Things you dislike about 4th edition.

[tumble check]

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.



Those are awful, awful examples. The two comprised works are easily some of the best literature for fantasy and high romance that exist, but you've just cherrypicked ones that indeed have a "minimal magic setting", to use RPG terminology. What I was referring to was the extremely voluminous body of "second tier" fantasy fiction. You know, the endless yet extrememly popular books of wizardry and heroism that populate the shelves of your local bookstore?

Not to mention the fact that the greatest accomplishments of Arthur and Aragorn, which is to say their admirable courage and uncanny ability to lead, are poorly simulated in Dungeons and Dragons, especially with 4th Edition (so far, at least).

Moreover, no D&D version ever, ESPECIALLY 4th Edition, attempts to create a setting with the power of magic that is on par with your two examples. If you like those kind of settings, cool, but saying that D&D should do that is like me saying that I wish D&D had endless tables for every discernable action ever. Both of us would be insisting that D&D satisfy these two fairly radical ends, when instead it aims to provide a balance (on which clearly you and I disagree.)




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.


Wow, that's something with which I really have a hard time agreeing... in fact, I can hardly see your basis for it.

Completely ignoring the in-combat differences of Classes, like Defense differences, HP differences, and re-flavored Class powers which are all very similar to one another and differ slightly in overall objective depending on which "role" they are... But considering the fact that most Utility Powers are useless outside of battle, the fact that the skill system has been revamped so as to diminish the chasm of skill differences between party members, and the fact that EVERYONE can now learn "magic"(see: Rituals), I really REALLY struggle to see how 4e has allowed for the classes to fill out-of-battle niches better than 3.x.

EDIT:



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.

BTW, I love playing Bards, and they are often sidekicks, especially in battle. Between lite spellcasting, lite combat, and Bardic Music, they almost always stay on the sidelines, never having the spotlight, except maybe in social encounters. And I have no problem with that. I think many people see value in support roles, and how they differ from primary roles. I imagine these types of people also resent 4e's homogeneity.

[Prophaniti]

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.
The thing you're ignoring here is that in both cases, the 'normal' character only accomplished more because the wizard did not try to usurp them. If you really believe Merlin or Gandalf could not have utterly crushed their respective worlds and ruled them with impunity, you need to reread those stories. Gandalf is the same kind of being as Sauron, and Aragorn could not have defeated him without wielding or destoying the Ring.

In conventional literature, nearly every one I've seen, magic is easily able to accomplish things blatantly impossible with mere muscle. That's the whole freaking point of magic! In most settings magic also has severe limitations or drawbacks, or is so incredibly difficult to use that only a handful of people in the entire world wield it. That is what magic is, that is what magic has always been. If you don't want magic to be able to bypass things that would challenge muscle, why don't you just ban it from your setting?

Or, of course, there's the option of making EVERYONE magical, only the 'mundane' classes merely have it innately, and can only use it to manifest Implausible Fencing Powers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ImplausibleFencingPowers), or such. Nothing wrong with that approach, really, I just don't like it, as it removes the mystery and prestige from magic. Even the mystery and prestige that causes the wizard to wet his pants when he ends up facing something resistant/immune to his spells, or when he's out of them entirely.

[Tehnar]

What I do not comprehend is why people perceive wizards (clerics and druids) as all powerful, destroying every encounter at whim, while the fighters and rogues sit back and cry. Apart from the obvious (a cleric is good against undead and believe it or not a druid is good in a forest), the rest of the time I find that all classes are equally effective. A problem may be in the DM, if he is sending single monsters at you, at your parties CR, of course the spellcaster will dominate. But multiple monsters, as any experienced DM knows, not only make combats more interesting, also take out some of the power of save or die/sucks.

Now I really like 4E for its emphasis and ease of creating encounters with multiple monsters. It is one of its finer points.


Now not to derail the thread, these things I dont like:

- too much skill condensation, and the fact that you automatically get better at all skills as you level up

- and as a extenuation of point 1, ability checks, which also automatically improve as you level

- total lack of any fluff concerning monsters, its enviroment's and habits. God knows how that helped me create adventures when I had no inspiration

[Oracle_Hunter]

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.

Convention (http://www.writingexcuses.com/2008/05/12/writing-excuses-episode-14-magic-systems-and-their-rules/) you say (http://www.writingexcuses.com/2008/05/18/writing-excuses-episode-15-costs-and-ramifications-of-magic/)? :smallwink:

[Viruzzo]

First of all, as I've already said, there is nothing wrong in a game that gives extreme power to wizards, but such games should then be centered on wizards. If magic is superior, non-magic wielders (would they be Muggles?) are ineherently inferior. If you want to play as an inferior character no problem (some may like it just for the challenge), but it obviously will not (and should not) be the default for a commercial game.


Mundane Cast Members should be extraordinary individuals (perhaps with a few Attributes near or at the human maximum), whose great physical or mental prowess allows them to be of assistance to their Gifted allies and friends.
This is a possible way to solve the problem: view the PCs of "mundane" classes as the best among them. Fighters are common, but exceptional fighters are as rare as normal wizards.

But most of all I think that the correct way to see it is that high level fighters are not "magical" in the literal sense, but can achieve superhuman feats via their training. As the TVTrope article points out, this is much more commonly seen in Far Eastern media.

@Prophanity
Balancing magic with penalties is far less easy than what you seem to suggest IMHO, and that's why they decided not to go that way in 4e. Also putting something in a system and then modifying everything else to accomodate it is a bad way to design things in general, and leads to imperfection. When a magic system is so powerful that the rest of the game needs to be designed so as to limit it, the result will be poor and there will be workarounds ripe for the taking for powerplayers.

[Knaight]

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.

Yes, because high risk magic is used casually.

[TheDarkOne]

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...

I believe there are actually cleric utility powers which allow you to heal a character as if they had spent x healing surges. (the cure x wounds powers I think) In other words the amount healed is based the character's healing surge value, but the power doesn't actually expend the healed character's healing surges.(nor the clerics own healing surges)

[Edea]

I believe there are actually cleric utility powers which allow you to heal a character as if they had spent x healing surges. (the cure x wounds powers I think) In other words the amount healed is based the character's healing surge value, but the power doesn't actually expend the healed character's healing surges.(nor the clerics own healing surges)

They're dailies, as I was expecting. Ugh.

Wow, I really need to reiterate just how much I dislike the new power system *shakes grognard-fist violently*.

[Thurbane]

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.
You can't get much more "pure opinion" than that statement. :smallsigh:

IMHO, fun, not balance, is the only thing which makes a game worth playing. And as I stated above, it is fully possible to have fun without your concept of balance.

I don't know about you, but I play D&D to have fun, not to "win". If D&D were a PvP competitive game, like chess in your example above, then almost certainly balance between the players would be vital.

That isn't to say that balance in a game, even a (generally) co-operative game like D&D, isn't a worthy goal. I actually happen to believe it is. But I most certainly do not believe it is the primary goal, or that lack of balance prevents a game from being either fun or good.

[burninnapalm]

I believe there are actually cleric utility powers which allow you to heal a character as if they had spent x healing surges. (the cure x wounds powers I think) In other words the amount healed is based the character's healing surge value, but the power doesn't actually expend the healed character's healing surges.(nor the clerics own healing surges)

you see, i have yet to see those in actual use. if those do exist, that would make the cleric a lot more effective, but i would imagine that is at a higher level that you get those.

[Oracle_Hunter]

you see, i have yet to see those in actual use. if those do exist, that would make the cleric a lot more effective, but i would imagine that is at a higher level that you get those.

Dude, they're Utility Powers.

Level 2 - CLW: Restore a Healing Surges worth of HP without spending a Healing Surge

Level 6 - CSW: Restore 2 Healing Surges worth of HP without spending any Healing Surges

Level 10 - Mass CLW: Allies within five get CLW + CHA bonus

Also, every CXW adds in the Cleric's WIS bonus.

Considering the sheer amount of regular healing available, and the role that Healing Surges play in pacing adventures, I'm fine with not seeing more of them.

[Dhavaer]

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.

Dragonborn are a race all their own; they aren't half-dragons. Half-dragon don't seem to exist in 4e at all.

[Frosty]

They're dailies, as I was expecting. Ugh.

Wow, I really need to reiterate just how much I dislike the new power system *shakes grognard-fist violently*.

Cleric stuff is ok. It's Wizards of 4e that bores me.

[Nerzul9000]

Lack of Bards is unacceptable in the extreme.

I will never forgive you, Pointy-Hatted Old Gits from the Seaside! :smallannoyed:

i concur...thay shall all pay...which is to say that i shall be very angry but play 4.0 regardless, because my damn favorite DM is switching...curse you...evil little people

[Nerzul9000]

oh and MEGA cleric nerfing...or perhaps i read the rules incorrectly, but they look mega nerfed *sadface*

[Nerzul9000]

Those are awful, awful examples. The two comprised works are easily some of the best literature for fantasy and high romance that exist, but you've just cherrypicked ones that indeed have a "minimal magic setting", to use RPG terminology. What I was referring to was the extremely voluminous body of "second tier" fantasy fiction. You know, the endless yet extrememly popular books of wizardry and heroism that populate the shelves of your local bookstore?

Not to mention the fact that the greatest accomplishments of Arthur and Aragorn, which is to say their admirable courage and uncanny ability to lead, are poorly simulated in Dungeons and Dragons, especially with 4th Edition (so far, at least).

Moreover, no D&D version ever, ESPECIALLY 4th Edition, attempts to create a setting with the power of magic that is on par with your two examples. If you like those kind of settings, cool, but saying that D&D should do that is like me saying that I wish D&D had endless tables for every discernable action ever. Both of us would be insisting that D&D satisfy these two fairly radical ends, when instead it aims to provide a balance (on which clearly you and I disagree.)




Wow, that's something with which I really have a hard time agreeing... in fact, I can hardly see your basis for it.

Completely ignoring the in-combat differences of Classes, like Defense differences, HP differences, and re-flavored Class powers which are all very similar to one another and differ slightly in overall objective depending on which "role" they are... But considering the fact that most Utility Powers are useless outside of battle, the fact that the skill system has been revamped so as to diminish the chasm of skill differences between party members, and the fact that EVERYONE can now learn "magic"(see: Rituals), I really REALLY struggle to see how 4e has allowed for the classes to fill out-of-battle niches better than 3.x.

EDIT:



BTW, I love playing Bards, and they are often sidekicks, especially in battle. Between lite spellcasting, lite combat, and Bardic Music, they almost always stay on the sidelines, never having the spotlight, except maybe in social encounters. And I have no problem with that. I think many people see value in support roles, and how they differ from primary roles. I imagine these types of people also resent 4e's homogeneity.

what happend to the can we be nice and not debate thingy? i understand your arguments however the purpose of this thred wasnt to begin a debate, it was for people to get their opinions out on the metaphorical "table" if you understand me

[Ulzgoroth]

what happend to the can we be nice and not debate thingy? i understand your arguments however the purpose of this thred wasnt to begin a debate, it was for people to get their opinions out on the metaphorical "table" if you understand me
I think the burden of 'don't debate', if anyone were still trying, would fall on the people coming in here and arguing with people's reasons for disliking 4e. In this case, Kompera, not tumble check responding to him.

[Nerzul9000]

I think the burden of 'don't debate', if anyone were still trying, would fall on the people coming in here and arguing with people's reasons for disliking 4e. In this case, Kompera, not tumble check responding to him.

point taken...
agreed...
however, both must take some responsibility lol :)
cant argue alone
unless you're mad
ok so ya
a little
i do...

[Totally Guy]

Here's an interesting thought on the "magic should be better than muscle" direction.

Where should the balance be? In a world where magic is better than muscle then there will be a level where both a fighter and wizard would be equal. It might be Wizard 12 Fighter 16 or maybe Wizard 8 Fighter 9. I don't know but it probably exists. It's dependent on character level.

Let's say Antonius the fighter is a higher level than Decanter the wizard but they have about the same amount of power. Antonius has one set of stats. Decanter has another but he's got cool spells too. The two of them go off adventuring and they find each others company mutually beneficial.

Antonius says to Decanter "I really like adventuring with you, we can take on challenges about our level"
Decanter replies "You know you are a higher level than me?"
"I thought we were about equal"
"No, generally magic is better than muscle, that's the expected stereotype"
"I always thought that we were the same level but magic users level up at a faster rate and that's why we have the stereotype" replied Antonius.

Maybe that is true. Maybe it's not the class that defines the level of power but the level of the character. Of course by all known crunch that doesn't work but you'd end up with a similar "magic>muscle" model from that.

This isn't me saying that if you think magic>muscle you also think that wizards should gain XP faster too. I'm saying there is more than one way to think about that model. And no I'm not saying that you should go play 4E and square any XP the wizard gets to make him literally quadratic. I'm saying that it might be a conspiracy. Maybe the wizard is just as powerful as a fighter but he's secretly levelling up on a different scale without even telling the player!:smalltongue: The characters have been deceiving the players all this time and who was the only class with the int to do it? You guessed right! A wizard did it!:smalltongue:

Oh man, all that build up for one lousy joke.

[Nerzul9000]

lol that wasnt half bad :):smalltongue:

[tumble check]

Sorry for the debating. Indeed it is hard to keep one's mouth shut in a one-sided thread, although I think it's even more difficult to have a one-sided thread at all.

I was under the impression that this thread was for a discussion between why we don't like certain things about 4e instead of it just being a giant list of these things.

Carryon.:smallredface:

[Nerzul9000]

i started one of those...go check it :P feel free i love debate myself, but the guy who started this thread just didnt want us too

[Kompera]

The thing you're ignoring here is that in both cases, the 'normal' character only accomplished more because the wizard did not try to usurp them. If you really believe Merlin or Gandalf could not have utterly crushed their respective worlds and ruled them with impunity, you need to reread those stories. Gandalf is the same kind of being as Sauron, and Aragorn could not have defeated him without wielding or destoying the Ring.
Neither Gandalf nor Merlin could have ruled in either setting. Perhaps it is you who need to reread those stories.

Merlin lived in a culture which feared and hated magic, and respected and idealized martial prowess. The High King had to be a warrior, no lesser king or other noble would have followed any shifty wizard. Merlin was tolerated mostly because of his friendship with Arthur. Without a patron within the nobility he would have been killed so that his blood could be used to stabilize the foundation of some nobles' castle. Or something like that.

Gandalf and his ilk were essentially angels, more powerful than any mere mortal. He and his peer wizards were acknowledged by Tolkien to be far less powerful than the kind of being Saruon was, so your comparing the two is not accurate. Gandalf's magic powers were largely left undefined by the author, but taking Sauruman as an example it's clear that death by a dagger in the throat is a possibility. A Balrog can also kill one of these, although it takes a week and the Balrog dies, too. And neither of these characters had Contingency Timestops to protect them from a sneak attack. The vast measure of their power was wrapped up with their inhuman charisma and ability to influence the minds of those they spoke to, but that can't stop Ents from razing your grounds once you piss them off enough by having your orcs chop down enough trees. And it can't make people set you up as king, either, or Saruman would have simply ridden to Minas Tirith and said "Hi Steward, the King has returned for his throne, and by King I mean me." That obviously didn't happen, and Saruman had to rely on the same kind of efforts that any other person with designs on total rule would have to rely on: Build a bigger army and defeat your opponents in martial combat.



Those are awful, awful examples. The two comprised works are easily some of the best literature for fantasy and high romance that exist, but you've just cherrypicked ones that indeed have a "minimal magic setting", to use RPG terminology. What I was referring to was the extremely voluminous body of "second tier" fantasy fiction. You know, the endless yet extrememly popular books of wizardry and heroism that populate the shelves of your local bookstore?
Talking about cherry picking, why did you exclude from your quotation the part where I said:

"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."

See there? I acknowledged that there are plenty of books out there where magic users are virtual gods. And were I playing a FRPG based in one of those settings, I guess I'd be stupid not to select "virtual god" as my character class, eh?

Also common to most of those setting is this: The opponent of the main character who is a wizard is almost always another wizard, or whatever they are called. Because the only other being capable of challenging the might of a wizard is quite naturally also a Wizard.

Take for example the Saga of Recluce Series by L.E. Modesitt, Jr. His magical cosmology is broken down into two flavors: Chaos magic and Order magic. The practitioners of either flavor can be more or less powerful in relation to each other, but only the weakest of Order mages (who have healing as their most potent power) is able to be challenged by any non-mage. The weakest of the Chaos mages can make ashes out of any martial or other non-magical type, and are only countered by societal restrictions and the presence of more powerful mages up the food chain from themselves. The most potent of either type of mage are the rulers of their societies, if they chose to be, because there's not much anyone can do about it.

Modesitt's stories are a bit formulaic, mostly introducing a new main character and being concerned with the "coming of age" story of this character. But in the end they are challenged by a powerful member of the opposite magic philosophy. Because nothing else can challenge them. If a powerful Chaos mage is attacked by an army, he turns them to ashes. If a powerful Order mage is attacked by an army, he becomes invisible and walks away.

Modesitt's magic has an internal consistency, and he follows the rules as he sets them down. Using magic takes physical energy. Mages eat a lot, and have to eat and drink after an especially large bit of casting. They might pass out if they exert themselves too much, or even become comatose for a while, and they can kill themselves by casting too much or too long. But these restrictions still can't stop the most powerful mage from doing what he wants.

Some of the mages are accomplished physical combatants, as well. Order mages not typically so, as using edged weapons causes them discomfort or pain, and killing causes them pain and occasionally blindness. But they can bludgeon away with a staff, and several are quite good at it. And Chaos mages can use weapons just fine. Most of the mages are also competent at a trade or other skill, because Modesitt often uses the "coming of age" trope in his stories, and thus you'll see a character build up his carpentry skill (for example) at the same time as he's building up his mastery of one of the forms of magic (or both forms, for some rare characters).

So were there a RPG game made in Modesitt's world setting, you'd find all the players wanting to be mages, because there is no real disadvantage to being a mage. You can still be a skilled tradesman, a soldier, or whatever else you might like to be, plus you're magical.

This is but one example from amongst what I would wager to be a huge number. In much of fiction being magic makes you simply better then not being magic. And so again, why in a game setting would anyone want to be non-magic, if those who are magic can do anything that the non-magic people can do, and they get magic?

[Nerzul9000]

this is so simple...
you guys are overthinking
Martial classes, own low lvl
Magical classes, HAVE ALWAYS PWND HIGH LVL
it's been that way since the dawn of time, hince entry lvl gamer is normally instructed to play a warrior class as apposed to a spell castewr
stop overthinking it

[tumble check]

And so again, why in a game setting would anyone want to be non-magic, if those who are magic can do anything that the non-magic people can do, and they get magic?

If I have an awesome idea to play a Barbarian who grew up alone in the tundra, why would I play a caster? If I wanted to play a evil Rogue who only stole from the poor and never from the rich, why would I play a caster? You wanna know why? Because I don't come at D&D from the "game" angle. When I begin to create a character, I don't think "Ok, which is the most awesome class that I can play?"

Because it's ok to be "second best", even though I and many others don't even view it that way.

We've already established that you can't just have a party of casters and expect to survive. And since there MUST be non-casters in the party, I refuse to childishly argue with the players in my group as to who "gets" to be a Wizard.

Again, we seem to be on different sides of this. Even though D&D is a role-playing game, I don't consider it a game. I consider it an opportunity to interact in a story using interesting personas. The overall power of a class might be the last thing I think about. (ignoring several brokenly awful classes that are unplayable)

[Nerzul9000]

and the award goes to :)
i agree completly with Tumble check here

[Prophaniti]

Here's an interesting thought on the "magic should be better than muscle" direction. Interesting conspiracy theory...

I've actually been thinking about this, and when I saw your post I realized I haven't been clear on my point about magic. I don't mean that magic should necessarily be "better" than muscle, but rather that magic should be capable of doing things muscle cannot. That's where you get the feeling of actual Magic, is when it can accomplish things that are othewise impossible. On the surface, of course, that does make magic sound "better", but there are (or rather should be) factors that stop that from being true.

First; Magic, if accessible and usable by the characters in the game, should have rules. The more the better. These rules need not be logical, but they should be there, to limit the access and applicability of magic. Maybe it doesn't work if the character is touching iron, or on saturdays in June when it's raining. Whatever. Rules for magic are especially necessary for any game that involves it and gives it to the players.

Second; Magic should have costs and reprecusions. Oracle_Hunter likes to link to a really good podcast on the Writing Excuses website, and they make a very good point. If magic can do something more easily and with less cost than the mundane, you've killed anything resembling a medieval world and economy. The laws of thermodynamics (esp. entropy) are the reason much of society is the way it is. In a setting where magic can bypass those laws without its own significant cost, things start to fall apart. This is why you have things like Tippy societies. They are indeed the logical conclusion of what happens with powerful and free magic.

I've always felt that, with 3.5 at least, the full costs and drawbacks of magic simply weren't in the game, probably because they didn't want anyone to cry. WotC seems to have that attitude, for some reason, and think they can't make a game and give the classes (or races) negative aspects, or people will throw up their hands and stop playing. The changes to 4e are rife with this attitude. I've never understood this, as I think the drawbacks and limitations of a character almost universally add more depth and make them more interesting to play.

But, back to my point. This is with regard to more mundane uses of magic, such as creating light or powering a flour mill. If magic can do this for less cost than muscle, it's illogical to have the society even remotely resemble medieval europe. It would be more like Eberron, only turned up to 11.

What magic should be able to do is things that are simply beyond the mundane. Things that add the 'fantasy' to the setting. Thowing fireballs is fine, but also things like levitation, creating golems, teleporting, turning into a shrew, crazy stuff like that. Things that, when you see them do it, or when your character does it, you go "man, wouldn't it be really cool if I could do that?"

So there you go. That's my point. I don't think that magic should be a straight-up better option than non-magic. I think it should be different. I think it should be doing things that the fighter has no chance of reproducing. The cost, which I don't think has really been significant enough in any edition of D&D, should be there to keep the setting logical and to keep it from being a 'mages only' club.

Example time: the party comes to a tall, sheer cliff, with no way around, that they must ascend. Most of them must use pure muscle to accomplish this, which is possible but difficult. The mage should absolutely be able to levitate or otherwise bypass the physical challenge of the cliff. However! The cost of him doing so should be greater than the cost of him climbing it normally. He should be unwilling to expend the resources to use his magic to bypass the simple obstacle without some desperate circumstances to justify it. That is how I see magic and it's place in a fantasy setting.

As we've seen in 3.5, the cost of a spell-slot, though often considered a big cost in an actual game, is not enough for the theory side of the discussion. Honestly, I would tend to agree. Magic as powerful as it is in 3.5 NEEDS more cost, more consequences, to make it and the setting work.

Since I want to be able to pretend that this post is not completely off the thread topic: The reason I don't like the change in 4e is that instead of adding the cost that is necessary to make magic from 3.5 work (both in gameplay and in the settings), they removed the 'magic' from magic, and there is very little a wizard might do that cannot be at least closely copied by a non-magic user. Rituals are a partial exception, but since anyone can learn those anyway...

Really, now the only choice is what brand of batteries you want to power your character's awesome: Arcanacells or Martiagizers.

Hopefully that helps those few of you that care better understand where I'm coming from.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Prophaniti, that was a great post. And not just because you pimped the Writing Excuses podcasts :smalltongue:

That said, I think you're on the wrong track for 4e. Take another look at the Wizard, Warlock, and Cleric utilities - there really isn't any mundane way to do many of those. Levitation is one example, but so are Resistance, Invisibilty, Fly, and so on. There are no mundane powers which serve similar ends.

Secondly, Rituals. While everyone "can" use Rituals, look at the requirements. First, you have to be trained in either Arcana or Religion - two bodies of mystic lore. Secondly, you need to spend a feat, which represents the same sort of extra training you would need to learn a new skill. That's a pretty hefty investment.

Now, let's compare that to what you needed to do in 3e to use magic. You could either train up UMD, or you could multiclass to a magic-using class. It would seriously weaken you (perhaps more than two feat choices in 4e) but anyone could use magic.

Another interesting point on Rituals is that many of them require skill checks. A Fighter 10 / Wizard 1 could cast any 0th or 1st level spell just as good as a Wizard 20 could (INT based saves aside), but what about the 4e Ritual Caster? Anyone casting from a scroll is pretty much screwed - no skill training and a probably low INT could kill someone if you tried using a Remove Disease ritual. Non-casters have similar problems - not having that +4 from an 18 INT can be a nuisance at Heroic tiers, but not having that +7 at Epic may be the difference between success and failure.

In summary: while it is true they capped the Power Level of magic in 4e as compared to 3e, magic can still do things that are just impossible through mundane means. Additionally, learning to use Rituals is at least as difficult as multiclassing Wizard in 3e, and may actually be harsher of the MCer in 4e than in 3e for truly potent magics.

[Kompera]

We've already established that you can't just have a party of casters and expect to survive. And since there MUST be non-casters in the party, I refuse to childishly argue with the players in my group as to who "gets" to be a Wizard.
This has absolutely not been established. Quite the opposite, in fact. Any 3.5 group made up of all full casting classes is going to be much more capable than one made up of some full casting classes and come non-casting classes.

[Kompera]

I don't think that magic should be a straight-up better option than non-magic. I think it should be different. I think it should be doing things that the fighter has no chance of reproducing. The cost, which I don't think has really been significant enough in any edition of D&D, should be there to keep the setting logical and to keep it from being a 'mages only' club.

Example time: the party comes to a tall, sheer cliff, with no way around, that they must ascend. Most of them must use pure muscle to accomplish this, which is possible but difficult. The mage should absolutely be able to levitate or otherwise bypass the physical challenge of the cliff. However! The cost of him doing so should be greater than the cost of him climbing it normally. He should be unwilling to expend the resources to use his magic to bypass the simple obstacle without some desperate circumstances to justify it. That is how I see magic and it's place in a fantasy setting.
You're getting dangerously close to talking about balance here!
That said, your proposal if carefully implemented would make for a fine game mechanic.

[Kurald Galain]

Secondly, Rituals. While everyone "can" use Rituals, look at the requirements.

More to the point, while everyone "can" use rituals, virtually nobody wants to use rituals because the vast majority of them is extremely ineffective.

With, yes, some exceptions, as I'm sure someone will now point out that some useful ritual exists, under misapprehension that that statement somehow contradicts what I just said about the majority.

[Viruzzo]

@Prophanity
This is clearly a case of "if there it was a simple and effective solution, they would have adopted it": what you desire is an effective way to counterbalance the wizards' abilities, something that D&D designers have always tried to do, but failed (sometimes miserably). With 4E, they decided to throw the separated spellcasting system out of the window altogether and sticked to one that was undoubtedly more balanced.
The problem is that sooner or later the players will find ways to circumvent the limits and will have access to the full potential of the spells. The first step in this is having so much money that "costly" material components become trivial to achieve, something that is bound to happen.
Actually, I wonder if there is a single system where classes get different ability systems (sorry for the redundance) that is decently balanced...

Edit: reply to Kurald Galain ninjaed...

[Oracle_Hunter]

More to the point, while everyone "can" use rituals, virtually nobody wants to use rituals because the vast majority of them is extremely ineffective.

With, yes, some exceptions, as I'm sure someone will now point out that some useful ritual exists, under misapprehension that that statement somehow contradicts what I just said about the majority.

Oh! I had an idea. How about you point out which rituals are useless and why instead? Please show your work :smallamused:

EDIT: To keep things simple, how about we stick to the Rituals in the PHB?

[Frosty]

This has absolutely not been established. Quite the opposite, in fact. Any 3.5 group made up of all full casting classes is going to be much more capable than one made up of some full casting classes and come non-casting classes.

Even at low levels?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Even at low levels?

Hmm... I think a party of Clerics, Wizards, and Sorcerers could probably do it. Clerics provide both healing and front-line support, sorcerers can do plenty of damage, and the wizards can stick around for utility effects.

Or we can go outside of core. A Beguiler for non-combat, Sorcerer for single-target damage, a Wizard for Batmaning, and 2 Clerics for healing, summoning, and front-line protection.

I can see it.

[Viruzzo]

Even at low levels?
Obviously he is considering the majority of the game, not just the first few level in which (as it has already been stated) fighters are on par with or superior to casters.

Edit: Oracle Hunter, I thereby grant you this magical Ninja suit *gives*.

