realism-modeling standpoint.

The problem was that it wasn't very fun. It turned off pretty much all of a character's abilities, which left them rolling d20s at each other three or four times a round just to see if anything at all happens that turn. Also, people who were good at grappling had nearly a 100% chance of taking down someone who wasn't good at it... but against a target with Freedom of Movement, it was simply impossible, and against things like Dragons and Demons, they're going to be better than you at it anyway. It was too strong when it worked, but was completely useless every other time.

I am not satisfied with the change, but I also think some kind of change was absolutely necessary. The fact that it's not perfect for everyone just means it was a fix designed by man and not some perfect being from space.

EDIT: Also, because I think objective morality is childish, I never liked Paladins anyway. If a guy tried to tell me about how perfectly good and noble he was, I'd keep my hand on my wallet. Changing them to be able to be paragons of any alignment sounds awesome to me, because then it underscores the fact that everyone thinks they're moral and justified. To me, the only way they could have really improved the alignment system would be to remove it entirely, or replace it with a system like D20 Modern's Allegiances or Exalted's Intimacies systems. As it is, it's a step sideways... not fixing the real issues, but definitely different.

[Draco Dracul]

EE I have noticed a striking double standered in your position that anything wrong with 4th edition is an inheirent flaw in the system, but anything wrong with 3.X is either a flaw of the DM or somehow the a flaw of WoTC without being a flaw of the system. If WoTC is the designer of the system then isn't a flaw steming from WoTC that is related to the system then doesn't that make the flaw a flaw of the system? If my logic on this is a logical fallicy please tell which one it is for future refrence.

[Kompera]

If you're going to quote someone as an example, you should probably avoid exaggerate thier position for effect. Magic should to be more powerful than non-magic, which doesn't mean that Fighters and non-magical folk can't enjoy the game, or that they have no control over their destiny or the shape of the world's events.
I'm not exaggerating your position at all. You just can't see this, because you're wearing magic blinders. You clearly state that magic should be more powerful than martial, while ignoring the fact that less power necessarily means less control over the non-casters destinies and less ability to shape the world events. This isn't me exaggerating your position, this is the position you have endorsed. You simply refuse to accept the logical ramifications of your own position.

But I'll play along. Please describe to me a way in which a non-caster can impact a game in which casters are quadratic and non-casters are linear. Be sure to make it clear that the way in which the non-caster can accomplish this is one in which the caster can't simply yawn and duplicate or exceed without much effort.

You will fail to be able to do so, because there is no getting around the fact that without a huge amount of Oberoni GMing the quadratic casters can do anything the linear non-caters can do. And they can do it better, faster, and with less effort. Because that's the entire definition of Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards)

But I'll be very interested to see your attempt to describe such a situation.

[Oslecamo]

I'm sure you can come up with answers, but they won't be self-evident! Other people will come up with different answers, and you could argue with them for quite some time.

What constitues an evil act is NOT clear. It is NOT self-evident. It's almost guaranteed that there's something a player won't consider evil when the DM will, and if that comes up, the player is in for an unpleasant surprise.
This is NOT a good basis for a class. It's horrifically narrow and restrictive, it's subjective but has specific, objective penalties, and because of it, the Paladin class was one of the most problematic!

What constitutes an evil act may not be clear, however, there is something that is clear.

If someone has an evil alignment, they surely have comited a lot of evil acts, and thus the paladin is all right to give them a good smiting.

And paladins have detect evil at will. Can't get simplier than that. If someone points as evil, it's ok for you to smite them, otherwise, leave them alone.

Also, I don't hear anyone complaining about 3.X clerics having to follow an ideal or druids have to suport nature and balance. If the DM is restricting the paladin so much, it's only fair that the druid and cleric can't even sneeze whitout breaking their beliefs and thus losing their powers.

[OneFamiliarFace]

Also, I don't hear anyone complaining about 3.X clerics having to follow an ideal or druids have to suport nature and balance. If the DM is restricting the paladin so much, it's only fair that the druid and cleric can't even sneeze whitout breaking their beliefs and thus losing their powers.