[Kurald Galain]

That said, I think you're on the wrong track for 4e. Take another look at the Wizard, Warlock, and Cleric utilities - there really isn't any mundane way to do many of those. Levitation is one example, but so are Resistance, Invisibilty, Fly, and so on. There are no mundane powers which serve similar ends.

False. Several martial powers (in the rogue chapter) cause invisibility.

[Viruzzo]

False. Several martial powers (in the rogue chapter) cause invisibility.
That's not "false", that's "slightly incorrect but still getting the point".

Take Disguise Self, Dispel Magic, Levitate, Mirror Image, Resistance, Displacement, Fly and Mordenkainen’s Mansion as examples.

[Frosty]

Hmm... I think a party of Clerics, Wizards, and Sorcerers could probably do it. Clerics provide both healing and front-line support, sorcerers can do plenty of damage, and the wizards can stick around for utility effects.

Or we can go outside of core. A Beguiler for non-combat, Sorcerer for single-target damage, a Wizard for Batmaning, and 2 Clerics for healing, summoning, and front-line protection.

I can see it.

Would a Warmage be better for single-target (and multi-target) damage?

This party at level 1 would struggle though...

[Oracle_Hunter]

False. Several martial powers (in the rogue chapter) cause invisibility.

Typically this is single-target Invisibility or an Epic level power. Since Rangers could Hide in Plain Sight in 3.5, I presume you don't object to Epic Martial characters getting a limited version of a Heroic Wizard power?

Still waiting on those Rituals :smallwink:

EDIT:

Would a Warmage be better for single-target (and multi-target) damage?

This party at level 1 would struggle though...

Possibly - I'm not much for non-Core 3e.

But I don't think it'd be as bad as all that at level 1. Have both Clerics take the War Domain and they'll have a decent weapon. After their 18 WIS, they can put a 14 STR and, with the free Weapon Focus, they'll be as good as an equivalent 1st level Fighter. They can wear Medium Armor, so Breastplates plus some DEX gives a good AC - throw in light shields and they're fine for melee.

Beguiler can take care of all non-combat challenges, the Warmage can provide some extra damage, and the Wizard can use things like Grease to make life easier in melee.

How's that sound?

[Frosty]

Can clerics AFFORD Breastplates at level 1? They also need to buy other adventuring gear (like a holy symbol) you know.

Meh...Beguilers can Grease it up...that's not the problem. The problem is the number of spells 1st level characters get. You can't slog through 4 encounters.

[Totally Guy]

Can clerics AFFORD Breastplates at level 1? They also need to buy other adventuring gear (like a holy symbol) you know.

Actually the starting holy symbol gives a +0 to implement powers which makes it superfluous for spell casting. Something like a holy symbol only matters when there's a +1 on it.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Can clerics AFFORD Breastplates at level 1? They also need to buy other adventuring gear (like a holy symbol) you know.

Meh...Beguilers can Grease it up...that's not the problem. The problem is the number of spells 1st level characters get. You can't slog through 4 encounters.

Hmm... let's see.

Building the Cleric
Clerics get 5d4x10 GP at first level, so let's use the max GP houserule for an even 200 GP.

Holy Symbols are 1 GP, we'll go with Longsword for 15 GP and a Small Wooden Shield for 3 GP. That's 19 GP, which means they can buy Chainmail for 150 GP and a +5 AC (like Breastplate). 169 GP leaves them with 31 GP leftover for other stuff.

With a 14 DEX, that'll give them an 18 AC - not bad for a 1st level Fighter.

Let's call this a Half-Orc Cleric. Turning isn't important, and who needs INT when you have a Beguiler to do your thinking for you?

25 Point Buy:
STR 16 (14+2, 6 Points)
DEX 14 (6 points)
CON 11 (3 points)
INT 6 (0 points)
WIS 16 (10 points)
CHA 6 (0 points)

So, to hit with the Longsword will be 0 + 3 + 1 (Focus, for free) = +4. Not bad.

The way I figure this party fights is for the Clerics to act like Fighters to take down goblins and stuff, with the other three using light crossbows to help bring down the average baddie. For tougher types, the Sorcerer/Battlemage is going to be able to use MM or some other blaster spell to get going.

So, for 1st level, we're doing a mostly mundane fighting style, which is how it would be with Mundanes. I don't think the Clerics are going to be that far behind their Fighter equivalents. Better?

EDIT:

Actually the starting holy symbol gives a +0 to implement powers which makes it superfluous for spell casting. Something like a holy symbol only matters when there's a +1 on it.

We're talking about a 3e party :smalltongue:

[Prophaniti]

You're getting dangerously close to talking about balance here!
Heh, sorry about that. Didn't mean to step on your toes there.:smalltongue:

Just goes to show you that very few people have absolute opinions about anything. I do think balance should be a consideration for a game, I just don't think it should be the primary (or even secondary) design focus for a RPG.

In 4e it clearly was, which has lead to a fair amount of mechanics and changes that I would be fine with in a minis wargame, but don't like in a RPG.

Anyway, what can be viewed in my post as talking about balance shows what I mean. I would do the things I talked about to make magic feel and behave the way I want it to in my setting. The fact that it ends up somewhat balanced is a pleasant side-effect, it was not the goal behind the process.

As far as lowlevel parties of all casters... If I had time right now, I'd challenge someone to a contest. We both make two groups at level 1-5ish, mine all non-casters, yours all full casters (no hybrids) and we'd send 'em head to head and see what happens. A dungeon segment where we see who does better, then a party vs party battle. Sounds like fun, eh? But, like I said, I'm too busy right now with college starting up. Maybe someone else will champion low-level non-casters in 3.5 core...

[Edea]

Oh! I had an idea. How about you point out which rituals are useless and why instead? Please show your work :smallamused:

EDIT: To keep things simple, how about we stick to the Rituals in the PHB?

I -think- he meant inefficient; as in, while the rituals produce 'familiar' effects that can, by themselves, be effective in the right situation, they cost so much gold and time to cast, that only a select few of them are actually going to see any use (see Disenchant/Enchant and the healing/restorative rituals, such as Gentle Repose and Raise Dead).

I don't mind the idea of Rituals and cross-class magical effects in and of themselves; I despise the way they were actually implemented with respect to using them IC (I will NOT spend hundreds of thousands of gold to scry for two rounds, I don't care WHAT level that's at. What a ripoff :/ ).

[Oracle_Hunter]

As far as lowlevel parties of all casters... If I had time right now, I'd challenge someone to a contest. We both make two groups at level 1-5ish, mine all non-casters, yours all full casters (no hybrids) and we'd send 'em head to head and see what happens. A dungeon segment where we see who does better, then a party vs party battle. Sounds like fun, eh? But, like I said, I'm too busy right now with college starting up. Maybe someone else will champion low-level non-casters in 3.5 core...

Well, at level 1 the casters win, no question: without any kind of healing, the non-casters are extremely vulnerable to a lucky crit or a string of bad Heal checks.

Once you start doing WBL and allowing the two parties to buy magic, it's unclear, though it should be noted that magic, at some level, will always be required in 3e.

EDIT:

I -think- he meant inefficient; as in, while the rituals produce 'familiar' effects that can, by themselves, be effective in the right situation, they cost so much gold and time to cast, that only a select few of them are actually going to see any use (see Disenchant/Enchant and the healing/restorative rituals, such as Gentle Repose and Raise Dead).

I don't mind the idea of Rituals and cross-class magical effects in and of themselves; I despise the way they were actually implemented with respect to using them IC (I will NOT spend hundreds of thousands of gold to scry for two rounds, I don't care WHAT level that's at. What a ripoff :/ ).

That seems likely. However, note that when valuing the utility of these Rituals, you have to look at it in terms of 4e thinking, as opposed to 3e thinking. In 4e, magic is just harder to do. You have fewer spell slots, and the spells do less than they did in 3e. However, because all magic has been taken down a few notches, the actual effect it has in a game-world run by 4e logic may be more than you would think coming from 3e.

Now, I don't have enough experience with the internal logic of 4e at higher levels, so I'll have to table most of this. However, I would like to note that many of the Rituals you'd want permanent are much easier to make so in 4e than in 3e, which can offset their casting costs.

From my personal experience, the ability of the 4th level Ritual "Arcane Lock" to create unpickable seals is definitely of use for anyone who wants to really secure an area. Yes, Knock or a Strength Check can overcome the barrier, but both need to beat my Arcana Check +5 which, for an Eladrin Wizard, is already a +12 before ability modifiers. Plus, since you can create a password or such to allow certain people to open the object, it's a fine way to secure a safe-room for valuable people or objects - and 25 GP isn't such a bad price for that.

[tumble check]

Hmm, I think a well-rounded team vs. a caster team is a much better test. That's what I was talking about earlier.

[Puggins]

Can clerics AFFORD Breastplates at level 1? They also need to buy other adventuring gear (like a holy symbol) you know.

Meh...Beguilers can Grease it up...that's not the problem. The problem is the number of spells 1st level characters get. You can't slog through 4 encounters.

Considering the total number of spell slots available to a party of four casters, I think slogging through 4 encounters would not be hard at all.

The 1st level cleric is a second class melee machine compared to a barbarian or a fighter, but in this case, second class is remarkably close to first, especially if you allow the cleric to take divine feats. Even if you don't, the cleric still has domain powers, three 1st level spells and three cantrips to compensate for a slight deficit in martial ability. A cleric with the war, strength, destruction or luck domains becomes especially formidable. If he can take two of those three, then you won't miss the fighter at all, practically. By third level the cleric will have enough spells to completely eclipse the fighter as a primary front line combatant. By 5th level he's better than a barbarian in most situations, AND he still has spell support left over.

The 1st level druid.... well, he has his wolf. What more needs being said? He's already a better frontline presence.

[Totally Guy]

Oh, I see I thought we'd resorted to making 4E characters and 3.5 guys and fighting them against each other to decide once and for all which system has better dungeons.

[Cainen]

this is so simple...
you guys are overthinking
Martial classes, own low lvl
Magical classes, HAVE ALWAYS PWND HIGH LVL
it's been that way since the dawn of time, hince entry lvl gamer is normally instructed to play a warrior class as apposed to a spell castewr
stop overthinking it

Appeal to tradition, argument for it invalid as a result, but I'll humor you. This wasn't always the case - this is SPECIFICALLY a 3.X issue, as any caster in previous editions could get murdered at the drop of a hat by any other intelligently-played class due to HP being lower across the board and due to having less spells. Oh, and making it harder to learn spells.

The reason newbies are typically instructed to play a martial class is because of the bookkeeping involved with playing a caster, not because they're worse at low-levels - in fact, a single 1st-level Wizard ends entire encounters with ONE SPELL twice a day and can turn the others with Daze(which they can cast three times per day) the rest of the day. Specialized Wizards get MORE spells, and Sorcerors get even more than that.

[Kompera]

Obviously he is considering the majority of the game, not just the first few level in which (as it has already been stated) fighters are on par with or superior to casters.
Stated, perhaps. But accurate? Highly debatable.

A 1st level Wizard with access to Sleep, Color Spray, and Charm Person is able to account for far more opponents without even getting into melee range than any 1st Fighter could hope to account for before running out of Hit Points and being cut down.

The 1st level Wizard has 3 0th level spells and 2 1st level spells, even with a 12 INT. If he can manage a 20 INT he has 3 1st level spells. If he is a specialist he has one more 1st level spell.
The 1st level Sorcerer has 5 0th level spells and 3 1st level spells per day. With CHA thus can be increased just as the Wizard can increase his spells per day via INT. And so a 1st Sorcerer with 20 CHA can have 5 0th level and 5 1st level spells per day.

And the imbalance just grows exponentially from there.

The drawback to this array of spells? A trivially few less HP (less than is able to be Slept or Color Sprayed, to put it into perspective. A difference of about twice the amount a Magic Missile will automatically hit and inflict from 110 feet away, for more perspective.) and 1 less BAB, probably more like 5 less BAB since the Fighter will have a high STR. Any other stat bonuses work equally well for both classes, so if the Fighter is assumed a high CON, a high CON also benefits a Wizard. If the Fighter is assumed a high DEX, the Wizard benefits from a high DEX also. A poor AC is really the worst of it when it comes to the balance between Fighters and Wizards at 1st level. Spells such as Shield can help here, because casters in D&D 3.x have answers to any conceivable game challenge. It wouldn't be magic otherwise.

[Thurbane]

This has absolutely not been established. Quite the opposite, in fact. Any 3.5 group made up of all full casting classes is going to be much more capable than one made up of some full casting classes and come non-casting classes.
Yeah, until they walk into an Antimagic Field and get wailed on by a bunch of Kobold Barbarians. :smalltongue:

[Frownbear]

Yeah, until they walk into an Antimagic Field and get wailed on by a bunch of Kobold Barbarians. :smalltongue:

Where do kobold barbarians get an antimagic field?

[Thurbane]

Where do kobold barbarians get an antimagic field?
Note: smalltongue smiley denotes tongue in cheek, but I'll humour you. From an NPC spellcaster.

The central issue in this debate seems to the relative power and balance of casters vs. non-casters within a party. I don't think anyone at all has stated a problem with the BBEG being more powerful than party members, have they?

[Frownbear]

Note: smalltongue smiley denotes tongue in cheek, but I'll humour you. From an NPC spellcaster.

An NPC spellcaster who casts it on himself, gets killed in a round, and can't affect anyone not 10' away from him with it?

[Thurbane]

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. You = win. :smallsmile:

[ericgrau]

Stated, perhaps. But accurate? Highly debatable.

A 1st level Wizard with access to Sleep, Color Spray, and Charm Person is able to account for far more opponents without even getting into melee range than any 1st Fighter could hope to account for before running out of Hit Points and being cut down.

The 1st level Wizard has 3 0th level spells and 2 1st level spells, even with a 12 INT. If he can manage a 20 INT he has 3 1st level spells. If he is a specialist he has one more 1st level spell.
The 1st level Sorcerer has 5 0th level spells and 3 1st level spells per day. With CHA thus can be increased just as the Wizard can increase his spells per day via INT. And so a 1st Sorcerer with 20 CHA can have 5 0th level and 5 1st level spells per day.

And the imbalance just grows exponentially from there.

The drawback to this array of spells? A trivially few less HP (less than is able to be Slept or Color Sprayed, to put it into perspective. A difference of about twice the amount a Magic Missile will automatically hit and inflict from 110 feet away, for more perspective.) and 1 less BAB, probably more like 5 less BAB since the Fighter will have a high STR. Any other stat bonuses work equally well for both classes, so if the Fighter is assumed a high CON, a high CON also benefits a Wizard. If the Fighter is assumed a high DEX, the Wizard benefits from a high DEX also. A poor AC is really the worst of it when it comes to the balance between Fighters and Wizards at 1st level. Spells such as Shield can help here, because casters in D&D 3.x have answers to any conceivable game challenge. It wouldn't be magic otherwise.

Backup would be appreciated. Most people find those spells and HP insufficient to fulfill your claims when they play. Short range and long casting time SoD's aren't that special when the 1/2 CR monsters can SoD you with a melee or often even a long ranged weapon as a standard action. The fighter, OTOH, can one shot them and survive retaliation.

And I came into this thread wondering if I would find a numbered list of things people dislike about 4e; thinking perhaps the thread fixed itself after page TWO. I'd post something on that subject if I had something to say, but really I came here to read and instead found nothing.

[Gavin Sage]

Stated, perhaps. But accurate? Highly debatable.

A 1st level Wizard with access to Sleep, Color Spray, and Charm Person is able to account for far more opponents without even getting into melee range than any 1st Fighter could hope to account for before running out of Hit Points and being cut down.

Charm Person, a +5 to the save. Requires further manipulation to do anything, and well what if they aren't persons? Oh and killing the thing's friends around it isn't threatening to it? Delays the fight, at best. Not a combat spell.

Color Spray, simple as coming from different enough directions or spacing out enemies. Narrow enough area to counter that strategy raises friendly fire concerns.

Sleep, full round casting time. Hello Concentration checks and damage with no hitpoints.

All of them also, heaven help you when a single monster does make a saving throw. Or its not the first encounter you've used spell in. Heck if casting all required a full round Wizards wouldn't step outside without armed guards.



The 1st level Wizard has 3 0th level spells and 2 1st level spells, even with a 12 INT. If he can manage a 20 INT he has 3 1st level spells. If he is a specialist he has one more 1st level spell.

A 20 stat to start huh... and when you aren't playing a race with an Int bonus, like oh any out of the PHB? I mean some of us like to play normal elves, or humans, or dwarves. A starting 20 Int is not going to happen.

Now even with a specialist, if you take one spell for utility or defense then where does that leave you. I'm personally a big fan of Mage Armor myself. Even if you take all combat spells oriented spells you have very little endurance.

First level Wizards are better spending most of their time with a missile weapon to help out the rest of the party and saving their spell for if the DM throws something extra nasty.


The 1st level Sorcerer has 5 0th level spells and 3 1st level spells per day. With CHA thus can be increased just as the Wizard can increase his spells per day via INT. And so a 1st Sorcerer with 20 CHA can have 5 0th level and 5 1st level spells per day.

While multiplying the issue if one takes utility or defense, they also don't scale up as well as Wizards. However I would say Sorcerors are better early on when spells are precious and rare.


And the imbalance just grows exponentially from there.

Nah Wizards are fine early on, and try running early levels without meat shields with swords. No depth or endurance. (Note this is addressable by things other then Fighters, but thats a separate issue entirely to begin with)



The drawback to this array of spells? A trivially few less HP

4 versus 10 means more then double the HP for the latter. Its the difference between one to two hits versus three to five. And poorer damage potential with higher strength bonuses and weapons dice.


A poor AC is really the worst of it when it comes to the balance between Fighters and Wizards at 1st level. Spells such as Shield can help here, because casters in D&D 3.x have answers to any conceivable game challenge. It wouldn't be magic otherwise.

Armor class is you can compensate for, but that's costing a spell. Multiple ones given the duration's involved potentially. No depth is the weakness, not a lack of options. And even then it takes awhile before the options become truely broken options.

Early level D&D is pretty good, its once one gets into mid-range and past level ten that the worst problems occur.

[Vortling]

I have to say that after playing in several different games at both heroic and paragon tier I think the part of 4e I dislike the most is monster powers. So often they're much better than anything you can obtain as a player that it just leaves me feeling terribly unheroic and not very competent. I understand that having class levels makes my character a "cut above the rest" but it doesn't feel like it when I'm facing down the monsters. Each and every encounter seems to provide the monsters with some sort of major ability to frustrate the player's attempts to be heroic and to hamper the players in ways that are straight up boring to fight against and drag the fight out unreasonably. This isn't merely a function of the low level characters, I also find it present when playing in paragon tier.

Minions don't make me feel any better. Their singular hit and nil for powers exacerbates my sense of frustration when I get around to dropping powers on normal monsters.

It doesn't help the situation any that the monsters have a huge load of hitpoints. After seeing an ordinary monster of xp rating specific for our level take nearly max damage, more than enough to kill my warlord right out, from the ranger and not even become bloodied I just sigh and wonder when I as a player get to start having cool powers that have the awesome effects that monster powers do. They certainly haven't shown up by level 11.

In short, I'm feeling frustrated with 4e since any character I make is completely overshadowed by the monsters that they're fighting.

[nagora]

In short, I'm feeling frustrated with 4e since any character I make is completely overshadowed by the monsters that they're fighting.
Maybe I'm being thick here, but are you saying that these monsters keep killing your characters?

[Starbuck_II]

Maybe I'm being thick here, but are you saying that these monsters keep killing your characters?

His problem appears to be while they kick monster butt as a group: individually monsters have better powers than he does he thinks.

[Vortling]

Maybe I'm being thick here, but are you saying that these monsters keep killing your characters?

Nope. I've yet to have a character die in 4e. I've had characters run away from fights, but not had one die yet. I've not decided if this is an advantage or not yet.



His problem appears to be while they kick monster butt as a group: individually monsters have better powers than he thinks he does.


I've played clerics, a fighter, a rogue, and a warlord and pretty much every time I pull out a power that I think is going to be effective, the monsters come back with something that makes my efforts irrelevant. The clerics and warlord were unable to out heal ongoing damage, even though healing is supposed to be more effective. One of the clerics also ended up with a lot of powers that helped out AC in a fight where all but one of the enemies targeted other defenses. The rogue wasn't able to get sneak attack due to the amazing movement powers of the enemies we were facing. The fighter ended up separated from the squishies due to the enemies excellent controlling powers and wasn't able to keep them from getting pounded.

I want to play cooperatively. I just don't feel like I'm contributing when all my efforts to play a class in the role it's supposed to be played in end up ineffective against what the monsters can throw against us. :smallfrown:

[Prophaniti]

Neither Gandalf nor Merlin could have ruled in either setting. Perhaps it is you who need to reread those stories.

Missed this earlier, just wanted to touch on one thing. You did make a good point about Merlin, that's usually the case, though his level of power varies depending on which version you read.

Gandalf, though... If you've read the Silmarilion, you know that Gandalf is indeed the same kind of being as Sauron, both Maia. Sauron's greater power is because he focuses on destruction and domination, more direct forms and methods of power than those Gandalf was willing to use. Gandalf himself has a line stating that all he should need to do is stretch out his hand and claim the ring, and he would supplant the Dark Lord. The Istari were sent to Middle Earth precisely because they are the same beings as Sauron.

Moving on...

Where do kobold barbarians get an antimagic field? Where does anyone get anything that's used in these discussions? It is a possibility, therefore it is a constant. That certainly seems to be the line of thought for most of those who claim wizards dominate everything, at least.

[nagora]

Gandalf, though... If you've read the Silmarilion, you know that Gandalf is indeed the same kind of being as Sauron, both Maia. Sauron's greater power is because he focuses on destruction and domination, more direct forms and methods of power than those Gandalf was willing to use.
There are different degrees of Maia; Sauron is greater than the Balrog but both are Maia. It seems to me that Gandalf is not up to Sauron's level of power.


Gandalf himself has a line stating that all he should need to do is stretch out his hand and claim the ring, and he would supplant the Dark Lord.
Yes, using the power of Sauron in the Ring, not his own alone.


The Istari were sent to Middle Earth precisely because they are the same beings as Sauron.
And told to work through others partly because they could not overcome Sauron by themselves (even as a group they only forced a weakend Sauron to retreat from Dol Guldur).


Nope. I've yet to have a character die in 4e. I've had characters run away from fights, but not had one die yet.
Then unless you're running away all the time you are not being overshadowed by the monsters and the problem is elsewhere than the system, or it's a more subtle problem than you are seeing.

[The New Bruceski]

I want to play cooperatively. I just don't feel like I'm contributing when all my efforts to play a class in the role it's supposed to be played in end up ineffective against what the monsters can throw against us. :smallfrown:

Is it possible it could be selective memory? I've seen quite a few fights that lock down one character or another, but usually it's rather spread around. For example, we went through one area where a good number of the enemies had fire resistance, making our pyro Wizard a bit frustrated. Meanwhile my Fighter felt ineffective when fighting swarms of ranged kobolds, or in a fight yesterday against Dryads (teleport between trees freely, we were in a very tight forest, so I couldn't lock them down).

On the other hand, just before that we'd had a fight in a cave where I was very effective at holding the line, but that's not the one I remember first. Frustration is a strong emotion; the encounters that cause it tend to stick in the memory.

It could be that you have actually been having a problem. I'd just like you to think about it, see if you've joined me in the trap of perception.

[Crow]

There does seem to be a certain sense of frustration when you crit with your best daily power and it isn't enough to kill a level 1 monster.

[Kompera]

Missed this earlier, just wanted to touch on one thing. You did make a good point about Merlin, that's usually the case, though his level of power varies depending on which version you read.

Gandalf, though... If you've read the Silmarilion, you know that Gandalf is indeed the same kind of being as Sauron, both Maia.

I won't take the time to hunt through the books, but here is a third party reference which disputes that:

Referring to Sauron: "Though less mighty than the chief Valar, he was more powerful than many of his fellow Maiar; Tolkien noted that he was of a "far higher order" than the Maiar who later came to Middle-earth as the Wizards Gandalf and Saruman."

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauron)
Being a collaboratively edited reference I won't claim that it is irrefutable. But it matched my memory and so I will accept it unless a contradicting reference can be provided.

Edit: Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_(Middle-earth)) is another interesting tidbit.

"In about T.A. 1000, the Valar sent some Maiar to Middle-earth to help contest the evil of Sauron; they still had great skills of hand and mind but were cloaked in the guise of men, seeming old and weak. Their mission was to guide elves and men by gaining trust and spreading knowledge, not by ruling them with fear and force. They were known as the Istari, or Wizards, and included Gandalf the Grey and Saruman the White."

This, if accepted as accurate (and I do not recall this from my reading of the works of Tolkein) begs the question: If Gandalf is as potent as Sauron, why was it necessary to send a huge pack of his kind to oppose him? One would be an equal, right? Surely two would suffice, if one were being cautious about it. Three, at the outside? It also further reinforces the fact that Gandalf and his ilk were not meant to rule, even if they were capable of the attempt.

[Kompera]

*lots of stuff about ways to beat magic users*
I won't claim that Wizards and other full caster classes have no weaknesses, or that they are impossible to beat given surprise or numerical advantage. Things which are also very potent against non-casters, by the way.

I will maintain that they are more potent at any level than non-casters.

Most of your described tactics against casters such as "coming from different enough directions or spacing out enemies" are also quite effective against non-casters, since you're obviously assuming a numerical advantage and enough advanced notice of the conflict to spread the opposing group out against spells with a range of 110 feet. Use the same tactics against your 1st level Fighter and see who live longer, the Wizard or the Fighter. My money is on the Wizard.

[Jerthanis]

I want to play cooperatively. I just don't feel like I'm contributing when all my efforts to play a class in the role it's supposed to be played in end up ineffective against what the monsters can throw against us. :smallfrown:

That does suck, 4th edition is meant to be hard, and because it's a tactical game, it means the most common way for fights to be hard is for the villains to outmaneuver or counter the heroes whenever possible.

As a cleric there are certain ways to heal ongoing damage, by granting allies an additional save against the effect. Time it right (and be lucky) and they never even take the ongoing element of the damage.

I can understand your frustration, and it's too bad you don't like being countered, but the things that are making you frustrated are some of the things I like best about 4th edition so far.

[Prophaniti]

Well, the point I was making about Gandalf is that he certainly COULD have accomplished more than others in the story, including Aragorn. He did not because he chose not to, chose to accept his role in the background, as he was assigned.

Isn't all that applicable to a game of D&D, though, since Tolkien's magic was never clearly defined, whereas magic in D&D certainly is. Also, stories have only limited relevance anyway, because in a story, what happens and what choices the characters make is orchestrated by one person, but in a tabletop RPG, everyone makes their own decisions. Things frequently happen quite differently than in your typical fantasy novel.

[Vortling]

That does suck, 4th edition is meant to be hard, and because it's a tactical game, it means the most common way for fights to be hard is for the villains to outmaneuver or counter the heroes whenever possible.

As a cleric there are certain ways to heal ongoing damage, by granting allies an additional save against the effect. Time it right (and be lucky) and they never even take the ongoing element of the damage.

I can understand your frustration, and it's too bad you don't like being countered, but the things that are making you frustrated are some of the things I like best about 4th edition so far.

I've not heard any of the designers mention that 4e was supposed to be hard. However if that's true it's one more design decision I have to completely disagree with. Especially since many people's first impression of D&D will now be a game that is oh so easy for the party to get screwed over if the tactical maneuvering doesn't grab the attention of everyone playing.

That does explain why I've seen groups with tactically minded DMs have more problems than groups that are better matches for their DM tactically. Personally I'm not really interested in the tactical part of 4e because I only control one character, and an entire group is needed to affect encounters. When the video games based off 4e rules come out I'll probably find those pretty enjoyable, but when I only choose my singular character's actions I don't find it engaging. :smallsigh:

Overall my biggest frustration about it being hard is that there's nothing I can do about it. Character power in 4e is mostly static and the bonuses from powers are generally situational, leaving me with no real options for affecting how encounters play out. I just don't see the point of 30 levels if the game is going to play out the same at every level.

As to your last comment, I guess we have very different tastes in what we want from our RPGs.

[nagora]

I've not heard any of the designers mention that 4e was supposed to be hard. However if that's true it's one more design decision I have to completely disagree with. Especially since many people's first impression of D&D will now be a game that is oh so easy for the party to get screwed over if the tactical maneuvering doesn't grab the attention of everyone playing.

[snip]

As to your last comment, I guess we have very different tastes in what we want from our RPGs.
You know, 1e is still available in PDF or off eBay...:smallwink:

[Knaight]

Fudge is still available on PDF for free. And frankly if D&D dies and multiple indie RPGs come to the front, all I'll have to say is "about time".

[Nerzul9000]

how can you say that?!
RPG's? the first of wich being D&D byt the way
have always been based on D&D and tried to be more like it...
how could it die?

[ZekeArgo]

how can you say that?!
RPG's? the first of wich being D&D byt the way
have always been based on D&D and tried to be more like it...
how could it die?

No, they really, really haven't. There are a number of truly excellent RPGs out there that have *nothing* to do with DnD, and many argue that they get as little press as they do simply because of the sheer pervasiveness of DnD within geek culture and the passing knowledge of people who don't play RPGs at all.

[Nerzul9000]

No, they really, really haven't. There are a number of truly excellent RPGs out there that have *nothing* to do with DnD, and many argue that they get as little press as they do simply because of the sheer pervasiveness of DnD within geek culture and the passing knowledge of people who don't play RPGs at all.

first thing first...love the Urza...:)
second...Please give me examples...
im pretty open minded and would totally be open to tring anything

[arguskos]

first thing first...love the Urza...:)
second...Please give me examples...
im pretty open minded and would totally be open to tring anything
GURPS, the Generic Universal Roleplaying System, has nothing to do with D&D at all.

World of Darkness, and all it's myriad bastard children (like Vampire, Werewolf, Changeling, etc), are very unique and nothing like D&D.

The aforementioned Fudge is nothing like D&D.

Seriously, there are hundreds of RPG systems in the world that have nothing to do with D&D at all, and are all pretty much fine in their own way. Amber, Scion, Exalted, World of Darkness, GURPS, Fudge, the list goes on and on.

-argus

[Knaight]

Fudge shares almost nothing, Fate and Spirit of the Century, admittedly based on Fudge also share almost nothing, less than Fudge even, Gurps slightly more. Traveler is far from a Tolkien clone, Risus, which is admittedly a decidedly un-serious RPG has nothing from D&D, and Exalted claims to be unrelated. That said most share a little, and early D&D was really good in that regard. I don't wish it had never been, I just think it has outlived its usefulness.

Oh and no offense, but please try proper punctuation and capitalization. If english, or similarly punctuated languages which use the roman script aren't your native language, then no problem.

EDIT: Ninja'd, or however thats spelled. Everything pertains to the post 2 above mine.

[Nerzul9000]

Sorry, Working on it, the language
and Fudge? i will look

[Nerzul9000]

i've played vampire. fun but similer in play
FUDGE seem very Complicated

[arguskos]

I don't wish it had never been, I just think it has outlived its usefulness.
This is an interesting point. I disagree that D&D has outlived its usefulness. Rather, I think that the days of its near-stranglehold on the market needs to end. It is a fun game still (even counting 4e), and I would think the world a darker place if it was to die suddenly. That being said, I would like some more indie RPG's come to the forefront for a time. Who knows what could happen if, say, Scion had D&D's popularity? It's an interesting thought for sure, but I sincerely doubt that the world would be better off if D&D died tomorrow.

-argus

[Knaight]

Huge improvement. And I really don't see where your seeing complexity in Fudge. PM me, and I'll help you figure it out, its very different from D&D, which could be a possible source of complexity. Maybe.

[ZerglingOne]

Here's what I hate about 4e besides everything.

1. When 2e went to 3e and feats, BAB, and skills for all phased out proficiencies, THAC0, and skills for monk, ranger, and rogue only, there wasn't a whole lot different about the game as a whole. Sure you had stats raising every 4 levels and a few other key differences, but it was fundamentally the same game. Now we have a whole new d20 system under the D&D name, 4e is not Dungeons and Dragons anymore.

That's my main, biggest problem...the rest are not in the order of which pisses me off the most, they're all pretty equal in my opinion.

2. Mages lost a lot of utility.
3. Clerics are all but useless now.
4. There is no such thing as a normal attack, there are at-will powers. While there may be normal attacks, you'd be an idiot to use anything other than your at-will powers.
5. Healing surges. While I realize our characters are heroes, nothing explains healing surges.
6. A lack of explanation for many abilities.
7. No class specific tables to show advancement.
8. No real sense of danger at 1st level. You have sky-high hp at level 1
9. Lack of advancement. Basically between level 1 and paragon, you get next to nothing outside of at-will/encounter powers and a pittance of hp.
10. Magic attack rolls.
11. Poor organization of the books.
12. Every character class essentially has a spellbook. This is stupid because if I'm a fighter, I want to smash things with a stick, not worry about what at-will, encounter, or daily ability I have prepared...
13. No natural critical hit modifier. A crit denotes that you stab them in/chop through some vital organ causing a hideous amount of damage, not "you hit as hard as you normally could"
14. Dumbing down of the game.
15. Multi-classing/prestige classing has been dumbed down and is now called a "paragon" class.
16. No 107 pages of inspiring spells...seriously, I almost cried at how little magic was still in the game.
17. The skill system. Hate.
18. Shifting of the core PC races.
19. Having 99% of the game be combat oriented. This diminishes roleplaying which is what DnD is all about.
20. Lessening of a death penalty. Death used to actually cost...now the heavens have become a revolving door as adventurers throw caution to the wind.

I'm going to stop at 20 regardless of the fact that I could keep going on for hours and hours on this. 4e is the worst thing to happen to DnD ever.

[Knaight]

Again, ninja'd, once directly before this post, which in itself was referring to the last one. Its hopping around here. That said, its the stranglehold on the market causing the problem, and the game just stopping and going out of print would put a stop to that. If it was pulled back to the level of Fudge, there would be no problem. Its an interesting thought of Scion having D&D's popularity, although I don't know enough about Scion to really elaborate. That said, picture Fudge, or Risus having D&Ds popularity. That would be really interesting. Or mutants and masterminds for that matter, but its a lot more like D&D than Scion, Fudge, Risus, or pretty much every game thats not D&D.

[arguskos]

If it was pulled back to the level of Fudge, there would be no problem.
Well, honestly, if it was pulled back THAT far, it'd freaking die. Let's be honest about it, Fudge is not a common game. Not saying it's bad mind you, just uncommon to the point of being more than a little scarce.

What I'd like to see is D&D (and every other RPG system, actually) on a GURPS-scale. Just enough market so that you can fairly easily find it, but not so saturated that it pervades the entire genre like a bad weed. I think that's the best solution to the chokehold of D&D. Just my .02 anyway.

Also, yeah, I'm like a Knaight ninja today or something. :smallbiggrin:

-argus

[Nerzul9000]

only one problem...
living in a relativly small town(20,000(with collage kids)...ya wyoming sucks)
i've NEVER seen GURPS populating our local nerd-spot's shelves
so i'd die if D&D went under...

[Knaight]

Actually a GURPS scale would be really nice. Although that said I can think of a few RPGs that really don't need that sort of publicity. If what I heard about the eighties were accurate(I wasn't exactly born by then), and D&D managed to generate that bad of a rep I don't even want to think about what would happen if FATAL ever became well known.

And if D&D went under, something else would take its place. Probably World of Darkness, unless your store also sells a lot of collectible card games to little kids, in which case GURPS.

[Edea]

Actually a GURPS scale would be really nice. Although that said I can think of a few RPGs that really don't need that sort of publicity. If what I heard about the eighties were accurate(I wasn't exactly born by then), and D&D managed to generate that bad of a rep I don't even want to think about what would happen if FATAL ever became well known.

And if D&D went under, something else would take its place. Probably World of Darkness, unless your store also sells a lot of collectible card games to little kids, in which case GURPS.

I wish FATAL was uniformally erased from the memories of everyone living at this moment. What a disastrous squickfest.

[Knaight]

I pity the author's children. Also anyone else living within a mile.

[DrowVampyre]

I pity the author's children. Also anyone else living within a mile.

I wasn't aware it was possible for humans to mate with microwaved cantaloupes... >_> <_< DAMN YOU SCIENCE!!! :smallwink:

[Turcano]

I pity the author's children. Also anyone else living within a mile.

What makes you think they have children?

[Prophaniti]

I'm gonna echo Nerzul9000 here. If all of them were on a GURPS scale, I'd hardly ever see them, and I live in a much larger town. Our hobby shop (sometimes more than one, but only one stays open steadily) never has GURPS stuff. Heck they barely have any D&D stuff, I get most of that from the local book stores, which carry pretty much only D&D because of how popular it is. Sometimes I can find some other stuff there, like Shadowrun or something, but I've yet to see GURPS, which is a pity.

Also, if they were on that scale, even online ordering might be more difficult. I dunno. I'll always like D&D, if only for the nostalgia of the first RPG I played, but it would be nice to see some other names out there with regularity.

EDIT: Sorry, I don't know enough about FATAL to properly mock it, which judging by the reactions of others is probably a good thing.

[Starsinger]

Here's what I hate about 4e besides everything.

I'm going to stop at 20 regardless of the fact that I could keep going on for hours and hours on this. 4e is the worst thing to happen to DnD ever.

Heh.. I haven't done this in a while,

The fourth reached out an eager hand,
and felt above the knee,
"What this most wondrous beast
is like is very plain" said he,
"'Tis clear enough the elephant
is very like a tree."

[Dhavaer]

EDIT: Sorry, I don't know enough about FATAL to properly mock it, which judging by the reactions of others is probably a good thing.

I believe the one sentence summary is:

(NSFW)
Roll for anal circumference. :smalleek:

[nagora]

I'm gonna echo Nerzul9000 here. If all of them were on a GURPS scale, I'd hardly ever see them, and I live in a much larger town. Our hobby shop (sometimes more than one, but only one stays open steadily) never has GURPS stuff.
Ours usually has a shelf or two (town pop. is ~65000); most space is 3e then a bunch of indies and some classics like RuneQuest. 4e is yet to appear.

Personally, Fudge is a little too abstract for me, although I've played and designed similar games quite often over the years. I've also come to the conclusion that detailed skill systems simply aren't worth the bother and classes reflect heroic fantasy (as well as how we actually play even with a skill system) better.

[Thurbane]

Heh.. I haven't done this in a while,

The fourth reached out an eager hand,
and felt above the knee,
"What this most wondrous beast
is like is very plain" said he,
"'Tis clear enough the elephant
is very like a tree."
OK, you keep throwing out bits and pieces of this (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1), which basically equates in posting terms to "+1". It stopped being funny, or clever, quite some time ago. :smallconfused:

[Skyserpent]

OK, you keep throwing out bits and pieces of this (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1), which basically equates in posting terms to "+1". It stopped being funny, or clever, quite some time ago. :smallconfused:

That's weird. I sort of interpreted it as her DISAGREEING with the previous post.

Or am I misunderstanding "+1"?

[Viruzzo]

My two cents (literally two).

1) Corporate is corporate, indie is indie. As with music, there is a level in popularity and diffusion that only the big shots can attain. Also, many times indie stuff of any kind is more niche-oriented than mainstream, especially more oriented towards non-newbies. This means that as long as the mainstream stuff is decent it will be immensly more widespread, and as long as the indie stuff is not undoubtedly superior and accessible it will be overshadowed.

2) In Italy there is little market for RPGs to begin with: much larger cities aside, the only stores that sell them are primarily comic shops, CCGs shops or minis shops, having RPGs as only a tertiary business if not less. Almost none of this have people playing RPGs in them (the one with tables are only crowded with CCG players), none have bullettins with people looking for players/DMs or such things, and the only stuff they have is D&D (no 3rd party splatbooks whatsoever of course) and some WoD. If more "indie" games are even published in Italian, they don't sell and so they are not present in the stores. So the scene is quite desolated, most people I know of come from OD&D or AD&D and have not gone farther than 2e, and probably the LARPG scene is relatively more active than the pen and paper one.
If D&D (or any other more famous RPG) were to become common as indies, we would have the total death of the hobby in stores. Probably overall having a "standard" RPG is not only natural, is necessary.

[nagora]

OK, you keep throwing out bits and pieces of this (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1), which basically equates in posting terms to "+1". It stopped being funny, or clever, quite some time ago. :smallconfused:
Apparently it's still a bit too clever: I think it was meant as a criticism not a "+1".

[Hopeless]

Inspired by Lupy's thread about compiling features people like about 4'th edition, I felt that we should compile a list of specific features people dislike about the upcoming 4'th edition of D&D.

This thread is created in the hopes of finding common changes which seem unpopular, and looking for common elements why people don't like said changes.

That said, this is what I particularly dislike about 4'th edition

Where do I start?

1) After saying they were removing the lawful and chaotic side of the alignments they then reintroduced Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil ignoring the fact these were the problem in the first place!
It should have been Good then Unaligned and then Evil with Lawful located above Unaligned and Chaotic beneath it, absolutely NO LG nor CE this way any Paladin can be Lawful and isn't required to be LG or CE since they can be both!

2) 4e should have been separated into three sets of core rulebooks and by that I mean 4e D&D the Heroic Tier, then the Paragon Tier and finally the Epic Tier so that monsters and treasure can be separated into these tiers without that rubbish about you needing to be 12th level to make use of a magical ring...

3) Why add the tiefling and the draconian sorry dragonborn (but we do know what it really should have been called now don't we) to the 4e phb when they certainly weren't needed before and still aren't.
This should have been developed via I don't know lets say some medium that could be read by everybody and by that I mean a magazine and not some deeply flawed internet medium, you do need to have it reach as many people as possible and limiting yourself to an electronic medium when your site just isn't working properly isn't good for business.

4) Why dragonborn? afraid someone with the surname of Weiss would sue you?

5) I like making up my own pc's all you've done is limited me to your pathetic creations... sorry but its true why would i want to run any game where it devolves into seeing what creatures meet the encounter level and why would I want skill challenges when the previous system fitted the role better?
You need to make 3 successes before you make 3 failures, so because we're sneaking through a forest to avoid being seen by the gathered foe outside said forest only to find it was actually to avoid the patrol inside the forest... what is Perception for then?

Oh look you see a patrol in front of you, you both see each other at the same time, pardon?

I'd rule this as you make it into the forest but suddenly find the forest strangely quiet no wait what is that sound...

So we have to make skill challenges for checks we certainly wouldn't be expecting since after all most of us haven't played 4e before and me in particular am less than enthusiastic about running it ever again!
Sorry I just feel they really hashed this up and I don't mean just with their mangled PR but everything feels like some fanboy got to have their way with entire setting and they should have been held to account.

It makes me wonder how Ed Greenwood is dealing with this, how does he keep so cheerful?
Reminds me of those Japanese shows where the contestants have to endure awful exercises and make me wonder if Mr Greenwood and co have extraordinary endurance.

Anyway I can hope they do better, can't I?

[ZekeArgo]

Where do I start?

1) After saying they were removing the lawful and chaotic side of the alignments they then reintroduced Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil ignoring the fact these were the problem in the first place!
It should have been Good then Unaligned and then Evil with Lawful located above Unaligned and Chaotic beneath it, absolutely NO LG nor CE this way any Paladin can be Lawful and isn't required to be LG or CE since they can be both!

It still is. Chaotic Good = Good, Lawful Evil = Evil. Not much of a huge thing because the alignment system doesn't even matter all that much anymore.


2) 4e should have been separated into three sets of core rulebooks and by that I mean 4e D&D the Heroic Tier, then the Paragon Tier and finally the Epic Tier so that monsters and treasure can be separated into these tiers without that rubbish about you needing to be 12th level to make use of a magical ring...

*sigh* You don't need to be a *level* to use the items, its just the item level of the damn thing. For example: would you give a 1st level player a +6 Holy Avenger? No? Same deal here.


3) Why add the tiefling and the draconian sorry dragonborn (but we do know what it really should have been called now don't we) to the 4e phb when they certainly weren't needed before and still aren't.
This should have been developed via I don't know lets say some medium that could be read by everybody and by that I mean a magazine and not some deeply flawed internet medium, you do need to have it reach as many people as possible and limiting yourself to an electronic medium when your site just isn't working properly isn't good for business.

4) Why dragonborn? afraid someone with the surname of Weiss would sue you?

Half Dragons and teiflings were very popular in the last edition, dispite being a poor choice due to LA issues. So they gave people what they saw them wanting: Teiflings and Half Dragons. Whomever Weiss is doesn't have a copyright on draconic beings, since they've been used all over the place, nevermind *already* being in 3.X


5) I like making up my own pc's all you've done is limited me to your pathetic creations... sorry but its true why would i want to run any game where it devolves into seeing what creatures meet the encounter level and why would I want skill challenges when the previous system fitted the role better?
You need to make 3 successes before you make 3 failures, so because we're sneaking through a forest to avoid being seen by the gathered foe outside said forest only to find it was actually to avoid the patrol inside the forest... what is Perception for then?

Oh look you see a patrol in front of you, you both see each other at the same time, pardon?

I'd rule this as you make it into the forest but suddenly find the forest strangely quiet no wait what is that sound...

So we have to make skill challenges for checks we certainly wouldn't be expecting since after all most of us haven't played 4e before and me in particular am less than enthusiastic about running it ever again!
Sorry I just feel they really hashed this up and I don't mean just with their mangled PR but everything feels like some fanboy got to have their way with entire setting and they should have been held to account.

It makes me wonder how Ed Greenwood is dealing with this, how does he keep so cheerful?
Reminds me of those Japanese shows where the contestants have to endure awful exercises and make me wonder if Mr Greenwood and co have extraordinary endurance.

Anyway I can hope they do better, can't I?

So much blater about nothing. The skill challenge system was errata'd to make them more concise, nevermind that 3.X skills were a gorram mess.

As for greenwood? He can toss off and go cry in a corner with his Mary-Stu Elmenster.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Here's what I hate about 4e besides everything.

Okay.


1. When 2e went to 3e and feats, BAB, and skills for all phased out proficiencies, THAC0, and skills for monk, ranger, and rogue only, there wasn't a whole lot different about the game as a whole. Sure you had stats raising every 4 levels and a few other key differences, but it was fundamentally the same game. Now we have a whole new d20 system under the D&D name, 4e is not Dungeons and Dragons anymore.

That's my main, biggest problem...the rest are not in the order of which pisses me off the most, they're all pretty equal in my opinion.

3e was WAY different - and I think in a good way - from the 2nd edition system. I like the whole internal consitency with skills and such. Sure, some of it was quite arbritrary (Hide and Move silently as seperate skills?), but even those made sense.
But now, suddenly a d20 is used for everything? AC has no upper limit? EVERYONE gets multiple attacks/round. The 2e - 3e change was pretty significant, actually.


2. Mages lost a lot of utility.
3. Clerics are all but useless now.

Mages and clerics still have rituals. I concur that now EVERYONE can cast rituals with the right feat and skill training, so its no longer so Mage-tastic. Everything has been simplified to Damage Dice, now. Its easier. Like 3e is easier than 2e.

4. There is no such thing as a normal attack, there are at-will powers. While there may be normal attacks, you'd be an idiot to use anything other than your at-will powers.
"Basic Attacks" - Covered in the chapter on combat.

5. Healing surges. While I realize our characters are heroes, nothing explains healing surges.
"NO longer shall our poorly-played Cleric be a band-aid! You now have limited times you can be healed per day! We have a serious design flaw in that you can't expand them without an ability being triggered saying you can!

6. A lack of explanation for many abilities.
+1 Badass. OR "You leveled up, here are your new tricks, according to our arbritrary system!"

7. No class specific tables to show advancement.
No need, its been simplified, like XP was simplifed from 2e to 3e. All classes share the same table. Its in Chapter One.

8. No real sense of danger at 1st level. You have sky-high hp at level 1
The enemy has higher numbers, too, you know. Also - Less Gritty, more Heroic seems to be their directions, here for LVL 1 Campagins.

9. Lack of advancement. Basically between level 1 and paragon, you get next to nothing outside of at-will/encounter powers and a pittance of hp.
Not a single dead level, actually. And actually, you only get At-Wills at first level. You pick up Encounters, Dailies and Utility Spells (Utilities being usable either per encounter or per day)

10. Magic attack rolls. I fail to see how this is bad.

11. Poor organization of the books. Explain?

12. Every character class essentially has a spellbook. This is stupid because if I'm a fighter, I want to smash things with a stick, not worry about what at-will, encounter, or daily ability I have prepared... Understood to a point. Now note that everyone is a spontaneous Caster. Only Wizards prepare, and thats only their Daily powers.

13. No natural critical hit modifier. A crit denotes that you stab them in/chop through some vital organ causing a hideous amount of damage, not "you hit as hard as you normally could" Agree with you here, I do.

14. Dumbing down of the game. While its more "Friendly", Streamlined, and simplified... wait... no, I kinda agree here, too.

15. Multi-classing/prestige classing has been dumbed down and is now called a "paragon" class. Lack of multi-classing, except through Terribly restricted feats makes me weep, I agree.

Did you catch the "Rituals" Chapter?
[QUOTE=ZerglingOne;4774768]17. The skill system. Hate. Agree. It feels... too compact, almost. Also - where did my Craft (Delicous Stew) skill go?

18. Shifting of the core PC races. I'm neither content with the dropping of the gnome, nor the addition of the Dragonborn. Some Playable Races in the MM seem pretty cool, too - Shadar-Kai, for example. I think they should drop DragonBorn and throw in Aasamir.

19. Having 99% of the game be combat oriented. This diminishes roleplaying which is what DnD is all about. D&D Basic was a Turn-Based Strategy Game on a very small scale, you know - as in, you controlled one unit.

20. Lessening of a death penalty. Death used to actually cost...now the heavens have become a revolving door as adventurers throw caution to the wind.
Eh, keeps you from having Bob the Unlucky, But Beloved at level 4, running around with a Lvl 12 Party...


I'm going to stop at 20 regardless of the fact that I could keep going on for hours and hours on this. 4e is the worst thing to happen to DnD ever.

Entitled to your opinion, you are.

[Prophaniti]

Apparently it's still a bit too clever: I think it was meant as a criticism not a "+1".
I believe what he means is that said posts put out no new information, or as though they simply posted "Right" or "Wrong", a one-word post. Obviously, they would be "-1" posts, not "+1", but I've never seen the former used, only the latter, so that's what he used as an example.

I would certainly echo that, having seen Starsinger post such excerpts many times now, they have ceased to seem clever. To me at least. The point was made long ago, and if Starsinger continues everytime someone posts such a laundry list of things they don't like, I think more people are going to find it annoying, instead of clever.

Since this is a thread specifically for such posts, and since an opinion doesn't have to be entirely rational to begin with... I don't see why he's continuing.

There are things I don't like about 4e that are not truly rational. The best examples would be Tiefling/Dragonborn inclusion and the much-debated Healing Surges. Rationally, I know perfectly well why such were put in the game, and I'm certainly aware that Healing Surges can be rationalized from an in-game perspective (though sometimes not easily).

I still don't like them, and so far no amount of rational argument or discussion has changed my opinion of them. Much like no amount of rational argument for the benefits and merits of beans will ever make me want to eat them.:smallyuk:

[Matthew]

Here's another review of 4e: The Spoony Experiment (http://spoonyexperiment.blogspot.com/2008/07/dungeons-and-dragons-4th-edition-review.html).

[Knaight]

I believe the one sentence summary is:

(NSFW)
Roll for anal circumference. :smalleek:

I'm thinking the spell backfire which increases it might sum up the game a bit better.

[Morty]

Since this is a thread specifically for such posts, and since an opinion doesn't have to be entirely rational to begin with... I don't see why he's continuing.



Because those who don't like 4th edition obviously simply don't know what they're talking about. Duh.:smalltongue: Don't even bother with this "different viewpoint" or "different taste" nonsense.

[Gavin Sage]

There are things I don't like about 4e that are not truly rational. The best examples would be Tiefling/Dragonborn inclusion and the much-debated Healing Surges. Rationally, I know perfectly well why such were put in the game, and I'm certainly aware that Healing Surges can be rationalized from an in-game perspective (though sometimes not easily).

Given that the abstracted nature of HP to begin with is rather pushing the limits of believeable portrayal, adding Healing Surges has the effect to me of rendering the entire system a bunch of meaningless numbers with no basis in reality.

A dragon rakes you with his claws to the point of near death and then suddenly you aren't as nearly dead? To me its like saying every PC class is suddenly half-troll or something.

[Prophaniti]

Given that the abstracted nature of HP to begin with is rather pushing the limits of believeable portrayal, adding Healing Surges has the effect to me of rendering the entire system a bunch of meaningless numbers with no basis in reality.

A dragon rakes you with his claws to the point of near death and then suddenly you aren't as nearly dead? To me its like saying every PC class is suddenly half-troll or something.
This would fall into the "sometimes not easily" clause. Apparently, the HP scale only has two states.

1) tussled/knocked about/heroically bruised

2) dead.

If you're not in the second category, you're in the first. No actual injuries happen, because if they did they couldn't be explained away by a 'surge of heroism' or 'catching your breath' or 'restoring morale' or such.

I actually feel a good deal more strongly about healing surges than that post indicates, but I've vented that bile before, and just don't bother to much anymore (though I think I will a bit here, for old times sake:smallwink:). Especially since mostly the only rebuttals I get can be summed up as "your not imagining hard enough." Which completely misses my point, in that I don't like a mechanic that requires me to imagine so hard to see it happening. I have quite an active imagination, but also a mind that naturally seeks out vaugness and abstraction and attempts to clarify it. A mechanic that requires me to completely ignore that compulsion to be believable is simply not one I'm going to like.

(of course, this entire rant about HP is mostly applicable to any edition of D&D, or any game that uses the mechanic. It simply wasn't until 4e that I encountered the abstraction taken accross my personal mental breaking point. Last straw and all that, I just don't want to deal with HP at all anymore. When I DM I almost invariably use a wounds/hit locations/actual injuries system. When I'm a player, I put up with it because the rest of the game is still fun, and I like spending the time with friends and family. (No one was able to show yesterday for game night... I'm in a game-session-deprived funk today:smallfrown:))

[Viruzzo]

Just to clear, I think is Second Wind that it's causing you problems, and not Healing Surges. If you think it's wise, you can juste houserule it out and give some extra healing potions to the PCs...

[Oracle_Hunter]

Huh, I had forgotten the point of this thread. As a reminder:


This thread is created in the hopes of finding common changes which seem unpopular, and looking for common elements why people don't like said changes.

The good news is that now we can find commonalities! A brief list:

1) They Changed It Now It Sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks)

This category covers pure fluff or pure accounting changes which have so little effect on the actual game that there's not much to object to. This includes the loss of THAC0, a loss of "normal attacks," that fighters can no longer be good TWF, that the cosmology changed, that starting HP is higher than it used to be, and other general complaints that "this is a new system."

2) They don't have X anymore

This category includes specific races/classes/etc. that are not yet in 4e. This includes the lack of assamar, half-orc, druids, bards, and so on.

3) 4e is unrealistic

This category includes features of 4e that, for some reason, are too "unrealistic" for a fantasy roleplaying game. Commonly, these include Healing Surges, Martial Exploits, HP, Powers, XP, Skills, Skill Challenges, and others.

4) 4e doesn't let me play X

Different from #2 in that 4e no longer allows a specific kind of gameplay. These includes naval campaigns, space campaigns, baker campaigns, and so on.

5) Epic isn't Epic enough

This category includes claims that high-level play isn't sufficiently awesome. Common complaints are that Rituals cost too much, Wizards can't do everything, and that classes, in general, just aren't awesome enough at Epic levels.

6) Low-level play isn't low-level enough

This category includes claims that low-level play is not gritty enough. Common complaints are that healing is too easy, you can't permanently drain ability scores, 1st level characters have too many options in combat, and the like.

I think that covers all of the broad categories. Anything I missed?

[Morty]

I think you should add oversimplification, that no matter how hard pro 4ed people argue about how it's not true and the like, is a common concern voiced here. There's also the shift towards heroism and dramatism, although it might be covered by point 4. Also, is it just me or is this list somewhat biased?

[Oracle_Hunter]

I think you should add oversimplification, that no matter how hard pro 4ed people argue about how it's not true and the like, is a common concern voiced here. There's also the shift towards heroism and dramatism, although it might be covered by point 4. Also, is it just me or is this list somewhat biased?

Biased only in descriptors, not in text, I believe. You're right, of course - I missed oversimplification, I'll add it.

In case people want a more neutral-sounding list (*sigh*) here it is:
1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
3) 4e is unrealistic
4) 4e is too narrowly focused
5) 4e Epic isn't Epic
6) 4e Heroic isn't Gritty
7) 4e is oversimplified

[Morty]

Now, that's I think a good list of what people generally dislike about 4ed. I personally subscribe to 6, 7, 4 and somewhat 3.