The Wizards' Code:

1. I will be as complicated as possible.
2. I will do my best to outshine the other members of my party, while still requiring that we stop to sleep for 8 hours the second my spells run out, no matter where we are.
3. I will lie occasionally, if it gets me treasure.
4. I will maintain a mysterious air at all times, as though I somehow know better than you. I will then use divinations to prove it.
5. At most, my roleplaying will involve vaguely mentioning that I love knowledge or something and then laying claim to everything remotely magical that is not a weapon.

See? Wizards are the same as Paladins really. They pretend like they know so much about everything. They are constantly telling/showing people that there is a better way to do what they are doing. They are almost ALWAYS stuffy knowledge hoarders. And they try to control party actions (everything from "blow the surprise round so I can use fireball" to "too bad you wasted levels in rogue").

Note: I've never played with such a wizard, but I have DM'd them (not for long). Any class can have their own code of ethics that is annoying to other players. :-p

[Oslecamo]

Note: I've never played with such a wizard, but I have DM'd them (not for long). Any class can have their own code of ethics that is annoying to other players. :-p

You misunderstood my point.

What I meant to say that if the DM can screw the paladin by turning his code against himself, the DM can also screw the cleric/druid by turning their code against themselves.

This is, let's see what good the cleric does when he loses all his magic because he hasn't offered incense to his god's shrine for a week, because the DM sudenly decided that if you don't do that, you're not faihtfull enough.

[OneFamiliarFace]

You misunderstood my point.

Sorry to mislead. I understood what you were saying. Mine wasn't a sarcastic rebuttal, but a joke. Not really about anything you said. I shouldn't have quoted you there, but I did because of the one sentence. Sorry again!

Though, I do mean it a little bit: a lot of people tend to act very similarly to other people who play the same class (especially with Barbarians, Bards, Druids, Monks, Paladins, and Wizards; but quite frequently with Fighters and Rogues as well.)

But this is all off the point of what people dislike about 4e! I found a new thing: I can't just sit around and tinker with a character build or new monster for hours on end now. It makes it a lot harder to fill my free time when I am alone and out of books.

[Kompera]

And, of course, it's different from your point of view, so it must be wrong and stupid, right?
Well, you're arguing against my position that a game, any game, should have enough balance so that all players can enjoy it equally. I'm not going to call you stupid for thinking this, but I can't help but agree with you that you're wrong. Every player in any game should have an equal shot at having fun. Balance is the most important part of any game, because without balance one player has an unfair advantage over another.


I myself hold a similar view, though mine is: Magic should be powerful, but difficult and risky. Obviously, 3.5 completely ignored the second part, and that is where the problem lies. It is much easier, though, to add some difficulty and risk to a system than it is to add power, for me anyway. At least, for some reason the players feel less angry when I tell them "all spells have a chance of triggering wild magic" or "this spell is not in this game" than when I say "I'm increasing the damage that this ability does" or "all wizards get a bonus to spell damage from their chosen element".
You go on to support my position by stating that D&D 3.5 failed to balance magic. I agree with you there. I disagree with your proposed methods, because I completely disagree with you that ignoring that second part is where the problem lies. It is trivial to add potency to non-magic classes or to reduce the potency of magic using classes, rather than grasping at some kind of straw to try to balance the existing 3.x magic system with some sort of negative consequence for using magic.

"Wild magic", huh? Really? So you're ok with the (over)power of casters, but you'll try to balance them by introducing some kind of Russian Roulette mechanic, rather than taking the obvious and simple route of tempering their potency? Are you seriously suggesting that casters are fine as overpowered characters, as long as there is some negative possibility that might make them suck? If you are, then your 'solution' will lead to situations such as this:

Player A who is playing a caster will enjoy overpowered potency for 5 game sessions, and then will die horribly because of some random die roll on the "wild magic" chart, while player B who is a running a martial character will have to sit and watch player A solve all game challenges for those 5 game sessions, because "magic should be more powerful", until such time as player A rolls poorly and dies, and then player B gets her chance to have some impact on the game. This is the game you are advocating.

Sounds like a crappy game to me. But you can do this if you like. It's different from my point of view, and I think it's wrong. I'll leave it up to any neutral observer to decide whether it's stupid (your words, not mine) or not.