[Killersquid]

I don't really dislike 4e, I just wouldn't play it. I mean, it looks like a hell of a fun game, but I like 3.5 more. Also, I'm really (REALLY) angry at Wizards for destroying my Forgotten Realms just for 4e:smallfurious:...so I guess I dislike 4e for that then?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Now, that's I think a good list of what people generally dislike about 4ed. I personally subscribe to 6, 7, 4 and somewhat 3.

:smallsigh: and Framing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(economics)) wins the day once again.

[Morty]

:smallsigh: and Framing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(economics)) wins the day once again.

I don't really know what you mean here. Yes, the second list is better because it's without commentary. It's straight and to the point, with less things to argue about.

[nagora]

Still not quite right:


1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
Fine

2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
This is simply factual; it's not in itself a criticism.

3) 4e is unrealistic
This should be "4e is too unrealistic".

The rest are fine.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I don't really know what you mean here. Yes, the second list is better because it's without commentary. It's straight and to the point, with less things to argue about.

But it's the exact same list - that's my point.

Brief discussion of Framing
"Framing" is the idea that people will choose differently when shown the exact same situation depending on how it is is presented. If I said "would you like to pay $10 for a 100% chance of getting $10" or "would you like to pay $10 for the 50% chance of getting $20" the answer should be the same in each case. However, few people choose the first option, but many people choose the second - that's why there are Roulette Wheels.

Here, I put up the same broad categories up twice. The first time I made it seem like the reasons were silly, but the second time I just put up placeholders. Turns out, people don't like associating their beliefs with "being silly" but are perfectly happy to associate those same beliefs with bland statements :smalltongue:

Anyhow, I'm glad that my list o' categories seems to gather up all the criticisms of 4e. Future posters, feel free to just say "I don't like 4e because #1, and #4-6" :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:
@Nakora - I'd put that up, but I wouldn't want to impugn the argument by insinuating that you can actually draw a line at "too unrealistic" without sounding like a looney. It's like saying "I like Superman comics because they're unbelievable to an acceptable degree, but Green Lantern is just too unbelievable for me to enjoy." :smalltongue:

[Morty]

Turns out, people don't like associating their beliefs with "being silly" but are perfectly happy to associate those same beliefs with bland statements :smalltongue:


And that surprises you? When you make someone's opinion look silly, they won't like it. It might not be entirely reasonable but the way you put something matters almost as much as this something's exact nature.

[Gavin Sage]

Especially since mostly the only rebuttals I get can be summed up as "your not imagining hard enough." Which completely misses my point, in that I don't like a mechanic that requires me to imagine so hard to see it happening. I have quite an active imagination, but also a mind that naturally seeks out vaugness and abstraction and attempts to clarify it. A mechanic that requires me to completely ignore that compulsion to be believable is simply not one I'm going to like.

This seems to be a fairly common refrain for problems with 4e, to ignore the mechanics and just play what you want to happen. If I'm going to have to wish away the mechanics I might as well just go free form to begin with and screw the whole notion. Or I'll play a video-game where they don't matter since its just pressing button to begin with. Which is what 4e seems to be trying really hard to be. Its not that I don't like video games or when mind they are simply have options not really explained. FFVII comes to mind with its unexplained Limit Breaks etc and is a game I like, but don't want to roleplay in the same way. When I'm going pen and paper I'm looking for an entirely different sort of immersion.

To me the strength of an RPG is in its metagame elements, if I can use that word. Do the mechanics allow you to meaningfully define and develop a character. 4e looses that immersion for me. (Not that 3.5 was perfect on this front, but you could houserule fixes a lot more easily when a DC was absurd)


(of course, this entire rant about HP is mostly applicable to any edition of D&D, or any game that uses the mechanic. It simply wasn't until 4e that I encountered the abstraction taken accross my personal mental breaking point. Last straw and all that, I just don't want to deal with HP at all anymore. When I DM I almost invariably use a wounds/hit locations/actual injuries system. When I'm a player, I put up with it because the rest of the game is still fun, and I like spending the time with friends and family. (No one was able to show yesterday for game night... I'm in a game-session-deprived funk today:smallfrown:))

HP is a stretch, but on its own is one I can just make and not worry about too much. And I've yet find an alternative that I think works quite right. Healing Surges step over the line with me because they blur the boundaries on where I need to place my suspension of disbelief. I can live with an extraordinary level of punishment allowed to be taken, because it holds to a sort of internal progression. It may not be realistic, but you can be severely hurt and it doesn't disappear or get shrugged off entirely. Healing Surges do exactly that though, you are never really hurt because its just something you can ignore or shrug off. Especially when you get into magical healing being expressed mechanically the same way as being a man and sucking it up, it just doesn't work anymore.

[Starsinger]

Because those who don't like 4th edition obviously simply don't know what they're talking about. Duh.:smalltongue: Don't even bother with this "different viewpoint" or "different taste" nonsense.

So very close. I don't mind someone not liking 4e for reasons such as, "I don't like it.", "It's not what I want from an RPG", or whatever, matters of taste are fine. It's when people say crap like "4e is an MMO!", "Clerics are useless!", "Healing Surges make everyone clerics!" "Fighters use magic in 4e/ToB!" y'know, when people have no idea what the hell they're talking about.


OK, you keep throwing out bits and pieces of this (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1), which basically equates in posting terms to "+1". It stopped being funny, or clever, quite some time ago. :smallconfused:

As for why I throw out pieces of the poem? Because I'm pretty sure if I just came out and said "You don't know what the hell you're talking about" I'd be banned in no time.

[Morty]

So very close. I don't mind someone not liking 4e for reasons such as, "I don't like it.", "It's not what I want from an RPG", or whatever, matters of taste are fine. It's when people say crap like "4e is an MMO!", "Clerics are useless!", "Healing Surges make everyone clerics!" "Fighters use magic in 4e/ToB!" y'know, when people have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

ZerglingOne's complaints seemed to be of the first variety, if you ask me. Most complaints about any system are, really.

[nagora]

Here's another review of 4e: The Spoony Experiment (http://spoonyexperiment.blogspot.com/2008/07/dungeons-and-dragons-4th-edition-review.html).

"They all fill a role. Rangers do what they're supposed to do which is to do a lot of damage..."

Well, I guess that sums up what's wrong with 4e in a nutshell, doesn't it?

What is the role of a ranger?: is it to be an outdoors kind of wilderness expert who can track and do all kinds of survival stuff, possibly guiding a party of townies across tracks of wilderness or banding together with other rangers and druids to counter unnatural threats to the balance of nature and so one? Or is the ranger's role to deal a lot of damage in combat?

Talk about limited horizons! That's not a "role" except in the limited scope of combat. Why would I want to play that role? Where's the characterisation?

"Hi, I'm Bob. I'm a ranger and my likes are doing lots of damage and...well, that's about it. So, if you like doing lots of damage too, why not give me a call and maybe we can damage some stuff together, yeah?"

I've noticed this in posts here too - classes which are defined totally by their ability to contribute in a pre-defined way to combat.

What a waste of paper.


I'd put that up, but I wouldn't want to impugn the argument by insinuating that you can actually draw a line at "too unrealistic" without sounding like a looney. It's like saying "I like Superman comics because they're unbelievable to an acceptable degree, but Green Lantern is just too unbelievable for me to enjoy."

"My fighter can take on ten normal men in single combat and win!"

Fine.

"My fighter can flap his arms and fly to the moon because he was born on a Wednesday. There's a big Wednesday club up there; it's cool."

Too unrealistic.

[Starsinger]

ZerglingOne's complaints seemed to be of the first variety, if you ask me. Most complaints about any system are, really.

Points 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are blatantly untrue. Points 4 and 13 are technically true as written but still based in ignorance.

[Prophaniti]

Here, I put up the same broad categories up twice. The first time I made it seem like the reasons were silly, but the second time I just put up placeholders. Turns out, people don't like associating their beliefs with "being silly" but are perfectly happy to associate those same beliefs with bland statements Please. This is just appeal to ridicule (which is an argumentative and logical fallacy, for those that aren't familiar with it). Restating someone's argument in such a way as to make it seem silly or ridiculous. What you yourself say you did. Of course no one wants to agree with something that blatantly seems so silly. That doesn't mean the core argument is silly, merely that you restated it in a satiric manner, which people found objectionable.



EDIT:
@Nakora - I'd put that up, but I wouldn't want to impugn the argument by insinuating that you can actually draw a line at "too unrealistic" without sounding like a looney. It's like saying "I like Superman comics because they're unbelievable to an acceptable degree, but Green Lantern is just too unbelievable for me to enjoy." :smalltongue:
Here again, you use appeal to ridicule. There is indeed a line between 'unrealistic' and 'too unrealistic', a line where willing suspension of disbelief is strained too much. Everyone has their line in a different place, but everyone has one. There is, in fact, nothing illogical or incorrect about stating, "Superman I can enjoy, but Green Lantern pushes it too far." You may not agree, but for this person, Green Lantern simply goes beyond the boundaries to which they are willing to suspend said disbelief.

[Gavin Sage]

Biased only in descriptors, not in text, I believe. You're right, of course - I missed oversimplification, I'll add it.

In case people want a more neutral-sounding list (*sigh*) here it is:
1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
3) 4e is unrealistic
4) 4e is too narrowly focused
5) 4e Epic isn't Epic
6) 4e Heroic isn't Gritty
7) 4e is oversimplified

I actually thought the first version was pretty neutral too. A little snarky, but not terribly inaccurate.

In any case I to varying degrees support every point but number seven. Simply because I think 4e has too many odd mechanics to track to really rank as truly simplified.

[Oracle_Hunter]

And that surprises you? When you make someone's opinion look silly, they won't like it. It might not be entirely reasonable but the way you put something matters almost as much as this something's exact nature.

Of course it's not surprising - people do it all the time. That doesn't mean I can't be amused when Behavioral Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_finance) turns out to be useful.

@Nagora: Sure :smalltongue:
@Prophaniti: Of course I appealed to ridicule. Obviously I think none of these claims is an objectively "good" reason to reject 4e (well, #7 is actually a fine critique of any system mechanic). However, I know by now that I'm not going to convince anyone using reason on these points (in part because they are emotive arguments, but mostly because I've tried :smallwink:) so why bother being persuasive?

I framed the first list in a snarky fashion because, let's face it, I enjoy being snarky. That said, I knew that the broad categories I depicted did, in fact, encompass all of the arguments I've read on this and other threads, even if I phrased it in a ridiculous fashion. Heck, when I re-framed the list "neutrally" I didn't even change some of the category titles, and only now do (some) people agree with the categories I presented.

If you find a flaw in my system of categories, please say so, but otherwise, I plead no contest to snarking. :smallbiggrin:

[Morty]

Points 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are blatantly untrue. Points 4 and 13 are technically true as written but still based in ignorance.

Since I've got too much my time on my hands, let's see.
1: 4ed is a very big overhaul from 3ed. It feels much different, especially due to the unified power system.
7: Well, it's true. All classes advance in the exact same way.
8: I haven't played a lot of 4ed, but from the playtest reports I've seen, it's not exactly true. You've got a point here.
9: That's one way to look at it, I guess. But I agree it doesn't make much sense.
11: It might be true for someone. I don't usually care about book orgainzation in either way, but for example putting rituals at the very end seems strange.
12: I can definetly see how someone might not like to worry about various powers as a fighter, even though I like to manage them.
Also, a big QFT to what Nagora said about class roles.

[Prophaniti]

Also, a big QFT to what Nagora said about class roles.
From me as well, missed it earlier. I mentioned it earlier when decrying the official adoption and application of combat roles in class design. Again, in an RPG, combat roles should be incidental, or at least implicit, rather than explicit. Secondly, the only roles that should matter (especially to the extent that the classes are designed around them) in an RPG are party roles (tracker/forester, face, fixer, that kind of thing) not combat roles.

If you find a flaw in my system of categories, please say so, but otherwise, I plead no contest to snarking. :smallbiggrin:*sigh* Very well. If snark you must then snark you shall. I've been guilty of it a time or two myself. Can't really stop you anyway. Still, a fallacy is a fallacy, and I'm usually compelled to point them out, just as you are compelled to snark.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Also, a big QFT to what Nagora said about class roles.

I'll have to disagree for this basic reason: a class is not a character.

Classes have always had roles, and back in 2e when they basically accounted for everything on your character sheet, those roles most definitely defined the characters. This remained true, albeit to a lesser extent, in 3e where the vast sum of skills and powers (e.g. trapfinding) you had access to came from your selection of classes. Rampant multiclassing, though, made the actual "role" of a given class irrelevant since people just dipped to scoop up enough powers & skills to be whatever they wanted. This does not mean that the classes themselves lacked roles, merely that the MC system completely neutered the concept of class as being relevant to your character.

4e has stripped down class to its bare essentials: what it provides in combat, your initial skill selection, and some additional "neat stuff" (Cantrips, Rituals, etc.). The rest of your character can come from Feats, Alignment, Race, Age, Sex, or, god-forbid, background and those define what you are in the day-to-day of the campaign world.

Bob the Ranger doesn't just do DPS. He doesn't just wield two swords or a bow. He can be at home in nature or in dungeons, he can be an intrepid explorer or a worldly man of knowledge. He can be a tracker or he can be an assassin. All of that comes just from his initial Skill Selection which is broad enough to allow any flavor of Ranger to be made, within the broad, secondary "role" of the Ranger that has been around since there were Rangers! Heck, the 4e Ranger has a greater range than the 2e Aragorn-clones allowed!

EDIT:
@Prophaniti - A fallacy is only a fallacy if you use it to make an argument. I was clearly not trying to seriously convince anyone that their dislike of 4e is irrational because I know that it cannot be done.

Heck, look at Nagora's response to my "how can you say that anything is too unrealistic" - he argued from ridicule too :smalltongue:

The point of the snark was to amuse myself - and perhaps to link to exciting pages in The Other Wiki - and not an argument in and of itself.

[Viruzzo]

Again, in an RPG, combat roles should be incidental, or at least implicit, rather than explicit.
Why? Saying that 4e classes lack the versatility to fill other roles is a meaningful objection, but saying that you don't like the fact that there's "Role: Striker" written in the Ranger class description is not. Well, you can say that, but it's not a problem of the system. It's like complaining that Dragonborns should be called Draconics or whatever.


Secondly, the only roles that should matter (especially to the extent that the classes are designed around them) in an RPG are party roles (tracker/forester, face, fixer, that kind of thing) not combat roles.
At the very least, both should matter, but is actually a question of 1) tastes 2) game focus. D&D is definitely a combat-focused RPG compared to the others, so it makes sense to specify the combat role of a class.

[Morty]

I'll have to disagree for this basic reason: a class is not a character.


Let me put it that way: I don't think roles are bad as much as they're completely unnecessary and badly executed to boot. A class should have something it can do that noone else ca and an archetype it suits the most, yes. However 4ed class roles bring down class' uniqueness to the four strict categories. Not entirely of course, but it does so nevertheless. Now, it's not strictly a bad thing. But it is for me.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Let me put it that way: I don't think roles are bad as much as they're completely unnecessary and badly executed to boot. A class should have something it can do that noone else ca and an archetype it suits the most, yes. However 4ed class roles bring down class' uniqueness to the four strict categories. Not entirely of course, but it does so nevertheless. Now, it's not strictly a bad thing. But it is for me.

So... how would you like classes to be?

[Morty]

So... how would you like classes to be?

Preety much like they are in 3ed, only better balanced and more flexible. Ultimate Classes by Szatany achieve that fairly well, with some exceptions. Here (http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/index.php?title=Ultimate_Classes) you can find them if you're not familiar with them.

[Starsinger]

Preety much like they are in 3ed, only better balanced and more flexible. Ultimate Classes by Szatany achieve that fairly well, with some exceptions. Here (http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/index.php?title=Ultimate_Classes) you can find them if you're not familiar with them.

See, I'd prefer a handful of classes that I can use to achieve a wide variety of results, instead of a class for every particular concept.

[Spiryt]

So... how would you like classes to be?

For me, classes in 3.5 also were very good, even if only in concept.

Terriblr balance and a bit apparent freedom doesn't change the fact that the classes, combined with multiclass, could be adjusted to almost any character concept and way of fighting/doing stuff in generall.

For example 4e classes binds the ranger down to some weird "Martial Striker" category, regardless if he actually want to strike anyone, or maybe just track and do some weird stuff with plants, or fight in more "Defender way".

And different fluff can't really help, beacuse there is no forester class, as they're can't be a class for everything.

[Morty]

See, I'd prefer a handful of classes that I can use to achieve a wide variety of results, instead of a class for every particular concept.

Assuming you're talking about Ultimate Classes- just because the author of those classes decided to make a crapload of them doesn't mean you have to use them all. From what I've got, you can use only the Ultimate versions of core 3.5 classes and be able to fill in most archetypes. Many of UC are quite exotic.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Preety much like they are in 3ed, only better balanced and more flexible. Ultimate Classes by Szatany achieve that fairly well, with some exceptions. Here (http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/index.php?title=Ultimate_Classes) you can find them if you're not familiar with them.

These... um... sound very much like 4e classes. Lots of limited-use powers for non-casters, more at-wills for casters and more skills for everyone.

Could you elaborate at bit about why you like these classes more than 4e classes? They really do seem to share a similar build aesthetic.

[Starsinger]

Assuming you're talking about Ultimate Classes- just because the author of those classes decided to make a crapload of them doesn't mean you have to use them all. From what I've got, you can use only the Ultimate versions of core 3.5 classes and be able to fill in most archetypes. Many of UC are quite exotic.

Sorry, I was strictly referencing the "More like 3.5 classes" in as far as there's the Knight, the Paladin, the Fighter, and the Crusader all of which are meant to be a slightly different variation of each other.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Sorry, I was strictly referencing the "More like 3.5 classes" in as far as there's the Knight, the Paladin, the Fighter, and the Crusader all of which are meant to be a slightly different variation of each other.

Don't worry, I'm sure in time 4e will be polluted with as many classes as 3.5. I only hope that this time the expansion classes don't completely undermine the core ones (*ahem* Scout and Beguiler, I'm looking at you!)

[Morty]

Sorry, I was strictly referencing the "More like 3.5 classes" in as far as there's the Knight, the Paladin, the Fighter, and the Crusader all of which are meant to be a slightly different variation of each other.

What Oracle Hunter said. Nothing stops WoTC from pulling out the same trick in 4ed.
As to the OH's point: I never said 4ed classes are bad in all respects, far from it. Many of the aspects of classes in 4ed are very good. It's just that UC have most of the good aspects of 4ed class design -balance and more options than core 3ed- while not having the bad ones -such as unified power progression, strict roles/power sources and general blandness. With exceptions, of course- aside from giving casters at-wills I don't like what UC do to them as much as in 4ed's case: it's too restrictive.

[Prophaniti]

Heck, look at Nagora's response to my "how can you say that anything is too unrealistic" - he argued from ridicule too :smalltongue:
Not necessarily, he may merely have used the examples to show roughly where his personal boundary between unrealistic and too unrealistic is...:smallwink: I was born on a Sunday, though... I don't get to go to the club on the moon.:smallfrown:

Side note: I like the Ultimate Classes, there's some fun ideas there. I don't use them all, but it's a good effort.

[nagora]

Why? Saying that 4e classes lack the versatility to fill other roles is a meaningful objection, but saying that you don't like the fact that there's "Role: Striker" written in the Ranger class description is not.
It's not the same. The problem here is that a class like "ranger" is supposed to be an architype - specifically Aragorn in this case. That should carry with it various implications of what role in society and even story the class is aimed at, and obviously it's up to the player to bring it to life beyond the baseline stereotype. But tying the class so tightly to its role in combat is to both misunderstand the concept of character classes and to make the game far too reliant on combat to supply meaning for the characters.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having some classes which are defined by their combat styles or techniques; but "Ranger" ain't one of them. Rangers are "about" other things and for them combat is an element but not the dominant one. To put it another way, what distinguishes a ranger from a plain fighter is not the way he holds his sword or his chance of a critical hit, is it?

Similarly, a thief character should be weak in combat - they're the sort of people who avoid combat if they can. Making them a balanced combat option makes a farce out of the pretence that the classes are role-playing options and not simply different unit types in a rather over-complicated small-scale combat system.

It seems likely to me that this is the result of chasing the chimera of "balance" too far. There's nothing wrong with a class being weak in combat if they're: a) fun to play, and/or b) good at something else.


Heck, look at Nagora's response to my "how can you say that anything is too unrealistic" - he argued from ridicule too
Actually, it was supposed to be reductio ad absurdum to show that, even if we don't agree where the line is drawn, we both agree that it does exist somewhere. Well, that was the plan, anyway.

[Prophaniti]

Actually, it was supposed to be reductio ad absurdum to show that, even if we don't agree where the line is drawn, we both agree that it does exist somewhere. Well, that was the plan, anyway.To be fair, the two can often be confused. Great post, btw. I've made the same point, but in my usual way, I did so in an overly verbose wall of text, and as usual I got few replies.

I especially and vocally hold to the idea that there should be some classes that are simply not good at all in combat, because that is not their focus. Combat is unarguably the focus of every single class design in 4e, however, and arguably much of the game in total, even moreso than previous editions of an admittedly combat-heavy RPG.

As Thurbane said: "Balance, balance, balance, the eternal mantra of 4e." (paraphrased) And, of course, why go to the effort of balancing the RPG as a whole, when we can just balance the combat and call it a day?

[Thurbane]

"Hi, I'm Bob. I'm a ranger and my likes are doing lots of damage and...well, that's about it. So, if you like doing lots of damage too, why not give me a call and maybe we can damage some stuff together, yeah?"
LOL - now that is sigworthy.

Apparently it's still a bit too clever: I think it was meant as a criticism not a "+1".
Yes, my grasp of netiquette is a little rusty. I meant +1, as in stating the same thing over and over, not as in "I agree with your post".

[Kompera]

Here's what I hate about 4e besides everything.

1. When 2e went to 3e and feats, BAB, and skills for all phased out proficiencies, THAC0, and skills for monk, ranger, and rogue only, there wasn't a whole lot different about the game as a whole. Sure you had stats raising every 4 levels and a few other key differences, but it was fundamentally the same game. Now we have a whole new d20 system under the D&D name, 4e is not Dungeons and Dragons anymore.
That's my main, biggest problem...You missed some huge changes, then. Spell difficulty level, saving throw mechanics, a huge array of new spells, etc. All of which further escalated the potency of casting classes above that of the non-casting classes.


the rest are not in the order of which pisses me off the most, they're all pretty equal in my opinion.

2. Mages lost a lot of utility.That 'utility' also carried with it a huge imbalance of power. It would be hard if not impossible to provide what some call 'utility' without reintroducing that imbalance of power.

3. Clerics are all but useless now.How's that? They, like Mages (and by Mages I'll assume you mean Wizards and Sorcerers) also lost a lot of unbalancing power. No longer can Clerics fight better than the Fighter while also enjoying a full array of 'utility' spells. But useless? Not at all.

4. There is no such thing as a normal attack, there are at-will powers. While there may be normal attacks, you'd be an idiot to use anything other than your at-will powers.I've got to be amused at a pair of sentences which totally contradict each other. "There is no such thing as a normal attack" and "there may be normal attacks"...
You use a standard attack when you don't have the actions to use an at-will power. You can not both charge and use an at-will melee attack, for example. So any time you choose to charge, a maneuver which comes with some advantages and disadvantages, you can't also use an at-will melee power. So it's not 'idiocy' to forgo the use of at-will powers, it's a tactical decision which might be the best thing for you to do in a particular situation.

5. Healing surges. While I realize our characters are heroes, nothing explains healing surges.You must have missed the many posts which have given many explanations for healing surges.

6. A lack of explanation for many abilities.Speaking of lacking in explanation, do you have any specific examples?

7. No class specific tables to show advancement.Why is this a necessity? Tables are simply another way to present information. If they are needed, they should be present. But I haven't found myself cursing the absence of any different layout of information. What do you find lacking in the other presentation of information which would make a table a better presentation of that information?

10. Magic attack rolls.Because magic which has a chance of failure, just as a melee attack does, just isn't magic enough for many people.

11. Poor organization of the books.I'm not yet as familiar with my 4e books as I am with my 3.5 books, but I seem to be able to find things without too much fumbling around. Familiarity will ease the perception.

12. Every character class essentially has a spellbook. This is stupid because if I'm a fighter, I want to smash things with a stick, not worry about what at-will, encounter, or daily ability I have prepared...Because instead of a Feat called Cleave in 3.x, having an at-will power called Cleave in 4e obviously makes it a spell, right?

13. No natural critical hit modifier. A crit denotes that you stab them in/chop through some vital organ causing a hideous amount of damage, not "you hit as hard as you normally could"You left out a portion of that. It's not "you hit as hard as you normally could", it's "you hit as hard as you possibly could on a random die roll, without having to roll that maximum." The difference is marked.

14. Dumbing down of the game.Any specific examples?

15. Multi-classing/prestige classing has been dumbed down and is now called a "paragon" class.Because the former system which encouraged class dips for power purposes greatly improved "roleplay", right? Pardon me while I take 2 levels in Fighter for the Feats (and that's probably the least power-gaming option for a class dip available).

16. No 107 pages of inspiring spells...seriously, I almost cried at how little magic was still in the game.Because no one without 107 pages of spells can dominate the game.

17. The skill system. Hate.Because Diplomacy was a shining example of the prior system.

18. Shifting of the core PC races.I dislike this, also.

19. Having 99% of the game be combat oriented. This diminishes roleplaying which is what DnD is all about.Can you describe which rules forced your GM to remove all of the roleplay you enjoyed in 3.x from his 4e game? Can you point to a single reference which diminishes your ability to roleplay? Don't include things such as "Can no longer cast Contingency Timestop", because that is a character power, not a roleplay option.

20. Lessening of a death penalty. Death used to actually cost...now the heavens have become a revolving door as adventurers throw caution to the wind.This seems to be a constant between the versions. Both have the availability of characters returning from the dead. How has it changed for your group?

[Kompera]

Biased only in descriptors, not in text, I believe. You're right, of course - I missed oversimplification, I'll add it.

In case people want a more neutral-sounding list (*sigh*) here it is:
1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
3) 4e is unrealistic
4) 4e is too narrowly focused
5) 4e Epic isn't Epic
6) 4e Heroic isn't Gritty
7) 4e is oversimplified
You missed one:
8) Magic is no longer magic enough

That could possibly fit into "4e is oversimplified", but I think it deserves it's own number as it seems to be a common point of distress for many 4e detractors. The expanded text would go something like this:

8) Magic is no longer magic enough
There is no longer a spell for every conceivable game challenge, such that the Wizard can solve said challenge with his clever use of the reference books and superior role play abilities.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I especially and vocally hold to the idea that there should be some classes that are simply not good at all in combat, because that is not their focus. Combat is unarguably the focus of every single class design in 4e, however, and arguably much of the game in total, even moreso than previous editions of an admittedly combat-heavy RPG.

So how do you deal with the Decker Problem? If you have one class which has no utility in combat (I'll call him the Decker), but every other class is useful in combat, how do you design your adventures?

Are they mostly combat, so that the rest of the party gets to do something while the Decker sits it out? Or mostly non-combat, so that the Decker can really shine while the rest of the party sits around and does nothing? Or do you do it half-and-half, so that half of the time most of the party does nothing, and the rest of the time the Decker sits in time-out?

Origin of The Decker Problem
Shadowrun was originally 4 systems attached to a single game. You could play the Basic Game which had rules for gunplay, combat cyberware, sneaking around, working contacts, and so on. However, you could also play one of the de facto "classes" in the game - a Magic User, a Rigger, or a Decker.

Each of these classes had a complex and unique system to resolve their actions - you literally used a different system to resolve actions in each of their spheres. Magic users acted much like the Basic Game, so they weren't much of a problem. Riggers used the vehicular combat rules, which, while complex, at least involved the other characters riding around in the vehicle and maybe shooting out of windows. Good times.

The Decker though, was the worst. Not only were the rules regarding his abilities among the most arcane in the system, but nobody else could come along for the ride. You see, the Decker operated in the virtual world known as The Matrix - which required several pieces of Cyberware and other equipment that not only were expensive to own but also required using the Decking Rules to build. Additionally, poorly prepared Deckers could easily die in the Matrix, so you didn't want to have n00bs riding along with the Decker in the Matrix. So nobody could participate while the Decker was working.