[Kompera]

If you spend 15 years mastering arcane secrets that take forever to learn, why is Fighter Mc-stupid over there just as powerful as you are? this makes no sense that if you spent so long learning to be a wizard, and in the end are only as powerful as a sword-guy, why not just play a sword guy?
This has been answered so many times it is no longer funny. You display your bias by calling the Fighter "Mc-stupid".

Question: Why should the 15 years spent mastering arcane secrets be any more valuable than the 15 years spent mastering martial combat?

Answer: No reason at all, in any balanced game system.

You ask "why not just play a sword guy?" Answer instead: Why would anyone want to play a Fighter in D&D if the Wizard gets all the power?

Unless your kid brother is the Fighter, you are playing the game with a group of your peers. Peer has a meaning, go look it up. There should be nothing in the game which elevates one player above another which is inherent to their selection of a character class. If their actions within the game elevate them, fine. That is the equivalent of the superior chess player besting the inferior chess player. But both players should have the same options available to them, and if class selection impacts this then this is an obvious flaw with the game system.

[OneFamiliarFace]

*stuff*

I don't think he is wrong. It is just a point of view. I would say that the VAST majority of game players would prefer balance. They want their character to be two things: unique and capable. A class based balance system provides for this.

If, however, a group decides they want to have people of different power levels, then I think that is a fine idea. I still would argue that they should be unique. Superman may be able to do pretty much everything any of the other Justice League can do, but not really. Batman, for example, is a better investigator and interrogator. The Flash may feel left behind because all he has is speed, which Superman also has. So my only problem with the Wizard is where his abilities take away from the uniqueness of other classes.

I've been thinking lately of running a GURPS game where everyone gets to explain their characters to me as thoroughly as they can, and then I make them (they don't know the rules) with however many points I feel that particular character NEEDS and hand them back. Then we play a game. So a giant robot machine of death might be right alongside nothing-do Joe Shmoe who is an ex-junkie just out of rehab. The key would be making sure they were unique, and not just balanced. I think that is what Prophaniti is talking about, and what a lot of people who like 3.x are okay with.

[Ulzgoroth]

Player A who is playing a caster will enjoy overpowered potency for 5 game sessions, and then will die horribly because of some random die roll on the "wild magic" chart, while player B who is a running a martial character will have to sit and watch player A solve all game challenges for those 5 game sessions, because "magic should be more powerful", until such time as player A rolls poorly and dies, and then player B gets her chance to have some impact on the game. This is the game you are advocating.

Sounds like a crappy game to me. But you can do this if you like. It's different from my point of view, and I think it's wrong. I'll leave it up to any neutral observer to decide whether it's stupid (your words, not mine) or not.
I have to say, I agree that 'you are better than everyone, except for the n% chance of blowing up every time you cast' sounds like a bad system. That isn't the only place risk-based balancing could come in, though, and I have no idea whether it's a fair interpretation of what's being proposed.

If the wizard had both moderately underpowered but safe abilities, so they could contribute without playing russian roulette, and overpowered but unsafe abilities, that might work fairly well and would be closer to a lot of fantasy material than either totally safe spells or uniformly hazardous spells. It would still be a balance problem if the player was able and willing to just spam risky spells and roll a new wizard every time they blow up...

[tumble check]

I just wanna put this out here...

"Tactical" does not only mean sliding an enemy a number of squares equal to your WIS modifier so as to get him into the Wizard's fireball radius.

"Tactical" does not only mean knocking down your opponent so that the Rogue can sneak attack him.

What you're thinking of instead is simply 4e's synergy of Class Powers, not a new concept of "tactics" that 3e never had.

[Thurbane]

*snip*
Balance-balance-balance: the mantra of 4E fans. We get it. The classes in 4E are, across the board, more balanced than in previous editions. Whether this is a good or bad thing is entirely subjective, however, and not a scientific truth.

Fun is not inherently and irrevocably tied to balance, or power distribution. I've played in games where, as a newcomer to a group, my character was significantly behind the other PCs in levels and gear. I was not as powerful as the others, to put it bluntly. Did I have fun? Hell yeah! I got in there and adventured with characters significantly more powerful and versatile than I was. Hard to believe, I know, but I had fun with a character less powerful than those he was adventuring with. "Balance" didn't come into it.

Same goes for roleplaying: I can have as much fun roleplaying a commoner as I can as the vaunted "Batman Wizard". The character I'm planning to take in our next campaign launch will have several levels of Expert, the NPC class, because I think it fits his background. I could probably achieve similar with Rogue, but that wouldn't fit as well with my character's backstory.

In short, fun != how much stuff you can kill.

Also, fun != every character in the game being able to contribute exactly the same amount in any given situation.

[Kompera]

I've been thinking lately of running a GURPS game where everyone gets to explain their characters to me as thoroughly as they can, and then I make them (they don't know the rules) with however many points I feel that particular character NEEDS and hand them back. Then we play a game. So a giant robot machine of death might be right alongside nothing-do Joe Shmoe who is an ex-junkie just out of rehab. The key would be making sure they were unique, and not just balanced. I think that is what Prophaniti is talking about, and what a lot of people who like 3.x are okay with.
That sounds like a fun game. Because no matter what the players conceptions there would be a GM who would balance the characters for uniqueness at least, write them up, and hand them back. The word balance is key, because if the giant robot machine of death can do anything that nothing-do Joe Shmoe can do, then there is no balance and no uniqueness.

Unless, of course, you are Prophaniti, who feels that magic should be more potent than martial, just because. In which case the player who explained their character as magical would naturally get more power than the players who described their characters as martial, no matter how good they were supposed to be at martial arts (and by martial arts I of course mean any martial capability, and not any specific martial art).

Prophaniti isn't talking about unique, he's talking about magic being better than martial just because. This doesn't lead to a good game, because that uniqueness you speak of which would make for an interesting game is all too easily duplicated by the magic guy.

[Knaight]

"Wild magic", huh? Really? So you're ok with the (over)power of casters, but you'll try to balance them by introducing some kind of Russian Roulette mechanic, rather than taking the obvious and simple route of tempering their potency? Are you seriously suggesting that casters are fine as overpowered characters, as long as there is some negative possibility that might make them suck? If you are, then your 'solution' will lead to situations such as this:

Player A who is playing a caster will enjoy overpowered potency for 5 game sessions, and then will die horribly because of some random die roll on the "wild magic" chart, while player B who is a running a martial character will have to sit and watch player A solve all game challenges for those 5 game sessions, because "magic should be more powerful", until such time as player A rolls poorly and dies, and then player B gets her chance to have some impact on the game. This is the game you are advocating.
No more like Player A is keeping down on the magic, releasing it when they need to. Then in one fight they go overboard, and injure themselves, and have to fight for a while to bring magic back in control. High power, high risk magic is a lot of fun.

[Thurbane]

Unless, of course, you are Prophaniti, who feels that magic should be more potent than martial, just because.
No, not "just because" - he has stated his reasoning clearly several times over. Every other edition of D&D, as well as the vast majority of fantasy literature I have read tends to agree with his reasoning, too. So to imply it's just some crackpot theory he has formulated, or that he is the only one that holds it, is just plain mistaken.

This doesn't lead to a good game, because that uniqueness you speak of which would make for an interesting game is all too easily duplicated by the magic guy.
Who says it doesn't lead to a good game? You are consistently arguing subjective views as if they are scientific truths.

P.S. Not that I necessarily agree with the views expressed above, merely disputing the logic of your arguments.

[tumble check]

Unless, of course, you are Prophaniti, who feels that magic should be more potent than martial, just because. In which case the player who explained their character as magical would naturally get more power than the players who described their characters as martial, no matter how good they were supposed to be at martial arts (and by martial arts I of course mean any martial capability, and not any specific martial art).

Prophaniti isn't talking about unique, he's talking about magic being better than martial just because. This doesn't lead to a good game, because that uniqueness you speak of which would make for an interesting game is all too easily duplicated by the magic guy.

You gotta be kidding me.

Is magic not potentially more powerful than the muscles of man or beast? To expect otherwise is to take your ideals of balance a bit too far, I think.