Worse, Decking was so specialized (and capital intensive) that Deckers generally were pretty poor in combat. Decking emphasized attributes that were of lesser use to combat characters, and Deckers didn't have the money to afford expensive weapons and armor (much less the skill to use them) since they spent it all on their Decks. So they were practically useless, except while Decking.

A GM for Shadowrun, therefore, had a problem. Decking missions were no fun for the other players, but non-Decking missions were no fun for the Decker. Unfortunately, Decking Missions took a substantial amount of time, so it wasn't something you could just "throw in" to a gaming session to make him happy. So, if you had Deckers you had to sacrifice time and attention to let the Decker play out his special little mission while the other players sat by and got bored. Then, during the main mission, the Decker might wander along, but he never could really do anything outside of the Matrix - so he got bored and/or frustrated.

Many GMs then decided to either have all-Decker parties or no-Decker parties. In an all-Decker party, Decking would be the mainstay of the campaign, but the meatspace rough-and-tumble bits would be added on as flavor. In no-Decker parties, the meatspace rough-and-tumble was the mainstay, and anything PCs needed from the Matrix could be bought from NPC Deckers who didn't require the complex Matrix rules to use - GM fiat solved that.

The Decker Problem is as follows: the less overlap you have between character classes, the more the DM has to chop up his adventures to cater to each class in turn. The longer a player has to sit on his hands while someone else does their thing, the less that player is engaged in the narrative and the less fun he will have.

4e's Fix
One of the nice things about 4e's set up is that while everyone is focused towards combat, nobody is useless outside of combat. Most non-combat stuff is actual roleplaying, so you don't actually need to use dice or rules for much of it - everyone is "equally good" at this kind of non-combat stuff, since it is the player, not the character, that determines how "well" this goes.

Now, when it comes to non-combat dice rolling, 4e puts up a two-part system which makes sure nobody is completely useless. The first part is the simplified skill system: since there are fewer skills and the difference between trained and not-trained is unlikely to exceed 10 points it is increasingly unlikely that any one character will be totally useless for common rolls (like climbing rope or searching a room for secret doors). The second part is the +1/2 LV bonus that helps mitigate the power gap that boosted ability scores create. Yes, a Skill Monkey with Training, Focus, and a Racial Bonus is going to radically out-perform your Dumb Fighter at spotting ambushes, but neither of them is going to be completely screwed if it turns out they need to listen through a door instead.

The Decker Problem is less of an issue in a game with a unified system (fewer special skills unique and segregated from general gameplay), or simple skill systems (easier to make generalists), or with a specific gameplay focus (if a game is explicitly combat-focused, everyone will have to be OK at combat). 3e suffered the Decker Problem generally, but so did 2e, Shadowrun, and other "complex" systems of its ilk.

On a game-by-game basis, it's easiest to just say "no Deckers" and make everyone play characters who operate in a general skill set. However, I presume you wouldn't want to restrict your PCs in such a fashion, so how do you plan to deal with this?

EDIT:

You missed one:
8) Magic is no longer magic enough

I actually throw that in under #5 - most of the people who complain about magic not being magic enough focus on the high-level part of the game. Nobody really cares if a wizard can't cast Grease anymore, but people seem to be irked that Wizards can no longer Beat the Game on their own.

But, if it's more that Wizards no longer have a power progression system unique to themselves, then I'd say #1 or #7 - #1 if the argument is that "wizards have always had incredible flexibility and now they don't" and #7 if it's "spell descriptions aren't broad enough anymore to allow for people to do what they want."

That last one might fall under #3 too. Hmm... what say you, 3e-a-philes? Do we need a #8?

[Helgraf]

I'll have to disagree for this basic reason: a class is not a character.

Classes have always had roles, and back in 2e when they basically accounted for everything on your character sheet, those roles most definitely defined the characters. This remained true, albeit to a lesser extent, in 3e where the vast sum of skills and powers (e.g. trapfinding) you had access to came from your selection of classes. Rampant multiclassing, though, made the actual "role" of a given class irrelevant since people just dipped to scoop up enough powers & skills to be whatever they wanted. This does not mean that the classes themselves lacked roles, merely that the MC system completely neutered the concept of class as being relevant to your character.

4e has stripped down class to its bare essentials: what it provides in combat, your initial skill selection, and some additional "neat stuff" (Cantrips, Rituals, etc.). The rest of your character can come from Feats, Alignment, Race, Age, Sex, or, god-forbid, background and those define what you are in the day-to-day of the campaign world.

Bob the Ranger doesn't just do DPS. He doesn't just wield two swords or a bow. He can be at home in nature or in dungeons, he can be an intrepid explorer or a worldly man of knowledge. He can be a tracker or he can be an assassin. All of that comes just from his initial Skill Selection which is broad enough to allow any flavor of Ranger to be made, within the broad, secondary "role" of the Ranger that has been around since there were Rangers! Heck, the 4e Ranger has a greater range than the 2e Aragorn-clones allowed!

And here, I shall add my own QFT. Bloody well put.

[Thurbane]

8) Magic is no longer magic enough
There is no longer a spell for every conceivable game challenge, such that the Wizard can solve said challenge with his clever use of the reference books and superior role play abilities.
Once again you totally (deliberately?) miss the point the vast majority of posters here have made about the 4E magic system.

[Sebastian]

Heh.. I haven't done this in a while,

The fourth reached out an eager hand,
and felt above the knee,
"What this most wondrous beast
is like is very plain" said he,
"'Tis clear enough the elephant
is very like a tree."

and you haven't done it in a while with good reason. That poem was a clever thing to quote when we knew only bits and pieces of 4e and people were quick to judge these single pieces. But now we can see the whole picture of the "elephant" and we have all the reasons to say that we dont like it.

(It is also interesting to note that a lot of the critiques made to the previews are actual even now that we have the whole picture.)

[Kompera]

Once again you totally (deliberately?) miss the point the vast majority of posters here have made about the 4E magic system.No, I'm absolutely certain that I have not.

But perhaps I've missed your particular point, and you'll be so good as to explain it to me?

[Sebastian]

"They all fill a role. Rangers do what they're supposed to do which is to do a lot of damage..."

Well, I guess that sums up what's wrong with 4e in a nutshell, doesn't it?


exactly. If the role of the ranger is doing a lot of damage why do you need a rogue class, or a warlock class? because they use different power source? (not true for the rogue) but the power source is 95% flavour, there are not really mechanical differences between arcane and martial power. if you want class roles tied to combat what they should have done was create 4 base class, (i.e. striker, defender, controller, leader) and then make them heavily customizable with enough variations so that from the striker you could create a rogue, a ranger, a warlock or any other class based on doing a lot of damage in combat. honestly I think I could have loved something like that. it would have been easy to make splatbooks too, either you add customizations options or add new classes to cover other combat and not-combat role ( I doubt those four can cover all possible combat roles that can exist.)

[Sebastian]

So... how would you like classes to be?

My favorite class system is that from D20 Modern basic classes generic but very customizable, then advanced classes to narrow what your character can do and then again prestige classes if you really want to focus, some specific class can have prblems but the system is solid.

[Siegel]

exactly. If the role of the ranger is doing a lot of damage why do you need a rogue class, or a warlock class? because they use different power source? (not true for the rogue) but the power source is 95% flavour, there are not really mechanical differences between arcane and martial power. if you want class roles tied to combat what they should have done was create 4 base class, (i.e. striker, defender, controller, leader) and then make them heavily customizable with enough variations so that from the striker you could create a rogue, a ranger, a warlock or any other class based on doing a lot of damage in combat. honestly I think I could have loved something like that. it would have been easy to make splatbooks too, either you add customizations options or add new classes to cover other combat and not-combat role ( I doubt those four can cover all possible combat roles that can exist.)

1. Arcane power source powers do XdY+Z damage while martial powers do X[W]+Z damage.
2. A ranger, rouge and warlock feel different. It's like the fighter the barbarian and the paladin in 3.5. All of them hit enemys with a big heavy stick but do it in slightly different ways. One rages, one buffs and smites and the other yeah (depends on feats).
A even better example would be Warblades focussing on different manuvers. Stone dragon feels different than white raven or dessert wind.
The same thing is with Rangers, Warlocks and Rangers. And Rangers feel different depending whether they choose bow or TWF and the eldrich pact makes a difference too

[Sebastian]

1. Arcane power source powers do XdY+Z damage while martial powers do X[W]+Z damage.
No, I mean some real difference.


2. A ranger, rouge and warlock feel different.

Two fighters with different feats feel different, too. Like two wizards wth different spells.
What i'm saying is that if the role of the class is doing damage ou don't need 3 (and certainly more) different classes for it, even if they feel different, you can realize the same effect with a single class focused on doing damage but with a lot of space for customization, that cover melee and ranged damage, both magical and mundane.


A even better example would be Warblades focussing on different manuvers. Stone dragon feels different than white raven or dessert wind.
The same thing is with Rangers, Warlocks and Rangers. And Rangers feel different depending whether they choose bow or TWF and the eldrich pact makes a difference too

So, do you agree with me, then? I really can't tell.

[OneFamiliarFace]

My favorite class system is that from D20 Modern basic classes generic but very customizable, then advanced classes to narrow what your character can do and then again prestige classes if you really want to focus, some specific class can have prblems but the system is solid.

The d20 Modern class system was actually really cool. I would kind of argue that it wasn't really a class system, as the 'classes' didn't really have a whole lot of say on the role of the character. Instead, multiclassing was not only encouraged, it was expected.

d20 Modern:

As Oracle Hunter pointed out earlier, this neuters the idea of a class system. And, instead of being a "strong hero," you end up being whatever prestige class you inevitably take because, as cool as the d20 Modern classes were, they always felt a bit too generic. They were a bit too bland. So, your initial classes prove only to be a stepping stone into Soldier or Psychic Warrior, which then becomes your "class."

Sure, you may have +3 to melee damage. This indicates that you are a melee fighter. But it isn't really an inspiring ability. It isn't terribly interesting. And, unless you multiclass the same way as your companions, you run into the Decker problem again. This time, only involving skills. Your strong hero may be top notch at jumping, climbing, and beating things up. But the smart hero spends his time during combat trying to hide (at which he is poor due to not having it as a skill). In the meantime, the strong hero stands around as the smart hero uses his linguist ability to talk to people the others can't understand or hacks into a computer.
DnD:

But really, such a simple system would only work in DnD if you wanted to play a "fantasy lite" campaign. I think, and this is just my opinion, 4e took what was a neutered class system in 3.x and made it into an actual, full-blown class system. Now your career and archetype is determined by your initial class choice and your background. Everything else is just earning abilities.

A rogue and a ranger can coexist, because together they cover at least 4 fantasy archetypes: the ranger is the archer or the dual-wielder, and the rogue is the charismatic swashbuckler or the brutal scoundrel (or dirty fighter). This is pretty much the same thing as in 3.x, except the Ranger had a built-in forestry bent and forced hatred/skill in dealing with particular enemies, and the rogue was mostly useful in those dungeons, which were full of undead, constructs, elementals, barbarians, other rogues, and some random monsters, as a trapfinder, assuming he had maxed out the ranks in the 2 skills necessary for that.
So this is why I still like the 4e system. If you're going to do a class system, then you should do it right, where your class helps define the role of the character along with its background. If you are going to try to get around the class system by making their only inherent worth a way to cherry-pick abilities before getting a PrC, then do something a little more freeform like GURPS does and do away with classes altogether.

(note: my feelings are different about this for d20 modern, which is a system that deliberately de-emphasizes high fantasy and high sci-fi in its core rules. here, characters looking every similar to one another helps simulate the modern world or humans who are only slightly better or worse at various things than their NPC brethren)

[nagora]

A rogue and a ranger can coexist, because together they cover at least 4 fantasy archetypes: the ranger is the archer or the dual-wielder,
Neither of those are ranger archetypes, they're actually widespread abuses of previous D&D editions' rules which have become so popular with munchkins that they've forgotten what a bloody bad joke they were. Rangers are not especially archers (what with the trees and all) and TWF is actually quite illogical for them (what with the trees and all).


So this is why I still like the 4e system. If you're going to do a class system, then you should do it right, where your class helps define the role of the character along with its background.
But 4e doesn't do that - it defines the role of the character in combat rather than the background. It's a classic example of why calling rules "crunch" is a mistake - designers forget that the rules should be there to serve the real crunch of the game - the characters and setting - and then produce mechanics which serve only to simulate themselves. Combat isn't role-playing and bending every class to serve it results in, well, something like 4e.

[Matthew]

"I don't like X about 4e, it's not Y and it's too much Z!"

"You are wrong. It is Y and it is exactly enough Z"

"You are wrong. Y is unimportant and you don't understand the purpose of Z."

[Prophaniti]

1. Arcane power source powers do XdY+Z damage while martial powers do X[W]+Z damage.
Thus proving the point of little distinction admirably. As I said, in 4e it all comes down to what brand of batteries you want to power your awesome.

No, I'm absolutely certain that I have not.

But perhaps I've missed your particular point, and you'll be so good as to explain it to me?
While I have seen a few posters directly complain about the lack of high-level, epic-feeling magic, what you're missing are the posters like myself and Thurbane. Our complaint is not about the loss of game-ending, super dominating magic, but rather about the little things. Specifically, the Grease spell you mentioned. That is EXACTLY what we're complaining about, not the loss of Time Stop.

My personal complaint centers more around how, instead of fixing the broken parts of 3.5 magic (specific broken spells, cheese, insignificant cost), they axed it entirely and made the wizard much like every other class, just with different colored ribbon. (this is an exageration, of course. don't bother posting a list of the supposed differences, most of which can be summed up by Seigel's post quoted above.)

ON THE 'PROBLEM' OF DECKERS: (ended up kinda long, so spoiler'd)I do indeed understand why that might be perceived as a problem. I have not played Shadowrun myself yet, but it sounds like an exageration and compounding of the issues with running an Adept in Dark Heresy, or a Smart Hero in d20 Modern. I have run both, and expected and relished the idea that I was not able to kick in doors and slaughter everyone. It was a pleasant break from such characters and I enjoyed it.

That said, I did have some players in a game of Dark Heresy who ran an Adept and a Tech-priest respectively. They did seem put out by their lack of combat ability, but this largely stemmed from them not expecting it, or at least not being ready for the extent of the limitation. It was not that they felt left out. When combat happened, they took part, only once did one of them get seriously hurt and they even scored a few kills. When combat was not happening, they were very much in their element and had a fun time. It was simply that both players almost invariably played characters with very good combat potential and I did not adequately warn them of the lack of it in their chosen careers (this was back when I was new to the system, too, so I just let everyone pick what they wanted and we rolled with it).

One stuck it out and got used to having a support role in combat, the other decided to reroll a more combative career and we carried on.

While the problem of Deckers sounds more significant in Shadowrun, I would think that it's because no one else in the party can really participate in Matrix runs, not because they focus on non-combat skills. Even front-line fighter types in both systems I mentioned, and in D&D, can gain at least a modicum of skill for use out of combat, to assist those characters who are focused on it.

Example would be my Smart Hero. Yes, he was all about skills, but when it came time to research something we allowed every character with even a few ranks in Research or the relevant Knowledge skill to assist, and give a bonus to the total check. Representing the fact that we were all sitting in a library or surfing around online trying to find the information, not just my Smart character.

People who are really good at something and make everyone else wait on the sidelines while they do their job exist in real life, and are a staple of pretty much any fiction out there where a team is involved. The Hacker is a necessity in the modern world, if you want to break in somewhere or what have you, and usually no one does much while they wait for him to crack it. Having characters with similar attributes in an RPG simply makes sense, and if a player isn't going to have fun in that role, they shouldn't take it on.

A good game is still a good game, everyone doesn't need to be in the center of the action 100% of the time to have fun. At least, not the people I play with. The other players are perfectly willing to sit back and wait while the hacker or the trapfinder makes sure it's safe to go on, because they know they can't fill that role, and that their time will come later, gunning down/cutting up a room full of mercenaries/orcs, or disarming a bomb, or interrogating a prisoner.

The whole point of a class system is to have everyone fill a role. Since combat is NOT the sum total of what an RPG is, that necessitates roles focused on things other than fighting.

I really do not get the attitude that engulfs WotC, that every player must be contributing all the time, or they might get sad. Exemplafied by the races having only bonuses and no drawbacks ("We can't give the player a penalty to balance the benefit of a choice, they'll feel bad about themselves and stop buying our game." Where the hell does this come from?! :smallconfused:), but present throughout the entire work. Their solution: "Gee, we can't have that, so let's make everyone equally awesome at everything.":smallmad:

[Pirate_King]

While I have seen a few posters directly complain about the lack of high-level, epic-feeling magic, what you're missing are the posters like myself and Thurbane. Our complaint is not about the loss of game-ending, super dominating magic, but rather about the little things. Specifically, the Grease spell you mentioned. That is EXACTLY what we're complaining about, not the loss of Time Stop.


I had the same issue, I miss some of my flavorful 0 and 1st levels, particularly benign transposition. However, it's fairly easy to turn those into powers. Don't like the set of zero's you get for cantrips? pick 5 other ones from whatever source of spells you've got.

[Oracle_Hunter]

ON THE 'PROBLEM' OF DECKERS: (ended up kinda long, so spoiler'd)I do indeed understand why that might be perceived as a problem. I have not played Shadowrun myself yet, but it sounds like an exageration and compounding of the issues with running an Adept in Dark Heresy, or a Smart Hero in d20 Modern. I have run both, and expected and relished the idea that I was not able to kick in doors and slaughter everyone. It was a pleasant break from such characters and I enjoyed it.

That said, I did have some players in a game of Dark Heresy who ran an Adept and a Tech-priest respectively. They did seem put out by their lack of combat ability, but this largely stemmed from them not expecting it, or at least not being ready for the extent of the limitation. It was not that they felt left out. When combat happened, they took part, only once did one of them get seriously hurt and they even scored a few kills. When combat was not happening, they were very much in their element and had a fun time. It was simply that both players almost invariably played characters with very good combat potential and I did not adequately warn them of the lack of it in their chosen careers (this was back when I was new to the system, too, so I just let everyone pick what they wanted and we rolled with it).

One stuck it out and got used to having a support role in combat, the other decided to reroll a more combative career and we carried on.

While the problem of Deckers sounds more significant in Shadowrun, I would think that it's because no one else in the party can really participate in Matrix runs, not because they focus on non-combat skills. Even front-line fighter types in both systems I mentioned, and in D&D, can gain at least a modicum of skill for use out of combat, to assist those characters who are focused on it.

Example would be my Smart Hero. Yes, he was all about skills, but when it came time to research something we allowed every character with even a few ranks in Research or the relevant Knowledge skill to assist, and give a bonus to the total check. Representing the fact that we were all sitting in a library or surfing around online trying to find the information, not just my Smart character.

People who are really good at something and make everyone else wait on the sidelines while they do their job exist in real life, and are a staple of pretty much any fiction out there where a team is involved. The Hacker is a necessity in the modern world, if you want to break in somewhere or what have you, and usually no one does much while they wait for him to crack it. Having characters with similar attributes in an RPG simply makes sense, and if a player isn't going to have fun in that role, they shouldn't take it on.

A good game is still a good game, everyone doesn't need to be in the center of the action 100% of the time to have fun. At least, not the people I play with. The other players are perfectly willing to sit back and wait while the hacker or the trapfinder makes sure it's safe to go on, because they know they can't fill that role, and that their time will come later, gunning down/cutting up a room full of mercenaries/orcs, or disarming a bomb, or interrogating a prisoner.

The whole point of a class system is to have everyone fill a role. Since combat is NOT the sum total of what an RPG is, that necessitates roles focused on things other than fighting.

I really do not get the attitude that engulfs WotC, that every player must be contributing all the time, or they might get sad. Exemplafied by the races having only bonuses and no drawbacks ("We can't give the player a penalty to balance the benefit of a choice, they'll feel bad about themselves and stop buying our game." Where the hell does this come from?! :smallconfused:), but present throughout the entire work. Their solution: "Gee, we can't have that, so let's make everyone equally awesome at everything.":smallmad:

Interesting. Well, being equally unfamiliar with D20 Modern and Dark Heresy I suppose we must each take the other at their word. However, a few points:

1) It can be very difficult to "contribute" to a combat if you are not going to be able to do much; in fact, you may end up being a net liability. "Deckers" are not only poor at attack, but they are generally poor at defense - they can neither dish out damage, nor take it. Having them on the battlefield is not only "taking up space" in the party for someone who could actually be helpful in combat, but it's an extra body that people need to protect.

When you say you took the "support" role in combat, did that mean giving buffs to your allies? If so, then I would argue that is still a "combat ready" character - they just play the heal-bot instead of doing damage. If not, then how did you "support" in combat?

2) While it is true that IRL there are jobs that can only be done by a single person, in a RPG this is usually best taken care of by an NPC. One-trick ponies aren't very "exciting" characters to play, in the sense that they don't participate in the rest of what the party is doing. Since RPGs are generally group-focused activities, anything that reduces that sense of teamwork is at cross-purposes with supposed goals of RPGs (at least ones like D&D).

An example is the Trip-Fighter of 3e - if it is fighting something that cannot be tripped, it functions about as well as a generic fighter. In a more socially-focused game, this is less of a problem because everyone can RP, but if the characters are designed to "adventure" in one form or another, the one-trick ponies are just not going to be able to do much.

Perhaps there are people who like kicking back and cracking jokes for most of a gaming session, so that they can make a few rolls later on, but I doubt these are in the majority.

3) The more narrow the specialization, the worse off the Decker Problem becomes. In a more complex skill system it is possible to create many flavors of Decker, which limits the scope of action for any given Decker. So, in 3e while Decker A might be a trap finding and disarming master, Decker B may only be good at sneaking around and picking pockets. If neither Deckers were capable in combat, they would both have to wait for their specific scenarios to come up - which makes life harder on the DM and more frustrating for the Deckers and their fellow players.

A system like 4e allows for Deckers to "specialize" broadly. A Ritual Decker, for instance, will be trained in at least Religion and Arcana (both INT skills), but may also be trained in Nature. This gives the Ritual Decker access not only to all the skills they need to be good at casting Rituals, but also broadly useful knowledge skills that can be used for monster identification, examining clues, and identifying spells. Were "Arcana" to be divided up into "Spellcraft" and "Knowledge (Arcana)" then a wizard with limited skill points may find themselves skimping on certain useful skills and, therefore, less useful than before.

A common work-around is to just give all 3e characters more skill points. That's nice, but ultimately isn't that a rather clunky fix as compared to condensing similar skills into broader categories?

4) WotC didn't make everyone "equally awesome" in 4e - they merely made it harder to just plain suck.

4a) Removing racial penalties did two things: it made it so that players could make any race/class combination without being horribly gimped, and it reduced the incentive for players to have ludicrously low dump-stats.

I think you'll agree that it is far better to allow players the freedom to make their Dwarven Clerics or Halfling Fighters without knowing that their choice isn't just sub-optimal, but that it'll downright suck. More choice is better, no?

The second part may not be as clear cut. If you are going to play, say, a Dwarven Fighter, and you decide to use a point buy system, are you going to put any points into CHA? The answer is likely no - throwing away 2 points to get a -1 penalty just doesn't seem worth it - which means that you see a lot of CHA 6 Dwarven Fighters and STR 6 Halfling Rogues. This is bad for two reasons: first it puts these characters in very bad positions if they have to make a stat-linked roll, and secondly it encourages players to give their characters flaws for no good RP reason. This seems antithetical to either a fun or RP-friendly system.

4b) WotC has been moving away from explicit penalties for choices for exactly the reason you said: it turns out that people don't like being penalized.

This is actually a Framing issue again - what is the difference between everyone getting +2 and you getting +0, and everyone getting +0 and you getting -2? Nothing, yet people would prefer the first case to the second case. So, WotC cleverly decided to do just that.

Another nice feature of 4e is that each race and class gets interesting and different bonuses; not just pluses or minuses. Elves get a reroll to hit, Halflings get a reroll to being hit, Dwarves can use their Second Wind as a minor action, and Tieflings get +1 to hit things that are bloodied. These are far more flavorful than a simple +/- and it means that people excel at different things.

If this positive-looking philosophy disgusts you, ask yourself when was the last time you imposed the XP penalty for a character changing alignment, or when a Paladin fell, or a Barbarian became lawful, or any of that? Back in 2e, the DM had huge hammers to use on PCs who didn't play like he wanted them to, but over time it became clear that those penalties weren't fun for anyone. An XP penalty, or XP drain can put a single party member behind the rest of the party, and since D&D is a group activity, these sorts of penalties can affect the entire party. For the same reason that D&D has moved towards group XP instead of individual XP, 4e has done away with the sorts of penalties that were once commonplace in D&D.

Anyhow, the main concern here is: do you really run 3e games such that pure non-combatants are running around in dungeons? If so, why? Wouldn't it make more sense for the scholars to stay home, or come back once all the monsters are cleared out?

Recall that there is a difference between being useless in combat and not being a front-line soldier. 4e has clerics (lazor) and wizards (control) who may not do much damage, but can provide helpful buffs and control from the back. These fellows may be focused on non-combat duties (Rituals and Skills), but they still have something to do in combat. This is different from the 2e Thief or Wizard (low level) who, once combat started, tried to find a spot to hide and wait until the fight was over. 2e had Deckers, 4e does not.

[Jayabalard]

do you really run 3e games such that pure non-combatants are running around in dungeons? If so, why?Not pure non-combatants, and not necessarily dungeons (since we stay away from them in general) but people who are mostly non-combatants sure. Not every explorer is going to be a master of some sort of combat.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the scholars to stay home, or come back once all the monsters are cleared out?Not really; if you want to study the ancient runes of yadda yadda yadda, you're going to have to go there, and you're not going to know for sure that it's overrun by monsters until after you get there.


"I don't like X about 4e, it's not Y and it's too much Z!"

"You are wrong. It is Y and it is exactly enough Z"

"You are wrong. Y is unimportant and you don't understand the purpose of Z."Exactly.

[Curmudgeon]

Open Lock (Thievery) DCs jump too abruptly at tier levels.

[Thurbane]

No, I'm absolutely certain that I have not.

But perhaps I've missed your particular point, and you'll be so good as to explain it to me?

While I have seen a few posters directly complain about the lack of high-level, epic-feeling magic, what you're missing are the posters like myself and Thurbane. Our complaint is not about the loss of game-ending, super dominating magic, but rather about the little things. Specifically, the Grease spell you mentioned. That is EXACTLY what we're complaining about, not the loss of Time Stop.
That pretty much sums it up...

[AlexanderRM]

This is different from the 2e Thief or Wizard (low level) who, once combat started, tried to find a spot to hide and wait until the fight was over. 2e had Deckers, 4e does not.
Does anyone else feel that claiming that 4e is just improving the changes that were made in 3e seems rather odd, given the fact that they removed every single class and race that was added in 3e? Sorry about repeating myself there...


Also: I agree with the "magic isn't magic enough anymore". If I understand this correctly, there's very little difference between blasting someone with the great arcane power you developed through years of study... and hitting them with a stick. As other people have pointed out to me at times, there's a very big difference between being balanced and being exactly the same.

[wodan46]

Open Lock (Thievery) DCs jump too abruptly at tier levels.

A lot of things do that.

[Prophaniti]

When you say you took the "support" role in combat, did that mean giving buffs to your allies? If so, then I would argue that is still a "combat ready" character - they just play the heal-bot instead of doing damage. If not, then how did you "support" in combat?Well, since both of the games I reference involve firearms, and ones that are at least close to realistically lethal, contributing in combat is not terribly difficult, even for the unskilled. Put enough bullets down range, and you're bound to hit somebody. There are also suppressing fire and pinning mechanics in both games, so just blazing away to keep the enemy's head down is definitely contributing. In more fantasy oriented games, this isn't the case quite as often, but in ones where combat is as lethal as our group likes it, even holding a loaded crossbow makes you a significant threat.

Options will still often include providing flanking bonuses to allies, assisting, and the like, but the bottom line is that you're simply not going to be a major presence in a fight. Often such characters have no combat training, no experience beyond perhaps a fist fight, or just no desire to fight. These are perfectly viable characters, and ones that can be great fun to play. Doesn't seem you can really run someone like that in 4e, though. Admittedly, even in 3e it was hard, but there were a few classes that fit well enough.