It makes sense to me that an epic Wizard might be able to crack a stone wall, and that perhaps a warrior of equal strength might not. It makes sense to me that the same Wizard might be able to magically Charm somebody into seeing things their way, even when the Rogue's epic Charisma check might not.

But all magic should not be inherently more powerful than its martial counterparts. A worthy orc warrior should not be able to be instantly stopped by a young, fledgling Wizard. We are not dealing in absolutes.

What we've been saying is that magic should generally be more powerful than simple braun, while its use should be much more unpredictable, risky, and respected. 3.5 RAW did not do a good job of this, and we recongize that.

[Gavin Sage]

The balance to magic is not making it equal to martial prowess, but by having exploitable weak points that anyone attacking a mage should take advantage of. Necessitating other members for other reasons

3.5 and DMs of it had the failing of allowing too many ways around that fact. What was needed was a number of minor fixes (like non universal DCs so save or dies are easier to resist) and maybe officially banning some spells, followed DMs by not letting players rest more then once a day or so to force conservation.

4e fails is in not realizing that the dynamic of high end parties being caster escorts was completely appropriate, because its bloody magic for crying out loud. And starting out with one or two tricks a day really sucks, but is also completely appropriate.

[Kompera]

Balance-balance-balance: the mantra of 4E fans. We get it. The classes in 4E are, across the board, more balanced than in previous editions. Whether this is a good or bad thing is entirely subjective, however, and not a scientific truth.

Fun is not inherently and irrevocably tied to balance, or power distribution. I've played in games where, as a newcomer to a group, my character was significantly behind the other PCs in levels and gear. I was not as powerful as the others, to put it bluntly. Did I have fun? Hell yeah! I got in there and adventured with characters significantly more powerful and versatile than I was. Hard to believe, I know, but I had fun with a character less powerful than those he was adventuring with. "Balance" didn't come into it.
I'll play along. Is a version of a game in which class balance is better established easier or harder for players to have fun in?

You had fun in a game in which you were "significantly behind the other PCs in levels and gear", but you still had fun. And that is great! But...would you have as much fun in a game in which you were an equal of the other PCs? I suspect that the answer will be "yes". If you'd answer "no", please say why. Given the assumption of "yes", what incentive is there for a game setting where you are less powerful than the other players? Why would a situation in which you were the clear underdog be pleasing to you for game after game after game? How would you be able to contribute in a way in which some other player was not able to contribute more ably?

[Prophaniti]

Well, you're arguing against my position that a game, any game, should have enough balance so that all players can enjoy it equally. I'm not going to call you stupid for thinking this, but I can't help but agree with you that you're wrong. Every player in any game should have an equal shot at having fun. Balance is the most important part of any game, because without balance one player has an unfair advantage over another.
I would actually agree that balance is an important factor in a game. I absolutely would NOT agree that it is the "most important part of any game". Roleplaying games especially, the priority should be on (as OneFamiliarFace put it) uniqueness, not on balance. The party in most of these games is supposed to act cooperatively, each complementing the weaknesses of the others with their unique strengths. The only kind of balance that should be seriously considered is party balance, and I'm not talking about all those stupid combat roles they overemphasise. I'm talking about every class having a distinct niche in the party, out of combat moreso than in. Even so, this isn't really a high priority for my games.


You go on to support my position by stating that D&D 3.5 failed to balance magic. I agree with you there. I disagree with your proposed methods, because I completely disagree with you that ignoring that second part is where the problem lies. It is trivial to add potency to non-magic classes or to reduce the potency of magic using classes, rather than grasping at some kind of straw to try to balance the existing 3.x magic system with some sort of negative consequence for using magic.Yes, 3.5 did fail to 'balance' magic. They gave it power and failed to add anything resembling a mitigating factor, with the sole exception of running out of spells, at which point most wizards will insist on resting, then (usually) bitch if the DM has anything happen before they get their spells back. This is an example of how balance, though not important in a RPG, definitely not the most important, is still a factor.


"Wild magic", huh? Really? So you're ok with the (over)power of casters, but you'll try to balance them by introducing some kind of Russian Roulette mechanic, rather than taking the obvious and simple route of tempering their potency? Are you seriously suggesting that casters are fine as overpowered characters, as long as there is some negative possibility that might make them suck? If you are, then your 'solution' will lead to situations such as this:

Player A who is playing a caster will enjoy overpowered potency for 5 game sessions, and then will die horribly because of some random die roll on the "wild magic" chart, while player B who is a running a martial character will have to sit and watch player A solve all game challenges for those 5 game sessions, because "magic should be more powerful", until such time as player A rolls poorly and dies, and then player B gets her chance to have some impact on the game. This is the game you are advocating.

Sounds like a crappy game to me. But you can do this if you like. It's different from my point of view, and I think it's wrong. I'll leave it up to any neutral observer to decide whether it's stupid (your words, not mine) or not.

Wild magic is only one of many things I do to magic to make it feel the way I want it to. It should be noted that on none of my wild magic charts does the caster simply die. The closest thing is an effect (that requires mutiple 00's on percentile to happen) that is likely to kill everybody, not just the caster, in the immediate area. This, by itself, does not 'balance' magic, it merely makes it more dynamic, interesting, and risky to use. Which is exactly the way I want it to be.

Another thing, and I can't stress this enough. Magic users will only dominate a session by chance or by extreme metagaming. Especially the ones that have to prepare they're spells in advance, which IIRC is everyone except the Bard and Sorcerer. Sure, I've seen a wizard totally dominate and shut down an encounter. I've also seen them try, and fail because too many targets pass saving throws (which is usually followed by cries of "Help, fighter!"), and I've seen them look through their spells and say "Ah, crap, I don't have spell X ready." (which is followed by more cries of "Help, fighter!"), all three in roughly equal measures.

This is in our early games, when we were still apprehensive about messing with the rules. So, no, in my games Player A does not do everything while Player B sits back and watches. It doesn't matter that Player A could potentially have a spell to solve everything he runs into, unless you're playing Shroedinger's Wizard, where your spells are unknown untill you need a specific spell and the *poof* you have it ready to go. It doesn't matter, because in practice a wizard cannot possibly have something ready for all situations without knowing the situations in advance.

As I said, I use many things to mitigate spellcasting, but these are done to make magic feel in play like I want it to, to try to match it more closely with how it works in-universe. These are not done to 'balance' it, as I've never had a significant problem with spellcaster balance. The only thing I've done in that regard is to rework or ban those few spells that are just so poorly written or playtested, they cannot help but disrupt things, such as the polymorph spells.

Even in games where I'm a player, I prefer to run fighters, knights, barbarians, and so on, because I prefer less paperwork. I still, especially with most of my barbarians, equal or exeed the wizard in combat potency. Hell, I specialized in magekilling usually, and I'm pretty sure I could have taken the wizard. Didn't matter though, since we were playing cooperatively in a party, not trying desperately to outdo each other at every turn.

[burninnapalm]

Dragonborn and Tiefling were playable races in 3E, just not PHB races.


though i understand that they were not PHB classes, they still were not in any campain that i have been a part of of have even heard about. many people at my LGS thought that those were somethings that could have been kept that way, a sub class that you could play if you want to. i mean IMO dragonborn really mess up the rarity of the dragons in the first place. it is no longer rare that a dragon and a human concived a baby. it is almost required by how many people play the dragonborn race.



But, "the cleric is almots useless"? It sounds like you never played the game! Healing Surges are used to heal characters BETWEEN fights, not IN fights! Being able to take a standard action to get a little HP back once a fight is NOT enough when you're taking anything more than minor damage. Meanwhile, in 3E, it was counterproductive for the cleric to heal IN combat! He'd just tap them with a wand after! Now, clerics heal in combat--and Leaders are very important.

i dont think there has ever been a battle where the cleric has not had to heal in battle. There is a reason that they are there in the first place and that is to heal in battle. and i didnt say they were entirely useless i said they are ALMOST useless. though i understand they can force people to take another healing surge, they cant just flat out heal like they could in the previous editions. for example. lets say party member 4E ran out of healing surges, the cleric cant make him take anymore. there is a power that allows a cleric to give up THEIR surge for the player, but that is later down the line and it is a major inconvenience to heal by 7 at a time and not use a high level speel to just HEAL their buts.