4) WotC didn't make everyone "equally awesome" in 4e - they merely made it harder to just plain suck.
Semantics. If you add "in combat" to the end of both our phrases, they become interchangable from what I see.
I don't really have an issue with making all the classes in a class-based RPG 'balanced', but the place of balance in such a case is to put each class into a niche that complements the others and counters their weaknesses. My issue with their efforts here is mainly this: That the niches they fit are all about combat. RPGs, sort of by definition, should not be all about combat. Of course, it's up to the group to determine the exact degree, and some will choose 100% kick-in the door and take everything combat. It's just sad to see the system seemingly in agreement, since it doesn't seem possible to make a character who's focus is not combat, or who's role is not primarily defined by his place in a fight.


4a) Removing racial penalties did two things: it made it so that players could make any race/class combination without being horribly gimped, and it reduced the incentive for players to have ludicrously low dump-stats.

I think you'll agree that it is far better to allow players the freedom to make their Dwarven Clerics or Halfling Fighters without knowing that their choice isn't just sub-optimal, but that it'll downright suck. More choice is better, no?This is something of a good point, about dump stats. I'm not sure I totally agree, though, since I frequently run Dwarven Clerics in 3.5, and view the CHA penalty as a fun aspect to roleplay with, though it is annoying that Turning is partially linked to it.



Another nice feature of 4e is that each race and class gets interesting and different bonuses; not just pluses or minuses. Elves get a reroll to hit, Halflings get a reroll to being hit, Dwarves can use their Second Wind as a minor action, and Tieflings get +1 to hit things that are bloodied. These are far more flavorful than a simple +/- and it means that people excel at different things.
The racial abilities in 4e felt no different to me than they did in 3.5, with the exception that they've abandoned all the more situational modifiers in favor of universal ones. This can aid bookkeeping, but doesn't really change the fact that most of them still boil down to about the same level as a simple +1 to X. Like your last example, which you then say is more flavorful than itself...:smallamused: I like the reroll racials, though, at least they showed some thought there.


If this positive-looking philosophy disgusts you, ask yourself when was the last time you imposed the XP penalty for a character changing alignment, or when a Paladin fell, or a Barbarian became lawful, or any of that? Back in 2e, the DM had huge hammers to use on PCs who didn't play like he wanted them to, but over time it became clear that those penalties weren't fun for anyone. An XP penalty, or XP drain can put a single party member behind the rest of the party, and since D&D is a group activity, these sorts of penalties can affect the entire party. For the same reason that D&D has moved towards group XP instead of individual XP, 4e has done away with the sorts of penalties that were once commonplace in D&D.Well, as for your specific examples... I would impose penalties on a fallen paladin. They take the oath, they live with the consequences. I don't use the alignment restrictions on most classes, though, usually not even the paladin (they still have their oath to keep, but the specifics change depending on the order the paladin is from, some of which are evil). As for penalties for the alignment change alone... I haven't had it come up in so long... Likely I would only penalize for repeated, flagrant actions that run contrary to both the listed alignment and the character's persona so far. Like I said, it hasn't come up. Really, for me, it would take a player who's running a character with Batman's attitude and outlook and suddenly he's acting like the Joker for no good in-game reason.


Anyhow, the main concern here is: do you really run 3e games such that pure non-combatants are running around in dungeons? If so, why? Wouldn't it make more sense for the scholars to stay home, or come back once all the monsters are cleared out?

Recall that there is a difference between being useless in combat and not being a front-line soldier. 4e has clerics (lazor) and wizards (control) who may not do much damage, but can provide helpful buffs and control from the back. These fellows may be focused on non-combat duties (Rituals and Skills), but they still have something to do in combat. This is different from the 2e Thief or Wizard (low level) who, once combat started, tried to find a spot to hide and wait until the fight was over. 2e had Deckers, 4e does not.
As I stated, it is difficult to run pure noncombatants in 3.5, not as difficult as 4e, but more difficult than 2e, or d20 Modern, or Dark Heresy, or Shadowrun, etc (Really, when you look at it, the list of RPGs with non-combat characters is much longer than those without). As Jayabalard points out, non-combatants in dangerous situations often makes sense, as people want to actually get out there and see things for themselves despite the danger.

And, again, not every campaign is a dungeon-crawl, or a series of battles building up to a conflict with the Big Bad. In such campaigns, it would be pretty boring to play someone who wasn't good at combat. If I were running such a campaign, it would be my job as the DM to inform the players, and caution them that combat will be a big focus of gameplay, and they may not enjoy characters who can't hold their own. In other kinds of campaigns, especially the sandbox variety I prefer, characters of all variety are called for, both scholars and fighters. If the players do not want to run the scholar, as in the example from my Dark Heresy game, I will NPC them if they are necessary, the same as I would if no one wanted to run a fighter (sounds farfetched, but it did happen once to our group), and the same as I would do in a game of Shadowrun if no one wanted to play a Decker. The point is that the option should be there for those players that want it.

[Thurbane]

There are plenty of non-combat (or at least, not primarily combat oriented) roles that would have a placewith an adventuring party. The expert/knowledge-monkey and the diplomat/persuader spring to immediately to mind.

Also, bear in mind that not every session of D&D has to be a dungeon crawl - that is purely a matter of the group's (and DMs) taste. In my own campaigns, a lot more of the game takes place in a city or wilderness compared to musty underground tombs or ancient hidden temples.

...of course, traditionally the heart of D&D revolves around beting up monsters and taking their stuff - but that doesn't have to be all there is to it.

[darkzucchini]

Just to throw in a couple of pennies at this whole Decker problem issue, I've played a small amount of Shadowrun, even played non-combat oriented classes. You see, in combat, what I enjoy is not racking up the highest number of kills or dealing the most damage. What I enjoy is exceeding the expectations of my character. If I'm playing someone who is good with guns and I shoot someone in the face, thats not particularly exciting to me, thats pretty standard. If I set up in a sniper position on the roof and pick off the enemies below, thats a bit cooler. If the Rigger gets shot in the chest and has to be driven to the hospital, and my gunner, with his one rank in driving, has to driving him through the crowded streets of Seattle at top speed while being chased by Troll gangers with machine guns. If my gunner, with his 1 rank in driving, can poll that off, now thats awesome. Similarly, if my decker can get off a lucky shot and blow the head off of that thug that he saw sneaking up on the party, thats pretty cool as well.

Now I know I am not speaking for everyone, but I was happy being the flanking buddy of the rogue, or even the total incompetent coward who finds his balls and whollops the orc over the head with a frying pan.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Does anyone else feel that claiming that 4e is just improving the changes that were made in 3e seems rather odd, given the fact that they removed every single class and race that was added in 3e? Sorry about repeating myself there...


Also: I agree with the "magic isn't magic enough anymore". If I understand this correctly, there's very little difference between blasting someone with the great arcane power you developed through years of study... and hitting them with a stick. As other people have pointed out to me at times, there's a very big difference between being balanced and being exactly the same.

I remain surprised when people fail to distinguish between making a better gaming system and revising an old system.

WotC has been trying, in both 3.0 and 4e, to find a new and better way to run a RPG. In 3e, WotC tried out point-based skills, a wide variety of class progressions (Core, ToB, and so on), and a weak Class system. 3.5 sought to fix some of the failures of the 3.0 framework while still remaining within that framework.

4e just took the "lessons learned" in 3e and used them to introduce a new gaming system that still used the framework presented in 1e and 2e. Some of the major carry-through changes included more flexibility within Class selection to allow specialized sub-classes (e.g. TWF Ranger v. Archer Ranger), a skill system that improved with level, fewer restrictions on character fluff (e.g. removal of most race/alignment restrictions), and less Decking (e.g. wizards are no longer single-shot characters, and rogues are useful while not stealing).

Now, On Magic
Is it so easy to miss the forest for the trees? Magic Missile is no more 2d4+INT force damage now then it was just 1d4+1 force damage back in 3e. Mechanically, of course, magic attacks are very different - they include a wider variety of energy types and save effects than non-magic attacks, and several of them create Zones or Summons which non-magical attacks cannot.

So what's the beef? Is it that fighters and rogues can now do fireball-level damage to single targets? That hitting someone really, really hard with a heavy, sharp piece of metal might be as threatening to their life as a brief blast of flame? That fighter still isn't going to be able to nuke a room with his sword - at best he can hit the folks standing next to him.

My best guess is that people miss the long, flowing descriptions of powers. The spell list used to be fun to read, sure, while you imagined what 30,000 cubic feet of fire looked like, or all the fancy things you could do with pyrotechnics. But there's nothing to stop you the player from fancying up the spell descriptions. It's just fluff - write it how you like, and OK it with your DM!

Finally, though, is the Grease question. People miss the little utility spells that 1st level casters could use to completely nuke the battle. A well placed Grease could render an entire encounter's worth of baddies moot at one blow, and a lucky Tasha's or Glitterdust could take down encounters far above their level. Well, 4e has changed, but it doesn't leave you clever wizards in the dust.

Look at Icy Terrain. A 1st level Encounter that allows you to cast the spells that make the bad guys fall down. Sure, it doesn't last as long as Grease, and it can't also be used as a Get Out of Grapple Free card, but it's a nice control spell that you can use a lot more than Grease!

And have you looked at the Cantrips? These are at-will actions that nobody else, not even MC Wizards, can do, and they are awesome. Imagine if your 3e wizard could Ghost Sound or Mage Hand at will? Can you see what you can do with just Mage Hand and Prestidigitation now? Here's an example, to whet your imagination:
1) Stand 10 feet away from a small object that you desire - say an apple on a farmer's cart, or a ill-watched coin purse.
2) As a Standard Action, turn that object invisible with Prest. until the end of your next turn.
3) As a Move Action, walk 10 feet away and Mage Hand (as a Minor Action) that invisible object to you... all on the same turn!
4) Next turn, slip the invisible object into your pocket as a Minor Action, and walk away while it turns visible at the end of your turn.

Think about doing that in 3e. Doing that as a 1st level wizard, even. And you can do that, and other useful, magical tricks like that all day. Does that not seem "magic" to you? Can any mundane class do the same, as easily and undetectably?

Other neat Cantrip effects:
- Retrieve a scroll from your pack and put it in your hand as a minor action by using the invisible Mage Hand.
- Produce a paper flower out of thin air for your sweetie with Prest.
- Whisper in the ear of a companion who is 50 feet away so that only he can hear you with Ghost Sound
- Play practical jokes on your companions with a mixture of the smell & soil effects from Prest. and the sounds "as loud as a yell" from Ghost Sound.
- Get your beer from the bar while lounging at your table with Mage Hand; make it taste better with Prest. :smallbiggrin:
- Spoil the enemy assassin's stealth by making their cloak shine with Light

These are just a few simple effects that no 3e wizard could do at will. At best they'd have an hour of Prest. to play with, and maybe a Mage Hand for a turn if they really wanted to waste the slot. Is this not "magic?"

The summary:
1) Mechanically, magic attacks (not to mention magic utilities) do different things than martial ones. They use elemental descriptors, have large burst areas, and more commonly affect non-AC targets and give status effects than Martial. Before you dismiss it: is 3e Magic Missile just 1d4+1 force damage?

2) Fluff is fluff. If you miss reading paragraphs waxing eloquent about how a spell works, you can write that out yourself. As always, OK it with your DM if you get really creative, but remember: this is a game of imagination, so feel free to use yours.

3) Grease and its ilk of goofy utility spells remain in 4e. Icy Terrain will also create a zone that makes your enemies fall down, and you can use it every Encounter. Yes, 4e no longer allows you to have 2nd level spells that can nuke high-level encounters (Glitterdust, I'm looking at you), but you can still get plenty done with a savvy application of control powers.

4) Cantrips, people. Cantrips. These are at will powers that can do amazing things; amazing things that nobody except a pure wizard can do. Read my list for a brief sample of what you can do without even abusing the RAW. :smallamused:

EDIT:
More Decker stuff.
So, generally speaking, since you can make characters who excel at non-combat activities in 4e, is it so bad that they're not The Load (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLoad) when it comes to combat?

Feats give you a lot of opportunities to really skill-monkey it out, between Jack of All Trades and Skill Training and Skill Focus, not to mention Ritual Casting. Feats are also an important part of being an exceptional combatant. You can spend your feats on Skill Focus instead of Improved Initiative if you want and you will both be worse than you would be if you spent those slots on combat feats and better at whatever you want to specialize in.

Like I said before: just because the classes are combat-oriented doesn't mean your characters have to be.

And I don't mean that in a "cripple thyself" sense. It is a legitimate tradeoff for the wizard to choose, say, Skill Focus (Arcana) over Leather Armor, and while he'll still be able to throw a couple of zones in combat he's not going to be able to stick close to the front where his Thunderblast would be most useful.

How's that sit with you? Or do you insist on being the helpless mook whenever combat comes around, giving flanking for your buddy rogue while hoping someone nasty doesn't smash you because you're an easy target?

[Delcan]

Getting in late in the game...

1. 4th Ed feels way too much like a board game... or like a Tactics-style console RPG, for that matter. You have your one particular piece, and during your turn you can Move, Act, and Minor. Now, 3rd Ed worked the same way, but they weren't so rigidly defined. There were a lot of things you could do, and most of the move-types were essentially defined by "Do I have enough time for this?" With 4th Ed, every time you use an action of some kind, it feels like you're choosing from a small menu. A depressingly small menu.

2. Too geared towards advancement. The whole attitude of the system seems to be about getting to paragon tier, and then epic tier. It's all about getting more power, more experience. This is normal for the player ("so how soon until next level?"), but when the RAW itself does it... not good. Not enough attention is paid to the now of the game, the world you're in now; it's all focused on what the next treasure parcel is going to be, what your next power is, your planned paragon path.

3. This is less of a complaint, because 3rd Ed did this too, but... there really isn't much epic about high levels, and there used to be. 2nd Ed was clumsy about it and made wizards godlike in scale, but there was once a day when high-level magic really, really was supposed to be epic. Anybody remember the spells Raise Nation, or Estate Transference, or hell, 2nd Ed Wish? There was a point in 2nd Ed in which magic ceased to be a series of neat tricks, and became something a little frightening to witness. Now, it's just more damage... and a 30th-level wizard is as much a tactical warrior as a 1st-level wizard, they're just better at it.

4. 4th Ed abandoned the greatest, most amazing thing that 3rd Ed had going for it: total modularity. Despite differing abilities, sizes, level adjustments, and everything else, every creature, PC, and monster in 3rd Ed and 3.5 worked by the same creation rules. Everything had Hit Dice, attributes, feats, et cetera... which means the amount of flexibility was amazing, and there was very little of "No, that's not possible." Want to put the PCs against a griffon wizard 4/barbarian 4? It's weird, yeah... but you can do it. Want to play a monster? Go for it. Want to play a monster with class levels? Easy. There was room for absolutely anything, and the system encouraged this sort of experimenting. Sure, it led to munchkinism, but it also led to some really interesting combinations.

Now, creatures are just blocks of text, with no room for real advancement except for DM fiat, and on the PC side, races Must Be Balanced. Yeah, you can make your own stat block for a monster, and give it whatever abilities you like... but ask yourself honestly, is that as satisfying as horrifying your PCs with a troll Barbarian/Ranger? There's no more real room for that sort of statting-out anymore; it's just making a flat block of abilities, and that's that.

and lastly,

5. PCs are Heroic right at level 1, and to be honest, that's a little boring. Being exceptional right from the get-go is fun and all, but what happened to those formative first levels, where you were just trying to get by in a world of low-level characters? To me, low level games are about the slow approach towards that exceptionalness... not about having it in the first place. You should be able to play a party that's Just Like Everyone Else for a little while, just so you can look back and say, "We proved ourselves."

[Oracle_Hunter]

So we'll put you down for a bunch of #1's and the #5-#6 combo special.

Would you like fries with that :smalltongue:

Complaints Menu
1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
3) 4e is unrealistic
4) 4e is too narrowly focused
5) 4e Epic isn't Epic
6) 4e Heroic isn't Gritty
7) 4e is oversimplified

EDIT:
Oh, I might as well correct a couple of misrepresentations while I'm here:

1) Monsters have plenty of rules for advancement in 4e. The DMG not only gives you easy rules for adjusting monsters up or down level, but it provides a wide variety of templates you can add to any monster. These include class templates.

So yeah, you can make a TWF Troll Ranger if you want in 4e. It just takes less time and effort. :smallamused:

Same with their excellent homebrewing monster guides.

2) Monsters are not just stat-blocks. Every single monster has a description and a Lore section (with handy DCs so that you can quickly figure out how much PCs know about every monster).

No, this isn't 2e where you had a treatise on every monster but, y'know, you're going to be putting these beasties in a setting of some sort, and no two settings have ever treated a single monster the same way. Is it that hard to figure out how you want the monsters to work in your campaign?

[Gavin Sage]

That 'utility' also carried with it a huge imbalance of power. It would be hard if not impossible to provide what some call 'utility' without reintroducing that imbalance of power.

Frankly no it wouldn't be terribly hard to balance spellcasting back to more reasonable levels. It shouldn't be completely balanced, particularly at higher levels, because its frakking magic and magic deserves to be special like that to be of story significance. That said there are ways that could make things more reasonable and give more in the way of exploitable weak points. In no particular order:

*Make most spells demand a full round action. That way if someone gets the drop on a wizard he needs to stand their all vulnerable and open for disruption if he doesn't have his party members creating an effective defense. Alongside this be sure the DCs for Concentration checks are always challenging, and that they apply generally even with defenses in place. Exception should be Dispel magic, Counter-spelling, and maybe direct damager to encourage the much more tame fireball throwing.

*For Quicken Spell: eliminate Quicken, if using above idea then have only make casting a standard action, or have as a condition that no other spells may be cast that round.

*Non universal spell DCs. If a spell is "save or die" it should be easier to resist then "save or take damage" not simply the same base DC whatever the spell.

*Apply the phrase: You ALWAYS get a saving throw. Or some form of chance to resist like attack rolls, with armor counting. And proportionate to the effect being attempted. (No uncounterable effect)

*Give non-casting classes better saving throws, looking at the Fighter in particular here. Make casting more a more dicey proposition when facing something at the same level.

*Be sure every spell has some sort of cap to its effect. What should depend on the spell and its effect.

*Add a mechanic to limit summons and polymorphing cheese, like only certain pre-determined creatures. I've seen fixes on this area around.

*If a spell is skill oriented, make it limited somehow. Knock, have it make an attempt with a decent bonus but have a skill monkey with Open Lock be better at later levels.

*For Wizards in particular no free spells above a certain spell level. Push researching from tomes and scrolls as the only means of learning the higher level spells. Heck make it every spell level only start mages off with some scrolls they can't learn yet for the low levels.

*Eliminate free healing for Clerics so they have to sacrifice a more power to simply keep the party going.

Anyways I'm sure there are more and better thought out ideas out there for spellcasting too. And I would say some good ideas did make it into 4e, coceptually at least.

However fixing magic doesn't demand one say ditch the classic nine level modular setup. Or throw out so very many spells and options. What was so bad about Illusions that you can't have even one broad image type spell anymore? And rituals are an okay idea, but people don't want to have spend 10 minutes and pay 10 gold for Tenser's Floating Disk or Comprehend Languages. They don't come close to the options a mage could pick from in just 3.5 core.

4e makes the mistake of forgetting magic should be special and at some level outshine everything. Doesn't mean it has to the be-all, and no mage should have every solution all the time, but cripes there's no so much less joy in being a Wizard in 4e. Why tremble at the maddening secrets of the universe dervived from years of study... when dumb-arse with the sword over there is every bit as super-special-awesome as you?

[The New Bruceski]

4e makes the mistake of forgetting magic should be special and at some level outshine everything. Doesn't mean it has to the be-all, and no mage should have every solution all the time, but cripes there's no so much less joy in being a Wizard in 4e. Why tremble at the maddening secrets of the universe dervived from years of study... when dumb-arse with the sword over there is every bit as super-special-awesome as you?

Why spend years training and honing your body into a finely tuned weapon the likes of which are only whispered in the greatest heroic legends... when a 98-pound nearsighted geek can tell you not to bother getting out of bed?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Why spend years training and honing your body into a finely tuned weapon the likes of which are only whispered in the greatest heroic legends... when a 98-pound nearsighted geek can tell you not to bother getting out of bed?

What heroic legends? I thought wizards always did everything. Aren't "fighters" and "rogues" just commoners who decided to become really fit? :smalltongue:

[turkishproverb]

Why spend years training and honing your body into a finely tuned weapon the likes of which are only whispered in the greatest heroic legends... when a 98-pound nearsighted geek can tell you not to bother getting out of bed?

Not everyone can do magic?

[OneFamiliarFace]

However fixing magic doesn't demand one say ditch the classic nine level modular setup. Or throw out so very many spells and options. What was so bad about Illusions that you can't have even one broad image type spell anymore? And rituals are an okay idea, but people don't want to have spend 10 minutes and pay 10 gold for Tenser's Floating Disk or Comprehend Languages. They don't come close to the options a mage could pick from in just 3.5 core.

4e makes the mistake of forgetting magic should be special and at some level outshine everything. Doesn't mean it has to the be-all, and no mage should have every solution all the time, but cripes there's no so much less joy in being a Wizard in 4e. Why tremble at the maddening secrets of the universe dervived from years of study... when dumb-arse with the sword over there is every bit as super-special-awesome as you?

EDIT: Curse everyone who ninja'd me with funnier responses. :smalltongue:

Fixing magic also doesn't demand keeping the classic nine level modular setup. If people don't want to pay the money and time for those rituals, then they don't have to. I could say people might not want their mage friend to be using spells that overshadow their own abilities. I don't know if this is true for most, but it is for my players.

Why tremble at the maddening secrets of the universe? Why not? Really, magic is only as powerful or weak as the DM allows it to be or your characters pretend that it is. In the DMG, they even mention that enemies might have access to dark rituals that are very powerful, but can only happen at certain times or with sacrifices. If the DM lets one of these books fall into your hands, then magic is suddenly very powerful. Besides Dumb-arse with a sword can't harness the raw power of the cosmos to rain fire down on the heads of all who oppose me!

Mainly, I am only trying to say this: 4e didn't make a mistake. They happened to do something with magic that you don't agree with. That's fine, and I can see where you are coming from on that point. I happen to think that the most powerful of magics should be very costly and difficult to do. Rituals provide an excellent framework for this, over a system in which you can Wail of the Banshee and kill every person standing around you as a standard action (in approx 3 secs). But that is my opinion, and I understand that.

Some specific points:


*Non universal spell DCs. If a spell is "save or die" it should be easier to resist then "save or take damage" not simply the same base DC whatever the spell.

*Apply the phrase: You ALWAYS get a saving throw. Or some form of chance to resist like attack rolls, with armor counting. And proportionate to the effect being attempted. (No uncounterable effect)

*Give non-casting classes better saving throws, looking at the Fighter in particular here. Make casting more a more dicey proposition when facing something at the same level.

The problem here is that this makes magic even more save or die. It just becomes so for the extremely frustrated mage who can't get his spells to work as well. When my fighter rolls a one on his fort save that is the only thing he could have rolled to fail, I don't think, "Well, at least I have a good save bonus." On the contrary, I'm even more dismayed as I could've rolled anything else!


*Add a mechanic to limit summons and polymorphing cheese, like only certain pre-determined creatures. I've seen fixes on this area around.

See any number of polymorph fixes that have been suggested and don't work. I actually have never minded Polymorph personally, as all of my players have used it reasonably. But when someone wants to break it, they can break it in half.


*For Wizards in particular no free spells above a certain spell level. Push researching from tomes and scrolls as the only means of learning the higher level spells. Heck make it every spell level only start mages off with some scrolls they can't learn yet for the low levels.

This doesn't help when starting higher level games. The wizard merely purchases whatever scrolls he wants with his starting funds and laughs at all the lower level wizards who had to wait for their DM to throw them a bone. The problem with mechanics like that is that once the wizard does have access to the spells, the mechanic becomes a moot point. Before he does, he is angry that the DM is keeping him from buying scrolls in town or not giving them as treasure.

[The New Bruceski]

Not everyone can do magic?

But everybody's perfectly capable of becoming Bruce Lee?

[turkishproverb]

And everybody's perfectly capable of becoming Bruce Lee?

nope. some are stuck being commoners.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Not everyone can do magic?

And not everyone can be a fighter or a rogue.

Unless you specifically fluff it so that not everyone can be a wizard or a sorcerer or what have you, anyone with at least an 11 in a spellcasting ability score can do it.

The same holds true if you meant "not everyone can do magic well."

See, so much of this just sits on people's preconceptions of a concept. It is nowhere written what "magic" has to do in all systems, and 3e certainly does not stand for the proposition that fewer people can be wizards than can be fighters. Hell, with multiclassing, fighters can be wizards and wizards can be fighters! The real rarity is in finding adventurers.

[turkishproverb]

And not everyone can be a fighter or a rogue.

Unless you specifically fluff it so that not everyone can be a wizard or a sorcerer or what have you, anyone with at least an 11 in a spellcasting ability score can do it.

The same holds true if you meant "not everyone can do magic well."

See, so much of this just sits on people's preconceptions of a concept. It is nowhere written what "magic" has to do in all systems, and 3e certainly does not stand for the proposition that fewer people can be wizards than can be fighters. Hell, with multiclassing, fighters can be wizards and wizards can be fighters! The real rarity is in finding adventurers.

And personality has nothing to do with this? I know plenty of people would be predisposed to one or the other. People tend to forget that a realistic character won't do everything that is UBERPOWERGAMEY all the time because they have their own ways of looking at things.

[Oracle_Hunter]

And personality has nothing to do with this? I know plenty of people would be predisposed to one or the other. People tend to forget that a realistic character won't do everything that is UBERPOWERGAMEY all the time because they have their own ways of looking at things.

Sure, personality has something to do with it, but think about it: who wouldn't want to be a 3e caster, if they could? It appears to be no harder to get better as a fighter than as a wizard, and yet the payoffs for being a wizard are enormously greater. Heck, if you've decided not to be a commoner already, why not? :smalltongue:

Of course, this sort of metafictional argument is just for yuks. Your counter will be "being a wizard requires a special sort of mentality and not everyone can do that kind of study" which might sound reasonable, but it's nowhere in the rules. The worst kind of "studying" any wizard needs to do appears to be spending a couple of hours each night preparing spells for the morning - it doesn't even require a concentration check to keep focused!

Oh, and this whole side-argument is a couple standard deviations from the point of this thread, so I won't push it. But really - under 3e rules, why not be a wizard, if you could do it, and were already going to spend an equal amount of effort doing something else?

[turkishproverb]

Sure, personality has something to do with it, but think about it: who wouldn't want to be a 3e caster, if they could? It appears to be no harder to get better as a fighter than as a wizard, and yet the payoffs for being a wizard are enormously greater. Heck, if you've decided not to be a commoner already, why not? :smalltongue:

Of course, this sort of metafictional argument is just for yuks. Your counter will be "being a wizard requires a special sort of mentality and not everyone can do that kind of study" which might sound reasonable, but it's nowhere in the rules. The worst kind of "studying" any wizard needs to do appears to be spending a couple of hours each night preparing spells for the morning - it doesn't even require a concentration check to keep focused!

Oh, and this whole side-argument is a couple standard deviations from the point of this thread, so I won't push it. But really - under 3e rules, why not be a wizard, if you could do it, and were already going to spend an equal amount of effort doing something else?

The individual has effect. "My grandpa was a fighter, I wanna be one too!."

ONce again, you seem to think everyone would automatically want the most avantagious thing IN YOUR OPINION for themselves, despite the fact real people don't work logically.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The individual has effect. "My grandpa was a fighter, I wanna be one too!."

ONce again, you seem to think everyone would automatically want the most avantagious thing IN YOUR OPINION for themselves, despite the fact real people don't work logically.

Oh noes, CAPS, my greatest weakness! :smalltongue:

Real people, however, do tend to work very hard to preserve their lives. If you're going to be a mercenary and risk your life killing folks, you'll spend your time keeping yourself alive, or you'll be dead very quickly.

Given a choice between having the superior ability to protect themselves from harm and an inferior ability to do so, mercenaries will choose the superior one, or they will no longer be making choices in a very short period of time.

I had a more elaborate argument to work out here, but it's not going to convince you, so why spend the time? Let's just say that, in a dangerous world without the unspoken guarantee of "level appropriate encounters" you will find that the people who survive generally min/max however they can. There is, how do you say, selection pressure (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20030623.html) involved. :smallamused:

[OneFamiliarFace]

The individual has effect. "My grandpa was a fighter, I wanna be one too!."