Except that this is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS. It's just verbalized spite. 4E is not particularly less lethal--it's just less *arbitrarily* lethal. It's not meant to be played online--it's harder to run a PbP with 4E, for example. It's meant to be played at the table, and a lot of the changes were made to keep turns moving quickly! [quote]
Then why did WOTC put out Insider that lets you play your campains online? why did they make it so that is is easy to understand from 9-90, though i know why they made the game a little easier and welcoming, i still feel that it is just way to easy for a game that is meant to last for months, years or even decades.

[QUOTE=Frownbear;4752006]
It sounds like you're so busy protesting it you don't even know how it works!
and i know completely how it works, which is why i AM protesting it. i have played the RPGA open, i have played the delves, i have even played in a campaign when it first came out for a month. i just dont like how it is run which is why i am protesting it, i gave it a try, i didnt like it, so i am protesting it my good sir.

[Kompera]

You gotta be kidding me.

Is magic not potentially more powerful than the muscles of man or beast? To expect otherwise is to take your ideals of balance a bit too far, I think.

It makes sense to me that an epic Wizard might be able to crack a stone wall, and that perhaps a warrior of equal strength might not. It makes sense to me that the same Wizard might be able to magically Charm somebody into seeing things their way, even when the Rogue's epic Charisma check might not.

But all magic should not be inherently more powerful than its martial counterparts. A worthy orc warrior should not be able to be instantly stopped by a young, fledgling Wizard. We are not dealing in absolutes.

What we've been saying is that magic should generally be more powerful than simple braun, while its use should be much more unpredictable, risky, and respected. 3.5 RAW did not do a good job of this, and we recongize that.
No, I am not kidding you. There is nothing other than your obvious preconceptions which says that magic has to be more potent than muscle.

Nothing.

Perhaps magic is simply unable to crack a stone wall. Why should it be? Because of your preconceptions?

Perhaps magic is simply unable to Charm people? Why should it be able to do this? Ah, it's because of your preconceptions.

Throw them away. Magic is magic, yes, but you don't own the definition. I don't either, but I do recognize balance when I see it. If the ability to break walls and charm people is unbalancing, then these are abilities which should not be granted to magic. It's really that simple.

Perhaps magic is great at small things but poor at great things. Perhaps the ability to use magic is rare, and the practitioners of magic have to deal with a lot of negative consequences of the use of magic. All of these are possibilities.

But this is not the case in D&D 3.x. In D&D 3.x the use of magic is freely accessible, highly potent, and comes with zero drawbacks. And it is hard to counter with the same kind of challenges which are challenging to non-magical characters.

A ravine filled with monsters? The non-magical character has to figure out a way to get down safely, fight the monsters, and get back safely back up up the other side safely. The magic using character flies over the ravine, and pisses on the monsters below.

A locked door with a trap? The non-magic using character has to use skills taken as alternatives to other useful skills. The magic using character casts a couple of spells and is done with the challenge.

A tough NPC? The non-magic using character has to fight the NPCon their terms. The magic using character casts divinations, and uses this knowledge to take the NPC off guard and slaughter is with save of die spells.

The list of abuses goes on and on.

We're not comparing the "worthy orc warrior" vs the "young, fledgling Wizard". That is not a balance issue. We're comparing the worthy, whatever race Fighter PC in 3.x vs the worthy whatever race Wizard PC in 3.x. And your position states that the Fighter PC must lose vs the Wizard PC, simply because the Wizard has magic, the game breaker. My position states that this is unbalanced and unfun, that magic should not be a game breaker, and that this situation requires a revision. Hey, 4e!

[Kompera]

I would actually agree that balance is an important factor in a game. I absolutely would NOT agree that it is the "most important part of any game". Roleplaying games especially, the priority should be on (as OneFamiliarFace put it) uniqueness, not on balance. The party in most of these games is supposed to act cooperatively, each complementing the weaknesses of the others with their unique strengths. The only kind of balance that should be seriously considered is party balance, and I'm not talking about all those stupid combat roles they overemphasise. I'm talking about every class having a distinct niche in the party, out of combat moreso than in.
I agree with you in the most part, other than some niggling over the distinction between balance and uniqueness. Balance does not equal sameness, so there is always going to be uniqueness between the player characters. In 3.x that uniqueness was simply minimalized, since the uniqueness of the Fighter to deal melee damage was trivialized by the ability of the Wizard to beat the encounters with a couple save or die spells, and the uniqueness of the Rogue to solve out of combat challenges was trivialized by the ability of the Wizard to solve those same challenges via a couple of utility spells.

4e definitely supports the "every class having a distinct niche in the party, out of combat moreso than in" mantra, the game seems to have been designed for this from the ground up. Far, far more than the 3.x rules ever supported, at the least.

So, in your opinion, how does 4e fail to achieve balance? And how, again in your opinion, does it fail to achieve uniqueness? I see a lot of balance, and a lot of uniqueness, especially as compared to the 3.x rules.

[Kompera]

Balance-balance-balance: the mantra of 4E fans. We get it. The classes in 4E are, across the board, more balanced than in previous editions. Whether this is a good or bad thing is entirely subjective, however, and not a scientific truth.
This is subjective in the same way that my willingness to play chess against an opponent while taking a rook of mine off the board is subjective. Balance is playing with all of the chess pieces on both sides. Playing with less pieces on one side acknowledges a handicap which needs to be addressed. It is a clear acceptance of a disadvantage in a game meant to be played as equals.

Except that some players of D&D 3.x do not recognize the penalty for selecting a non-casting class, because these penalties may not manifest until a certain level and after a variable number of hours of play have been invested. So calling it a subjective decision is not accurate.

Balance: The only thing which makes a game worth playing. All other aspects of the game can be altered as needed to handicap one player or another. But if balance isn't the default position, the game sucks by default.

[tumble check]

I agree with most of what you said, Kompera.

Forgive me, but the assumptions that I've been making about what magic can do has been based on convention. And by convention, I mean long-established fantasy literature and previous iterations of D&D as well as other RPGs.

Are you ignoring these conventions? If so, that's fine I guess, although I think few RPG developers reconstruct their ideas of what magic fundamentally is each time they develop a new edition of an RPG.

To decide what magic should do using the basis of "not more than what the Fighter can do", I think is a little silly. At that point, it's so hard to compare qualitative things, so everything needs to be reduced to quantitative metrics. And as far as I'm concerned, if you used this basis, you would end up with 4e, where similar daily abilites are basically 2[W] + a little something or 2d6 + a little something.

Again, I'm not trying to deify 3.x here. We both agree that its magic system was too unchecked. But a homogenization of what the Fighter and Wizard *did* was a hasty and drastic answer, I believe.

[Kompera]

I agree with most of what you said, Kompera.

Forgive me, but the assumptions that I've been making about what magic can do has been based on convention. And by convention, I mean long-established fantasy literature and previous iterations of D&D as well as other RPGs.

Are you ignoring these conventions? If so, that's fine I guess, although I think few RPG developers reconstruct their ideas of what magic fundamentally is each time they develop a new edition of an RPG.
I am not ignoring the conventions of long-established fantasy literature, but I think that you are.

Who accomplished more? King Arthur or Merlin? I believe that King Arthur accomplished more.

Who accomplished more? Aragorn or Gandalf? I believe that Aragorn accomplished more.

There are several examples of fictional Wizards who had power, but that power was not expressed as being completely dominating in the setting.

I know that there are plenty of examples of fictional magicians who are nigh omnipotent. Many of these are undone by the simplest of non-magical tricks. I won't debate that this is the case, or that there are more examples of fictional magicians who are more capable than their martial companions. I'll simply restate my position that balance makes for a good game, while imbalance does not. Playing D&D is not like writing a fantasy novel. In a novel, your protagonist can be as magical and as potent as you like, and his side kicks can be as impotent as you like. Because the author has the power of PLOT to introduce and overcome challenges. But a game session of D&D is not like writing a book together, unless the protagonists are all equals.

No one wants to be a side kick, unless this is a temporary and accepted role which they accept from the outset. No one who didn't opt for the side kick role should find themselves in that role simply because they selected to be a Fighter rather than a Wizard three months earlier when the D&D campaign was started.