ONce again, you seem to think everyone would automatically want the most avantagious thing IN YOUR OPINION for themselves, despite the fact real people don't work logically.

To be fair, you might be speaking from the general ambiguity of the real world, where there are various social systems that make it hard to do certain things. But, there also isn't any real significant power difference in being a firefighter versus being a policeman.

In this case, however, we are talking swinging a sword versus being able to stop time in its tracks, launch lightning bolts, change the weather, etc, etc, etc. If the inividual had his way, then he would probably be a wizard. (Just like many children want to be doctors, lawyers, and/or astronauts because of the prestige associated with those jobs.) As a real world example: soldiers choose to use guns over swords, even if the guns have limited ammo. It's just smart.

Thus, I would say social structure would play a greater part than individual choice. Wizards would form a ruling class which protected and supported each other. They might be actively oppressive, keeping magical texts and what not out of the hands of the general populace. Or a system might arise in which everyone is well meaning, but some people are simply too poor to be magic users.

However, as Oracle said, none of this is in the rules. It is perfectly fine, then, to think that there could easily be a world in which anyone who had higher than 10 in a mental stat picked up a level or two in a casting class, as it is a much better choice for one's everyday life (and often his general survivability) than a martial class.

[turkishproverb]

Oh noes, CAPS, my greatest weakness! :smalltongue:

Real people, however, do tend to work very hard to preserve their lives. If you're going to be a mercenary and risk your life killing folks, you'll spend your time keeping yourself alive, or you'll be dead very quickly.

Given a choice between having the superior ability to protect themselves from harm and an inferior ability to do so, mercenaries will choose the superior one, or they will no longer be making choices in a very short period of time.

I had a more elaborate argument to work out here, but it's not going to convince you, so why spend the time? Let's just say that, in a dangerous world without the unspoken guarantee of "level appropriate encounters" you will find that the people who survive generally min/max however they can. There is, how do you say, selection pressure (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20030623.html) involved. :smallamused:

Real life mercs or in your mind ones? I've seen interviews with real life Mercs who still used Cold war weapons because they, well, liked them. Despite it being easy for them to get "Better" stuff. Selection pressure only works to a certain degree. Hence why more than one predator exists in an area.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Real life mercs or in your mind ones? I've seen interviews with real life Mercs who still used Cold war weapons because they, well, liked them. Despite it being easy for them to get "Better" stuff.

I'm sure your "real life mercs" would probably agree with me that, even if they loved spears and leather armor to death, they're going to be wearing kevlar and hauling assault rifles if they're going to be doing squad-level work against a similarly armored regular foe. :smalltongue:

[Swok]

Real life mercs or in your mind ones? I've seen interviews with real life Mercs who still used Cold war weapons because they, well, liked them. Despite it being easy for them to get "Better" stuff. Selection pressure only works to a certain degree. Hence why more than one predator exists in an area.

Cold war guns and such aren't too far behind modern ones.

Melee characters compared to Caster characters in 3.5 would need the analogy of modern firearms to feudal swords. We all know there's all those military organizations still using swords running around. Oh...wait.

[turkishproverb]

I'm sure your "real life mercs" would probably agree with me that, even if they loved spears and leather armor to death, they're going to be wearing kevlar and hauling assault rifles if they're going to be doing squad-level work against a similarly armored regular foe. :smalltongue:

And you think low tech can't take out high tech? Man, even I think that does your argument injustice.


Besides which, when starting their career, most aren't going to know as much about a level 20 situation, so they won't know about the unbeatableness crap. Then a guy occasionally tries multiclassing and can't get nearly as strong right away, and slumps away from the situation. People assume "not everyone can do that."

[Oracle_Hunter]

But they don't use World War 1 weapons. Or better, they don't use only swords.

Anyway, what happened to things we dislike about 4e?

Man, do you know what I hate about 4e? It takes me, like, a minute to level up my character. Why, I just was leveling up my Rogue 4/ Fighter 2/ Streetfighter 2 the other day and it took me a good 15 minutes just to put my skill points optimally. That's some quality accounting work, and 4e just throws it out the window - it's why I play D&D in the first place!

Also, 4e doesn't have a Craft (Bread) skill. Man, I've been playing my Barbarian Baker of the Plains since 2e, and now I can't do it anymore? Lame!

EDIT:

And you think low tech can't take out high tech? Man, even I think that does your argument injustice.

Sir, you bring the lulz to this discussion. :smallbiggrin:

Yes, I will happily bet that a 5 man squad of kevlar-and-assault rifle mercs can take out a 5 man squad of leather-and-spear enthusiasts, assuming equal proficiency with their respective weapons and tactics. :smallamused:

[Deepblue706]

But really - under 3e rules, why not be a wizard, if you could do it, and were already going to spend an equal amount of effort doing something else?

Isn't that a just a presumption based on a streamlined XP system that was made out of an attempt to make more aspects of the game easy to understand, balanced and fair? This entire notion of "equal amount of effort" only comes about if you're metagaming. You can't presume any class is more difficult than another - but you can't just presume they're equal, either. You can't determine anything until you apply setting details.

Or, was that a joke?

[OneFamiliarFace]

Man, do you know what I hate about 4e? It takes me, like, a minute to level up my character. Why, I just was leveling up my Rogue 4/ Fighter 2/ Streetfighter 2 the other day and it took me a good 15 minutes just to put my skill points optimally. That's some quality accounting work, and 4e just throws it out the window - it's why I play D&D in the first place!

Also, 4e doesn't have a Craft (Bread) skill. Man, I've been playing my Barbarian Baker of the Plains since 2e, and now I can't do it anymore? Lame!

Sorry bout the quote there. Deleted my post as I had been ninja'd. But yes, continuing on...

Why does it take you so long to place your skill points! You just put them in the skills you already have maxed out anyway! C'mon Oracle, get with the times.

Also, 2e didn't have a craft (bread) skill. It was a non-weapon proficiency. See? 3e was just an update of 2e, but 4e is a whole new game, with their "trained/untrained" stuff.

Okay, okay, I'll stop with the sarcasm!

[Oracle_Hunter]

Isn't that a just a presumption based on a streamlined XP system that was made out of an attempt to make more aspects of the game easy to understand, balanced and fair? This entire notion of "equal amount of effort" only comes about if you're metagaming. You can't presume any class is more difficult than another - but you can't just presume they're equal, either.

Or, was that a joke?

No, no, look at the leveling rules. Jokes aside (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html) any mook with an INT 11 can become a wizard at 2nd level under RAW. 2nd level comes whenever it comes - it doesn't come faster or slower for you if you decided you wanted to become a wizard or just take another level in fighter. It's easy to argue that, for whatever reason, that first level isn't the same amount of effort, but it just is unsupportable when you use RAW for 2nd level.

But then, that's why houserules are so popular in 3e, no? :smallwink:

EDIT:
Oh! Wait, you meant if we ignored D&D entirely, wouldn't it be harder to become a wizard than a fighter. Um, I suppose so, but it also might not be :smallbiggrin:

[turkishproverb]

No, no, look at the leveling rules. Jokes aside (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html) any mook with an INT 11 can become a wizard at 2nd level under RAW. 2nd level comes whenever it comes - it doesn't come faster or slower for you if you decided you wanted to become a wizard or just take another level in fighter. It's easy to argue that, for whatever reason, that first level isn't the same amount of effort, but it just is unsupportable when you use RAW for 2nd level.

But then, that's why houserules are so popular in 3e, no? :smallwink:

EDIT:
Oh! Wait, you meant if we ignored D&D entirely, wouldn't it be harder to become a wizard than a fighter. Um, I suppose so, but it also might not be :smallbiggrin:


And, are you sure it seems the same difficulty to people watching in game? This is why I posted my scenario for the guy who tries it. Easy explanation 101

[Oracle_Hunter]

I probably didn't specify that enough. I said can, not will. I was also trying to make the point that there is a bigger gap than that between a level 20 wizard and a level 20 fighter.

Yes, a Wizard 20 is much, much more powerful than a Fighter 20, and it took the same amount of effort. I rephrase my original question: why would there be any Fighter Heroes around, if wizards can just kill them basically at will? Or, better yet, out-hero them all the time?

This actually feeds into your "appeal to laziness" - that people will just say "eh, not enough rewards yet" and go do something easier. Yes, that's true, but lazy mercenaries don't live long doing mercenary work either. They retire or do light security work. These are not D&D heroes.

Re: Low Tech
Yes, I'm aware of Battlefield Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Earth_(novel)). :smalltongue:

Re: Perception
I suppose it could be different. It's a nice idea, but it's not in the rules. And it would seem weird, since he didn't need to figure out what his next class was until the moment he leveled up.

"Hey Tony, decided to learn some magic, did you?"
"Yeah, but man, suddenly looking back on it, everything was a lot harder to do than it seemed. Like, remember when I was cutting off goblin heads?"
"Yeah, you were having a great time."
"Well, looking back, I was having a terrible time! It was so hard to do, I don't know why I worked so hard to become a wizard."
"Well, you were just being a fighter at the time, weren't you? I still remember having as good a time now as I did then."
"Huh. Weird."

[turkishproverb]

Yes, a Wizard 20 is much, much more powerful than a Fighter 20, and it took the same amount of effort. I rephrase my original question: why would there be any Fighter Heroes around, if wizards can just kill them basically at will? Or, better yet, out-hero them all the time?

This actually feeds into your "appeal to laziness" - that people will just say "eh, not enough rewards yet" and go do something easier. Yes, that's true, but lazy mercenaries don't live long doing mercenary work either. They retire or do light security work. These are not D&D heroes.

Re: Low Tech
Yes, I'm aware of Battlefield Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Earth_(novel)). :smalltongue:
A: I changed that post.


B: It's a little more about old dog new tricks than appeal to laziness. They decide they can't do it on some level as well.

[Helgraf]

Thus proving the point of little distinction admirably. As I said, in 4e it all comes down to what brand of batteries you want to power your awesome.

And frankly, the fluff is all the difference has ever been. The difference here is they're no longer forcing the rules to enforce the 'one vision of fluff' like they have in prior editions.

Personally, I have no problem with Duracell = Energizer = e6 = CVS Brand. Any one of them will power my tools just fine.

I also have no problem with the spellcasters no longer having a high powered car battery to the 9-Volt models issued to everyone else. Mind you, the proportions are off there - spellcasters tend to have a much higher difference in the power ratio than simply that between a car battery's juice and the juice of a 9-volt.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Mind you, the proportions are off there - spellcasters tend to have a much higher difference in the power ratio than simply that between a car battery's juice and the juice of a 9-volt.

I believe you were looking for the Arc Reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man%27s_armor#Arc_reactor)-to-AAA-battery analogy :smalltongue:

[Thurbane]

Is it just me, or are some of the people "defending" 4E from what people dislike about it starting to be more concerned about seeming clever with witty comebacks than actually listening to what people don't like about 4E? :smallfrown:

Yes, witty lists and putdowns really do a lot to convince people to rethink their individual dislikes about the new edition. :smalleek:

[Oracle_Hunter]

Is it just me, or are some of the people "defending" 4E from what people dislike about it starting to be more concerned about seeming clever with witty comebacks than actually listening to what people don't like about 4E? :smallfrown:

Yes, witty lists and putdowns really do a lot to convince people to rethink their individual dislikes about the new edition. :smalleek:

Psh, I've given up on "convincing" anyone - like I said, it is impossible to convince someone that they really do like broccoli, if they say they don't. It is, quite literally, a matter of taste. :smallbiggrin:

No, typically I try to maintain my comments on specific points (I think my "magic isn't magic" post up on the top of page 40 raises some good points), or to do simple fact-checking (see on the middle of page 40). These are either philosophical points that can be argued (or I haven't seen argued yet) or simple facts that, once corrected, either will improve the person's perception of 4e or (more likely) be replaced with another, less specific, complaint about 4e.

That is not to say that people are "dumb" to dislike 4e. It clearly does not suit many people's taste (personally, I think it's mostly the They Changed It Now It Sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) school of reaction, but YMMV (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YourMileageMayVary)) and as Roman economists are wont to say "De gustibus non est disputandum". However, I am not above pushing people on statements like "magic isn't magical" or "Healing Surges are unbelievable but dual wielding Greatswords is A-OK," if for no other reason than I get a better sense on how they think.

EDIT:
Oh, but my current line of snark? Partially it was because I had some easy targets, but mostly because I don't want to go to sleep and people keep posting!

I promise I'll be more reserved in the morning :smallwink:

[Thrud]

My specific dislikes after having played a couple of games now -

1. Sameness of characters. There are basically 2 variations on every character now. Before, with just PHB I could make very different characters by differentiation of equipment/skills/feats. Now, rules wise, you have every subtype of each class pretty much seeming like every other subtype. The only differences are in roleplaying. Now, is that specifically bad? Not as such. But before when you could put down a characters background and make them much better at some things and not as good at others, you could really make them seem different. Now if you have seen one human rogue you have seen them all. (O.K. all of them within one of the 2 subsets). It is a fact that I haven't been able to shake. You used to be able to back up roleplayed character differences with rules differences. That just isn't really possible any more.

2. Sameness of combat. Now I know many people disagree with me on this one, and I will admit that after playing it, there is much to be said about the combat system. But I can't help but feel like there is a bit of a boring element to it by the fact that you have your basic attack that you use over and over. I have heard people repeatedly say in the past that it is much different now because in 3rd ed all you could do as a fighter was swing yoru sword. But that just wasn't true. I could use my bow. Swing my axe. Use my polearm. Do a bullrush. Give my character points in tumble and balance so I could swing from the chandelier run along the balcony railing, then jump down behind someone in a modified version of a charge attack, grapple, disarm, fight defensively, make a power attack, make a coup de gras, strike to subdue, attack from horseback, trip my opponent, make a shield bash, and yes, even swing my sword if I felt like it. Some of it still applies. But in much more restricted ways. Some of the things are simply not possible. My poor chandelier swinging swashbuckler comes to mind. . .

3.Sameness of skills. Everyone can do virtually everything to the same degree. Where is the pain of making suboptimal decisions on your skills so that you could add uniqueness to your character.

4.Sameness of Magic. See skills above.

Now, I will admit to not having read the rules in huge detail. I don't like to do that when I am not DMing, so there is less temptation to try to second guess the DM, so it is possible that some of these problems are simply due to DM inexperience in a new game, and player inexperience likewise.

Is it possible to have fun with the game? Certainly. But it just doesn't feel the same. The uniqueness of characters seems to be gone. It is all very well to create a character that is a thief who grew up as a pickpocket and a burglar, relied on agility and quicktalking to get himself out of trouble, and never used a weapon unless he absolutely had to. But when that character is mechanically virtually the same as a character who grew up training to be an assasin who is a master of silent killing, who has never picked a pocket in his life, and would have no clue what the value of a given gem is, it somehow doesn't seem to be as rewarding to me.

To me rule mechanics have always been an aid to roleplaying. Dramatically weakening feats takes away that differentiation, as does the complete gutting of the skill system.

So to me D&D 4th ed is like homogenized and pasturized milk. Safer and more consistent in quality. But the taste never seems to equal that of raw milk. Of course, with raw milk you run the risk of the occasional bout of food poisoning. :smallbiggrin:

I for one will take the occasional bout of pain cause by crappy DMing and/or stupid ass min/maxing rules lawyers over the generic sameness of 4th ed.

Just my opinion.

[EvilRoeSlade]

I'd like to reshape the argument if that's possible.

Why do we have to assume that wizards should be better than fighters? What about Conan the barbarian who could cut down dozens of men, survive being crucified in the desert for days, shake off any wizard's attempt to control his mind through sheer force of will, and whose mere presence on a battlefield would turn every soldier under his command into fearless fanatics? He didn't have a magic sword, he never drank a potion of healing, he never cast a spell. He was just BADASS. If you told him that he should begin taking multiclass wizard levels because it would be an intrinsically superior choice than continuing on his single-class fighter path, then you'd also have to explain to him why he didn't slay immortal gods, demons, undead, and sorcerers without ever relying on so much as a magic sword. And while you were doing that he'd get bored and crush your skull with his bare hands.

Remember that this is a fantasy game, fantasy being the operative term. It's a game of escapism, and if for you escapism means being a legendary general or an unbeatable warrior instead of Elminster the pointy-hatted wizard who solves everything by waving a wand, then the system should accommodate your desires.

You don't have any grounds to stand on if you argue that wizards should be more powerful than warriors. Get off your Lord of the Rings high horse and read some Robert E. Howard please.

[Thrud]

I'd like to reshape the argument if that's possible.

Why do we have to assume that wizards should be better than fighters? What about Conan the barbarian who could cut down dozens of men, survive being crucified in the desert for days, shake off any wizard's attempt to control his mind through sheer force of will, and whose mere presence on a battlefield would turn every soldier under his command into fearless fanatics? He didn't have a magic sword, he never drank a potion of healing, he never cast a spell. He was just BADASS. If you told him that he should begin taking multiclass wizard levels because it would be an intrinsically superior choice than continuing on his single-class fighter path, then you'd also have to explain to him why he didn't slay immortal gods, demons, undead, and sorcerers without ever relying on so much as a magic sword. And while you were doing that he'd get bored and crush your skull with his bare hands.

Remember that this is a fantasy game, fantasy being the operative term. It's a game of escapism, and if for you escapism means being a legendary general or an unbeatable warrior instead of Elminster the pointy-hatted wizard who solves everything by waving a wand, then the system should accommodate your desires.

You don't have any grounds to stand on if you argue that wizards should be more powerful than warriors. Get off your Lord of the Rings high horse and read some Robert E. Howard please.

Or Fritz Leiber. What about epic thieves?

Still don't like 4th ed though.

:smallbiggrin:

[Oracle_Hunter]

2. Sameness of combat. Now I know many people disagree with me on this one, and I will admit that after playing it, there is much to be said about the combat system. But I can't help but feel like there is a bit of a boring element to it by the fact that you have your basic attack that you use over and over. I have heard people repeatedly say in the past that it is much different now because in 3rd ed all you could do as a fighter was swing yoru sword. But that just wasn't true. I could use my bow. Swing my axe. Use my polearm. Do a bullrush. Give my character points in tumble and balance so I could swing from the chandelier run along the balcony railing, then jump down behind someone in a modified version of a charge attack, grapple, disarm, fight defensively, make a power attack, make a coup de gras, strike to subdue, attack from horseback, trip my opponent, make a shield bash, and yes, even swing my sword if I felt like it. Some of it still applies. But in much more restricted ways. Some of the things are simply not possible. My poor chandelier swinging swashbuckler comes to mind

Interestingly, the "chandelier swinging" idea is actually integrated into 4e. First, read the Acrobatics Skill and note that a sample "acrobatic trick" is to swing from a chandelier. Additionally, "chandelier swinging" is the example given on DMG 42, which provides a handy table for dealing with "things the rules don't cover." I've found that this explicit rules system makes doing flamboyant combat manuevers easier than when the DM just had to wing it in 3e.

Also, 4e still lets you charge, grapple, fight defensively, power attack, bull rush, coup de gras and use all those other weapons. Heck, you could shield bash if you wanted, or you could Tide of Iron and actually move someone around. All of these are at-will actions still.

It should be noted that these moves are not as useful as they used to be, but doesn't that make sense? If all of these improvised attacks were better than using your weapons as you were trained, why wouldn't we all be monks?

I think this is more of a case of the power system being new and overwhelming. Give the combat manuevers section of the PHB a good read over and I'm sure you'll feel much better - particularly if you like Swashbucklers!

[OneFamiliarFace]

Is it just me, or are some of the people "defending" 4E from what people dislike about it starting to be more concerned about seeming clever with witty comebacks than actually listening to what people don't like about 4E? :smallfrown:

Yes, witty lists and putdowns really do a lot to convince people to rethink their individual dislikes about the new edition. :smalleek:

I agree with Oracle on this. I tend to try to avoid snarky, and failed in this context. Sorry for that.

My problem is when people move from general dislikes to saying that 4e is a bad system/doesn't make sense/isn't good for roleplaying. If they said, "I prefer the options 3.x gives me for roleplaying my character," then I would be fine. But they say, "4e is a miniatures game now."

However, numerous people have offered simple and concise arguments as to how 4e can still be used for roleplaying, developing most of the character concepts from fantasy games, and to explain various "unexplainable" mechanics like healing surges. But people don't accept and often don't even credit these arguments with a response (Prophaniti, Thurbane, and a few others being the notable exceptions). 4e defenders have these posts as well, ignoring well thought out responses to their own arguments while barreling ever onward.

What is key to me is, "Is the game fun?" If you don't have fun playing 3.x or don't have fun playing 4e, then that is all I need to know. I have fun playing both. In my snarkiness, I was trying to get at some points that don't have anything to do with this very basic and central question.

To wit: We don't play DnD to live in a world where magic is more powerful than swords or one in which it is balanced. We play to have fun, and the way the world is constructed can effect this differently for different people. So, to say, "4e makes every character the same," is a far cry from "I feel I'm playing the same character no matter what class I play."

[Thrud]

Interestingly, the "chandelier swinging" idea is actually integrated into 4e. First, read the Acrobatics Skill and note that a sample "acrobatic trick" is to swing from a chandelier. Additionally, "chandelier swinging" is the example given on DMG 42, which provides a handy table for dealing with "things the rules don't cover." I've found that this explicit rules system makes doing flamboyant combat manuevers easier than when the DM just had to wing it in 3e.

Also, 4e still lets you charge, grapple, fight defensively, power attack, bull rush, coup de gras and use all those other weapons. Heck, you could shield bash if you wanted, or you could Tide of Iron and actually move someone around. All of these are at-will actions still.

It should be noted that these moves are not as useful as they used to be, but doesn't that make sense? If all of these improvised attacks were better than using your weapons as you were trained, why wouldn't we all be monks?

I think this is more of a case of the power system being new and overwhelming. Give the combat manuevers section of the PHB a good read over and I'm sure you'll feel much better - particularly if you like Swashbucklers!

Yeah, as I said I was quite willing to say that there are possibilities I have not really used as I did not read the rules in great depth. But the fact remains that I could do all those things in 3ed just as they can still be done in 4ed, and with the DM's intervention giving bonuses for certain circumstances they could be more effective within those circumstances. Now the game seems to penalize you for trying to do anything other than use your powers. Which is my core complaint with 4ed. The sameness factor. The almighty game balance has led to me just not having as much fun as I used to. O.K. I admit, my favorite classes to play were monks and bards, and not being able to play them any more is a disappointment to me (yes, I know this will be rectified later. This is why I am not letting it be a game breaker.) I still just can't get past the homogenization factor. I just never had a problem with some characters being better than others at some things. Hell, I would have to have been o.k. with it to ever want to play a bard. But if you are going to make the rules the same for everyone, then why even bother with the rules in the first place? I have had lots of fun playing in completely diceless games where all you do is roleplay, and nothing much needs to be put down on paper. As far as I was concerned in 3ed, as far as the classes different power levels went, I say Vive le Differeance!

I will certainly look into the whole swashbuckler tricks thing, but that doesn't really address my core problem with the system, which is expressed in my point #1, and expanded upon with my specific example of the thieves.

Not specifically a bad game, just not as much fun to me anymore. Homogenized milk vs raw milk. When you cut out the possibilites of the very worst experiences, you also seem to cut out the very best, leaving something balanced, even and slightly bland.

[nagora]

That is not to say that people are "dumb" to dislike 4e. It clearly does not suit many people's taste (personally, I think it's mostly the They Changed It Now It Sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) school of reaction
Thing is, though that that's not an argument. I can just as easily point to your posts and characterise them as "all change is progress; WotC are the greatest game designers in the world".

Basically, it seems to me, that your failure to convince people is largely because you have no argument except "but I like it". The post at the top of page 40 is a classic of the genre:


4e just took the "lessons learned" in 3e and used them to introduce a new gaming system that still used the framework presented in 1e and 2e. Some of the major carry-through changes included more flexibility within Class selection to allow specialized sub-classes (e.g. TWF Ranger v. Archer Ranger), a skill system that improved with level, fewer restrictions on character fluff (e.g. removal of most race/alignment restrictions), and less Decking (e.g. wizards are no longer single-shot characters, and rogues are useful while not stealing).

The suggestion that allowing TWF Ranger as a specialised sub-class is an improvement beggars my comprehension, to be frank. Basically everything in the above quote says "Out of ideas" to me, but you manage to spin it as if it was the embodiment of progress and improvements gleaned from years of carefully judged experience by some team of experts. Yet this is from the same people who didn't even bother to playtest Skill Challenges!

4e is a game system which expects the players to be crap at roleplaying and strives to give them lots of other things to do to pass the time instead - mostly an insanely over-detailed and pointless combat system, which is why people keep bringing up the "it's a tactical combat game now".

Sure, you can ignore that crud and roleplay with it and, doubly sure, it is a general slight improvement over 3e. But is that really aiming high enough?

[OneFamiliarFace]

4e is a game system which expects the players to be crap at roleplaying and strives to give them lots of other things to do to pass the time instead - mostly an insanely over-detailed and pointless combat system, which is why people keep bringing up the "it's a tactical combat game now".

Sure, you can ignore that crud and roleplay with it and, doubly sure, it is a general slight improvement over 3e. But is that really aiming high enough?

See, this is what I am talking about. There is absolutely nothing in 4e that prevents you from roleplaying or indicates that players are "crap" at it. If YOU personally don't feel comfortable roleplaying in the 4e system, then that is fine and good. But many other people have not had the same problem, and that is also fine and good.

To say that 4e has an insanely over-detailed combat system, compared to a game in which any two given characters (and even some combat maneuvers) don't even have the same combat mechanics, is simply not true. I was under the impression that people are calling it a tactical game because of its emphasis on character placement on a map. Some people don't like that, and that is also fine.

I would really like someone to explain to me, in terms outside of opinion, how 4e stunts roleplaying, expects "crap" roleplayers, or is any less of a roleplaying game than 3e. I don't think 4e is better for it, but I can't see how it is worse. (I know there are legit arguments out there, but I would like to read those, over blanket, and minorly insulting, statements about 4e's playership.)

[nagora]

See, this is what I am talking about. There is absolutely nothing in 4e that prevents you from roleplaying or indicates that players are "crap" at it.
I'm not saying they are, I'm suggesting that that was the design criteria ("Make 4e easier for people who aren't into roleplaying"). The obssession with balance - particularly combat balance - seems to be a symptom of this thinking, as is the boost in power for 1st level characters, the original skill challenge rules ("You don't have to talk to the king, you can roll some dice!") , the per-encounter abilities, the stupid healing rules, the weird marking and other "move the opponent" powers, and, to a lesser extent, the removal of Vancian casting. These all make it easier to treat your character as a piece in a board game instead of a character you are playing.

Nothing stops you from roleplaying and it is an improvement from 3e. But a poke in the eye would be an improvement over that thing.

[Kompera]

While I have seen a few posters directly complain about the lack of high-level, epic-feeling magic, what you're missing are the posters like myself and Thurbane. Our complaint is not about the loss of game-ending, super dominating magic, but rather about the little things. Specifically, the Grease spell you mentioned. That is EXACTLY what we're complaining about, not the loss of Time Stop.
There is no level requirement for a spell to be considered to be overpowered. It doesn't have to be a 9th level spell, there are plenty of examples of overpowered or unbalancing spells at the lowly levels of 1st through 3rd (to give a low level range).

Grease is a good example of a low level spell which is either overpowered or unbalanced, depending on where you want to draw the line.

For a melee character to disarm an opponent he must use the Disarm maneuver, suffering an AoO which if it hits for damage spoils the disarm attempt. He can spend a Feat to overcome the AoO disadvantage, adding a significant cost to the maneuver. He must then make an opposed roll for effect, and several modifiers can apply to either side. If he wins, he has successfully disarmed the opponent. If he fails the opponent now gains an immediate attempt to disarm him in return.

For Grease to disarm an opponent, the Wizard casts it at a 25+ foot range, eliminating the AoO for casting in melee and without the AoO the melee character suffers automatically. Then the opponent must make a save vs. Reflex. If this save is failed, the opponent is disarmed. There is no possibility that the Wizard will be disarmed in turn by a reversal. All possible penalty other than the opponent simply making their saving throw has been eliminated.

The relative odds for these two methods will change with the STR and AGI of the opponent, plus some other possible modifiers. But the general result will be this: The Grease spell will disarm more often on average than the Disarm maneuver.

And the Grease spell has other utility as well! Disarm has only a single utility, and spending Feats to do it better is therefore resources spent on making a very narrow ability better. If the opponent isn't wielding a weapon (say, it's a Giant beating on you with its fists) any resources spent by the melee character on a focus on Disarm and useless for this battle. Grease can still be used to try to trip the Giant and any other creature which enters the target area, or it can be used to give the target a +10 circumstance bonus on Escape Artist checks and on grapple checks.

Any why should Grease be better at Disarming an opponent than a Fighter using the Disarm maneuver? Because it's magic? This is yet another case of the Wizard having a spell for every situation, even those which are the specialty of any and all of the other members of the party.

[Jayabalard]

Is it just me, or are some of the people "defending" 4E from what people dislike about it starting to be more concerned about seeming clever with witty comebacks than actually listening to what people don't like about 4E? :smallfrown:

Yes, witty lists and putdowns really do a lot to convince people to rethink their individual dislikes about the new edition. :smalleek:that was 40 pages ago
Why do we have to assume that wizards should be better than fighters?Because magic > non-magic; if it's not, then magic = non-magic (magic is not magical).

Your use of Conan seem to be a bad example: I can't really remember a single time that he beat a wizard due to being stronger, or even evenly matched with the wizard as far as how much power each of them wielded.


most of the people who complain about magic not being magic enough focus on the high-level part of the game. Nobody really cares if a wizard can't cast Grease anymore, but people seem to be irked that Wizards can no longer Beat the Game on their own.You should go back and re-read some of what people have posted if you haven't seen that; more than a few people have complained about low level spells that are missing.

[Gavin Sage]

There is no level requirement for a spell to be considered to be overpowered. It doesn't have to be a 9th level spell, there are plenty of examples of overpowered or unbalancing spells at the lowly levels of 1st through 3rd (to give a low level range).

Grease is a good example of a low level spell which is either overpowered or unbalanced, depending on where you want to draw the line.

Grease Fix:
Reflex save to cancel its slowing effect entirely, and only on failure make a Dex check to remain standing.

Eliminate coating one object, especially one already held. That should be a separate spell to begin with, and probably shouldn't work on objects already held anyways.



Any why should Grease be better at Disarming an opponent than a Fighter using the Disarm maneuver? Because it's magic? This is yet another case of the Wizard having a spell for every situation, even those which are the specialty of any and all of the other members of the party.

It shouldn't, see above. Fix the spell not destroy the system. I think I should quote my big post on the previous page.

And I think manuvers like Disarm could be cleaned up quite a bit and made more streamlined too. Albeit in this case I would favor a Skill Trick approach as opposed to the sort of expendable powers 4e favors. In any case a modification to 3.5, not changes on the scale of 4e

[Oracle_Hunter]

You should go back and re-read some of what people have posted if you haven't seen that; more than a few people have complained about low level spells that are missing.

Please refer to the following and respond. Thank you.
On Magic (from page 40)
Is it so easy to miss the forest for the trees? Magic Missile is no more 2d4+INT force damage now then it was just 1d4+1 force damage back in 3e. Mechanically, of course, magic attacks are very different - they include a wider variety of energy types and save effects than non-magic attacks, and several of them create Zones or Summons which non-magical attacks cannot.

So what's the beef? Is it that fighters and rogues can now do fireball-level damage to single targets? That hitting someone really, really hard with a heavy, sharp piece of metal might be as threatening to their life as a brief blast of flame? That fighter still isn't going to be able to nuke a room with his sword - at best he can hit the folks standing next to him.

My best guess is that people miss the long, flowing descriptions of powers. The spell list used to be fun to read, sure, while you imagined what 30,000 cubic feet of fire looked like, or all the fancy things you could do with pyrotechnics. But there's nothing to stop you the player from fancying up the spell descriptions. It's just fluff - write it how you like, and OK it with your DM!

Finally, though, is the Grease question. People miss the little utility spells that 1st level casters could use to completely nuke the battle. A well placed Grease could render an entire encounter's worth of baddies moot at one blow, and a lucky Tasha's or Glitterdust could take down encounters far above their level. Well, 4e has changed, but it doesn't leave you clever wizards in the dust.

Look at Icy Terrain. A 1st level Encounter that allows you to cast the spells that make the bad guys fall down. Sure, it doesn't last as long as Grease, and it can't also be used as a Get Out of Grapple Free card, but it's a nice control spell that you can use a lot more than Grease!

And have you looked at the Cantrips? These are at-will actions that nobody else, not even MC Wizards, can do, and they are awesome. Imagine if your 3e wizard could Ghost Sound or Mage Hand at will? Can you see what you can do with just Mage Hand and Prestidigitation now? Here's an example, to whet your imagination:
1) Stand 10 feet away from a small object that you desire - say an apple on a farmer's cart, or a ill-watched coin purse.
2) As a Standard Action, turn that object invisible with Prest. until the end of your next turn.
3) As a Move Action, walk 10 feet away and Mage Hand (as a Minor Action) that invisible object to you... all on the same turn!
4) Next turn, slip the invisible object into your pocket as a Minor Action, and walk away while it turns visible at the end of your turn.

Think about doing that in 3e. Doing that as a 1st level wizard, even. And you can do that, and other useful, magical tricks like that all day. Does that not seem "magic" to you? Can any mundane class do the same, as easily and undetectably?

Other neat Cantrip effects:
- Retrieve a scroll from your pack and put it in your hand as a minor action by using the invisible Mage Hand.
- Produce a paper flower out of thin air for your sweetie with Prest.
- Whisper in the ear of a companion who is 50 feet away so that only he can hear you with Ghost Sound
- Play practical jokes on your companions with a mixture of the smell & soil effects from Prest. and the sounds "as loud as a yell" from Ghost Sound.
- Get your beer from the bar while lounging at your table with Mage Hand; make it taste better with Prest. :smallbiggrin:
- Spoil the enemy assassin's stealth by making their cloak shine with Light

These are just a few simple effects that no 3e wizard could do at will. At best they'd have an hour of Prest. to play with, and maybe a Mage Hand for a turn if they really wanted to waste the slot. Is this not "magic?"

The summary:
1) Mechanically, magic attacks (not to mention magic utilities) do different things than martial ones. They use elemental descriptors, have large burst areas, and more commonly affect non-AC targets and give status effects than Martial. Before you dismiss it: is 3e Magic Missile just 1d4+1 force damage?

2) Fluff is fluff. If you miss reading paragraphs waxing eloquent about how a spell works, you can write that out yourself. As always, OK it with your DM if you get really creative, but remember: this is a game of imagination, so feel free to use yours.

3) Grease and its ilk of goofy utility spells remain in 4e. Icy Terrain will also create a zone that makes your enemies fall down, and you can use it every Encounter. Yes, 4e no longer allows you to have 2nd level spells that can nuke high-level encounters (Glitterdust, I'm looking at you), but you can still get plenty done with a savvy application of control powers.

4) Cantrips, people. Cantrips. These are at will powers that can do amazing things; amazing things that nobody except a pure wizard can do. Read my list for a brief sample of what you can do without even abusing the RAW. :smallamused:


Thing is, though that that's not an argument. I can just as easily point to your posts and characterise them as "all change is progress; WotC are the greatest game designers in the world".

Sir, I've made many arguments based in the mechanics of the game and gameplay philosophies that 4e follows. I have shown how 4e is easier to DM, easier to play, and I've tried to highlight some of the interesting new mechanics which might appeal to gamers. If you do not think ease of use and mechanical consistency are virtues in a system, then there is nothing I can say that can sway you.

[nagora]

Sir, I've made many arguments based in the mechanics of the game and gameplay philosophies that 4e follows. I have shown how 4e is easier to DM, easier to play, and I've tried to highlight some of the interesting new mechanics which might appeal to gamers.
You have - and I agree with you, but I disagree that those goals were the right ones, no matter how well they were attained* - but recently you've just repeated that people don't like change over and over again.


If you do not think ease of use and mechanical consistency are virtues in a system, then there is nothing I can say that can sway you.
Mechanical consistancy is certainly not a virtue in itself, while ease of use should be an Occam's Razor thing: if there's two ways of doing the same thing then use the simplest. But the goal is to make a good game and nobody would claim that Checkers is inherently better than Chess because it is simpler to learn and movement is much more consistant across the playing pieces.

*For example: the 4e combat system may well be a better detailed tactical simulation of combat than 3e, but I don't see the desirability of having a detailed tactical simulation of combat in an adventure roleplaying game. I want combat to be quick, exciting, and leave some room for characters' differences to affect the outcome. I refuse to interrupt roleplaying to set up a battle map for anything less than 50 combatants in anything other than a major campaign-altering event.

[Prophaniti]

Sir, I've made many arguments based in the mechanics of the game and gameplay philosophies that 4e follows. I have shown how 4e is easier to DM, easier to play, and I've tried to highlight some of the interesting new mechanics which might appeal to gamers.
And I've said, more than once, that my distaste for 4e is precisely because of the gaming philosophies they chose to pursue. Taking GNS theory, it is quite clear that 4e follows an almost purely Gamist approach, which is simply not the direction I want my RPGs to take. Specifics have been cited merely as a demonstration of this. I've also stated multiple times that many of the changes I dislike are excellent game mechanics, and if I picked up D&D just to have another game to break out when we're bored on a sunday afternoon, I think I'd really enjoy it (really, what I most appreciate is the (apparent, haven't tried it yet) ease of DMing, because deep down, I'm lazy and like it to be easy). But that's not why I pick up D&D, or any other RPG. The balance of the game aspect is only a small part of an RPG, and I simply feel they ignored other aspects in favor of attempting to perfect the one.


If you do not think ease of use and mechanical consistency are virtues in a system, then there is nothing I can say that can sway you.So checkers is a more virtuous game that chess? (Nagora covered that one) Chutes and Ladders is more virtuous than Monopoly? Candyland more virtuous that Settlers of Catan? I can certainly tell you, I'd rather be playing the second example in each case.

[EvilElitest]

Is it just me, or are some of the people "defending" 4E from what people dislike about it starting to be more concerned about seeming clever with witty comebacks than actually listening to what people don't like about 4E? :smallfrown:

Yes, witty lists and putdowns really do a lot to convince people to rethink their individual dislikes about the new edition. :smalleek:

snark snark, snark snark snark



My problem is when people move from general dislikes to saying that 4e is a bad system/doesn't make sense/isn't good for roleplaying. If they said, "I prefer the options 3.x gives me for roleplaying my character," then I would be fine. But they say, "4e is a miniatures game now."
considering that it is designed like a board game, and is so inherently shallow compared to 3E (and that is saying something). Which is quite valid, considering the nature of 4E involves so much unnecessary simplifying
and lack of depth compared to 3E (which is again, saying something).


However, numerous people have offered simple and concise arguments as to how 4e can still be used for roleplaying, developing most of the character concepts from fantasy games, and to explain various "unexplainable" mechanics like healing surges.
Actually no. Peoples arguments on
1) It not being a shallow games often use a Rule zero approach, IE "Well we don't do things that way" which doesn't change the fact the game is designed to be simplistic
2) The explanation doesn't solve thigns like inconsistencies or lack of world building in 4E. In fact, most of it relies upon "Its cooler this way, go with it"


But people don't accept and often don't even credit these arguments with a response (Prophaniti, Thurbane, and a few others being the notable exceptions). 4e defenders have these posts as well, ignoring well thought out responses to their own arguments while barreling ever onward.
As the Alpha Self important tosser of 4E, i have responded to each one of these, and i've noticed a pattern. Its just the same thing, once you break past the argument, there isn't any substance behind it

As i said, if you like 4E fine. That doesn't make you a bad person, not 4E a bad game. It is however, an awful new edition to D&D compared to the latter editions


What is key to me is, "Is the game fun?" If you don't have fun playing 3.x or don't have fun playing 4e, then that is all I need to know. I have fun playing both. In my snarkiness, I was trying to get at some points that don't have anything to do with this very basic and central question.
If it is based upon personal nature of fun, then why are you on this thread at all?


To wit: We don't play DnD to live in a world where magic is more powerful than swords or one in which it is balanced. We play to have fun, and the way the world is constructed can effect this differently for different people. So, to say, "4e makes every character the same," is a far cry from "I feel I'm playing the same character no matter what class I play."
Except the games design's brings about that feelings. In the same way 3E people might say "I feel that the spell casters have an advantage"
" I feel like that diplomacy is inept and unrealistic"
"I think that fighters are underpowered"



Also three fallacies that i think we need to put behind us

1) They changed it now it sucks

This is the really annoying statement that the hatred of 4E is simply a general fear of change, and quite frankly it isn't true. I don't not like 3E. It is horrible broken, and has massive flaws due to disorganization. I wanted a new edition, i was all for a new edition. I just think 4E is worst in comparison. Saying that They changed it now its sucks is the basis for complaints is quite frankly absurdly insulting. Its basically calling anyone with the audacity to be upset about 4E is simply a closed minded conservative who can't get with the times and stubbornly refuses to change, thus making the focus of the complaints less important. Don't do that, address the complaints directly instead of making false assumptions
2) Live and let live, each to their own, you can't define fun
Ok, if you believe this, then my main question is, why are you on this thread? Really, if you think each to their own, they you shouldn't be on a thread trying to defend 4E. I mean on the "What do you like about 4E" thread there was a strict don't waste time with negativity policy. If you think you can't make a difference and must snark, then don't bother hanging out in an anti 4E thread
3) Snark
Ok really i know it sounds nice to simply be snarking, but as long as you do so, your not really addressing the points. If you want to defend 4E fine, but actually adress the points directly, don't just evade the question through snide insults. Another thing worth pointing out under this subject is that you shouldn't automatically attack 3E. Just because somebody doesn't like 4E doesn't mean they liked 3E.
from
EE

[Jayabalard]

Please refer to the following and respond. Thank you.If you want to discuss the virtues of 4e rather than what people (I) dislike about it, you should probably start a thread about that.

[Oracle_Hunter]

You have - and I agree with you, but I disagree that those goals were the right ones, no matter how well they were attained* - but recently you've just repeated that people don't like change over and over again.

Because the vast majority of complaints are just that. It shouldn't matter when choosing a gaming system if there are "bards" or if "rangers" are wedded to the forest or not - both "bard" and "ranger" are words which don't have anything close to an objective meaning. If by "bard" you mean you want someone who uses magic by singing or by "ranger" you mean a woodsman who is friend to the animals, you can make that in 4e just as easily as in 3e. The same is true with "I can't play a two-weapon Fighter;" you can, they're just called rangers!

This also applies to "I can't trip anymore" (it's in powers now), "the cosmology changed" (so change it back?), and the like. The essential complaint voiced by these arguments is that 4e is different-sounding than 3e, which is why I put them all under category #1.


Mechanical consistancy is certainly not a virtue in itself, while ease of use should be an Occam's Razor thing: if there's two ways of doing the same thing then use the simplest. But the goal is to make a good game and nobody would claim that Checkers is inherently better than Chess because it is simpler to learn and movement is much more consistant across the playing pieces.

I should have expanded on what I meant by Mechanical Consistency. It is not that things are done in the simplest fashion possible, but rather that the rules do not throw up absurd results.

(continued)
Yes, 4e has had it's fair share of problems, but by and large it avoids absurd results such as bucket rezzes, infinite damage gauntlets, Pun-Pun, Tippy Societies, and the other things that CharOp has ridiculed 3e for. Most of the so-called absurd results that are floating around the CharOp boards these days involve infinite re-rolls (based on some, IMHO, rather odd readings of the rules), or one-off powerful attacks (anything involving the Demigod Epic Destiny, really).

The reason this is nice is that it indicates a system which is tight enough to function even in stressful situations, which means the DM doesn't have to make as many ad hoc rulings and therefore can focus more on the story. I suppose you could say I find an aesthetic value in systems that are mechanically consistent, but they really are just easier to run too.

The other kind of mechanical consistency you alluded to is much less clear cut.

(continued)
As I've alluded to in the Decker Problem, games which include a wide variety of different internal systems can be problematic from a DMing perspective, but they also place the system under greater stress. Every time you come up with a hybrid situation (say, a car-to-car gun battle in Shadowrun) it can be difficult trying to figure out what parts of which system you want to use. Additionally, players are hesitant to try new character roles because they know that every role has it's own system, which will require study and practice to pull off. Personally, I think players should choose classes based on what they want that character to be, not because they are intimidated with the mechanical complexity of that class.

However, using one system for all rolls does limit the mechanical complexity of the game. A Fudge-style system doesn't have much use for dice and all of the diversity of actions must be accounted for by player creativity. This can be taxing on the players and it makes it difficult to create a character that is mechanically distinct from the other potential characters.

I think that 4e has cut this knot with aplomb. Unlike in 3e, MC does not allow any give character to have any set of powers. If you want to cast cantrips, you must start out as a wizard; if you want to wield any two weapons at once, you must be a TWF Ranger. This already broadens the set of mechanically different characters above 3e - a Fighter-Wizard is not the same as a Wizard-Fighter in 4e, whereas in 3e they were. Additionally, the power system allows for a mathematically large set of potential mechanically different characters, due to the limited number of powers each character can have.

Not counting MC, any character can pick 2 of 4 at-wills, and 1 of 4 powers at nearly every level. Additionally, they each choose 1 of 4 paragon paths and 1 of 3 Epic Destinies. My statistics are rusty enough that I'd rather not embarrass myself by miscalculating the total number of Fighters you could make, based off of Power selection alone, but it is a very large number.

If someone could do that for Fighter, I'd appreciate it. Make it a Dwarven Fighter without MC.

And, on the hand of simplicity, all skills operate under the same general skill mechanic, all powers operate under the same basic rules, and the "special manuevers" from bull-rush to chandelier swinging are all covered explicitly. This means the DM doesn't have to panic if someone brings a ToB Fighter to the table, or one of the other exotic classes from 3e - whatever the class is, they function, for him, under the same logic as everyone else.

EDIT:

If you want to discuss the virtues of 4e rather than what people I dislike about it, you should probably start a thread about that.

You sir, win the Stonewall Award for Unresponsive Answers.

Do you really have nothing to say to me after I, in fact, addressed the grease-based concerns you accused me of ignoring?

[EvilElitest]

on 4E's mechanical consistency

It isn't constancy from an in game perspective, it is horrible inconsistent (See video game complaint). And while i will say 4E is a battle fighting game than other editions, that is pretty much what it is, a fighting game. As i said, a board game, it is made for one specific way of playing and tries to do that well. Which would be fine if 4E wasn't a new edition but a spin off game, i'm sure they would do it very well. But WoTC dismissal of so much in D&D that was important to the game only show how they simply don't care about D&D, only about profits, which 4E's changes clearly show.

On 4E's ease

It is easier for a DM to do one style of playing better, and it is easier for players to learn, but that is because it is a simpler system. I mean, Dora is simpler and easier to understand than Avatar isn't it, that doesn't prove quality. Being easy to understand for beginners is an asset, but a super vital one, you can do without it. It is a good thing 4E has, but it shouldn't be used as its main point of quality
from
EE

[nagora]

Because the vast majority of complaints are just that. It shouldn't matter when choosing a gaming system if there are "bards" or if "rangers" are wedded to the forest or not - both "bard" and "ranger" are words which don't have anything close to an objective meaning. If by "bard" you mean you want someone who uses magic by singing or by "ranger" you mean a woodsman who is friend to the animals, you can make that in 4e just as easily as in 3e. The same is true with "I can't play a two-weapon Fighter;" you can, they're just called rangers!
Well, the issue with that is that "ranger" is a widely known fantasy archetype and has nothing to do with TWF at all. Sure, we can all be Humpty-Dumpty and make words mean just what we say they mean, but then why use words like "ranger" or "bard" at all if not for the flavour that you assume they carry?

I think you're trying to have it both ways here to an extent: you want to claim that 4e is just a system with no fixed background "fluff" (*spits*) but at the same time you want everyone to accept all these rule changes which affect the background. Because, there are just as many background details implied by the new magic system, for instance, as were implied by Vancian casting and the Dragonbores imply vastly more about the world than halflings or gnomes ever did. 4e is not this virginal generic system that you seem to be implying much of the time. The changes have actually made far-ranging alterations to the default game world and saying


This also applies to "I can't trip anymore" (it's in powers now), "the cosmology changed" (so change it back?), and the like. The essential complaint voiced by these arguments is that 4e is different-sounding than 3e, which is why I put them all under category #1.
seems a shallow attempt to gloss over that fact. Changing the cosmology back is not likely to sit easily with future WotC or 3rd party products (if there ever are any); it is not so easy to handwave these changes away.


I should have expanded on what I meant by Mechanical Consistency. It is not that things are done in the simplest fashion possible, but rather that the rules do not throw up absurd results.
I understood that; I just disagree that the way to avoid absurd results is by having unified mechanics. But, stupid results arrived at easily are preferrable to stupid results arrived at with difficulty.

I'm not going to respond in detail to the rest of your post because it mainly made the point that 4e mechanics are better than 3e's and it seems silly to argue something I agree with.

[EvilElitest]

on the subject, i hate the new FR. I mean really,it is disgusting

On that subject, i've always been confused by FR hate. It seems to be very much a "All the cool kids are doing it" sort of thing
from
EE

[Jayabalard]

Do you really have nothing to say to me after I, in fact, addressed the grease-based concerns you accused me of ignoring?I skimmed, and it looked like you are talking about 4e virtues; that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand, so I am not really all that interested in discussing them here. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you are grossly mischaracterizing the complaints about 4e magic system when you say
most of the people who complain about magic not being magic enough focus on the high-level part of the game. Nobody really cares if a wizard can't cast Grease anymore, but people seem to be irked that Wizards can no longer Beat the Game on their own.Since there have been quite a few complaints about low level spells and abilities that simply do not exist in 4e.

[EvilElitest]

and i don't want wizards to beat the game, i liked their concept in 3E, just not the execution. And it can be done, its been done on these boards, but WOTC simply doesn't care
from
EE

[Oracle_Hunter]

I skimmed, and it looked like you are talking about 4e virtues; that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand, so I am not really all that interested in discussing them here. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you are grossly mischaracterizing the complaints about 4e magic system when you say:

Since there have been quite a few complaints about low level spells and abilities that simply do not exist in 4e.

{Scrubbed} Here's the Executive Summary:

1) Grease and its ilk of goofy utility spells remain in 4e. Icy Terrain will also create a zone that makes your enemies fall down, and you can use it every Encounter. Yes, 4e no longer allows you to have 2nd level spells that can nuke high-level encounters (Glitterdust, I'm looking at you), but you can still get plenty done with a savvy application of control powers.

2) Cantrips, people. Cantrips. These are at will powers that can do amazing things; amazing things that nobody except a pure wizard can do. Read my list for a brief sample of what you can do without even abusing the RAW. :smallamused:

[EvilElitest]

oracle did you notice what i said
from
EE

[Oracle_Hunter]

oracle did you notice what i said
from
EE

I... believe so? You said you liked the "concept" of the 3e wizard but not the "execution." I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more specific before I can really say much on that.

[EvilElitest]

I... believe so? You said you liked the "concept" but not the "execution." I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more specific before I can really say much on that.

post 1217 down
from
EE

[Oracle_Hunter]

post 1217 down
from
EE

Ah! I see it now. You've done a bit of editing. :smallbiggrin:

Well, mostly what you said is "I don't like how it tastes." Which is fine, I suppose.

On Mechanics: I'm not sure how "it plays like a video game" means inconsistent mechanics. 4e just is consistent in the manners that I detailed in response to Nagora. If you can point out an instance where it creates internal conflicts, I'd be happy to discuss it. But mostly it seems you're making a #4 claim, which I no longer bother arguing against.

On Ease of Play: What sort of play is harder to do in 4e? Pure RP is as easy as it's always been (no rules, no problem), the non-combat rolls are much better defined and easier to systematize in a consistent fashion, and combat is a breeze. You'll have to say more.

[EvilElitest]

Ah! I see it now. You've done a bit of editing. :smallbiggrin:
[/QUOTE}
Through you missed a few points
[QUOTE]Well, mostly what you said is "I don't like how it tastes." Which is fine, I suppose.
No that isn't my point, my point is is the fallacy's with other conduct


On Mechanics: I'm not sure how "it plays like a video game" means inconsistent mechanics. 4e just is consistent in the manners that I detailed in response to Nagora. If you can point out an instance where it creates internal conflicts, I'd be happy to discuss it. But mostly it seems you're making a #4 claim, which I no longer bother arguing against.

It has no world consistency, it has consistency as a rule base for on style of play, but outside that. It plays like a video game in terms of world consistency and is built like a board game in terms of mechanics



On Ease of Play: What sort of play is harder to do in 4e? Pure RP is as easy as it's always been (no rules, no problem), the non-combat rolls are much better defined and easier to systematize in a consistent fashion, and combat is a breeze. You'll have to say more.
I"m saying its simply. It is easiler to understand because it is a simplier game
from
EE

[Oracle_Hunter]

Through you missed a few points

Yep. Not much to say to that. I'll put you down for a #1, #4, and #7 then.

I could argue about the "world consistency" angle, but since that's not the mechanics I'm talking about (and, as I've said before, I found the 4e world internally consistent enough for a Fantasy RPG), there's not a whole of lot productive commentary to be made.

The same is true with your allegations of fallacy. They Changed It Now It Sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) is well defined and, even if you don't like having your viewpoint referred to in such a fashion, you'd happily agree that at least some people on the examples page are guilty of this thinking.

It's a Subjective Trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SubjectiveTropes?from=Main.SubjectiveTrope). What can you expect?

Anything else you'd like me to address?

[EvilElitest]

Yep. Not much to say to that. I'll put you down for a #1, #4, and #7 then.

What's with then numbers?

But your evading my points, your just dismissing what i said rather than responding

I could argue about the "world consistency" angle, but since that's not the mechanics I'm talking about (and, as I've said before, I found the 4e world internally consistent enough for a Fantasy RPG), there's not a whole of lot productive commentary to be made.
Its the basis of the accusations of 4E being a shallow lack luster game thats mainly oriented towards combat


The same is true with your allegations of fallacy. They Changed It Now It Sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) is well defined and, even if you don't like having your viewpoint referred to in such a fashion, you'd happily agree that at least some people on the examples page are guilty of this thinking.
And as i said, that isn't the point. Saying that this is the only basis of anti 4E complaints is simply insulting. That isn't it, it isn't about a hatred against any change, because most anti 4E people are aware of the flaws of 3E. By making that accusation you simply evade the acutally point

And what about my other fallacy


Anything else you'd like me to address?
Yes, please don't dismiss my points, but adress them directly
from
EE

[Oracle_Hunter]

Yes, please don't dismiss my points, but adress them directly

Alright, I'm stupid and lazy. Give me a bullet-point list of things to respond to, and I will.

However, I will likely respond in the only way I can - I think 4e tastes different than you do. You don't actually offer any mechanical critiques of the system that I can see, so all I can say is that "I don't find it that way."

And the numbers refer to this list:
Complaints Menu
1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
3) 4e is unrealistic
4) 4e is too narrowly focused
5) 4e Epic isn't Epic
6) 4e Heroic isn't Gritty
7) 4e is oversimplified

[Frownbear]

And as i said, that isn't the point. Saying that this is the only basis of anti 4E complaints is simply insulting. That isn't it, it isn't about a hatred against any change, because most anti 4E people are aware of the flaws of 3E. By making that accusation you simply evade the acutally point

It's no more insulting than "it's shallow, lackluster, and mainly focused on combat!"

Come on, people, it's got more support for noncombat adventures than 3E did. It just has fewer spells.

[Morty]

It's no more insulting than "it's shallow, lackluster, and mainly focused on combat!"


Yes, it is. What you describe is a compliant that lacks reasoning behind it. What EE described is dismissing majority of 4ed-related compliants as whining about changing stuff. The first is unfair to the system. The second is unfair to people. A bit of a difference.

[Frownbear]

Yes, it is. What you describe is a compliant that lacks reasoning behind it. What EE described is dismissing majority of 4ed-related compliants as whining about changing stuff. The first is unfair to the system. The second is unfair to people. A bit of a difference.

But "they changed it now it sucks" is a well-known phenomenon. It happens with everything. People like the familiar.
But somehow, there's none of that with 4th edition? We're supposed to believe psychology just stops applying?

[Morty]

But "they changed it now it sucks" is a well-known phenomenon. It happens with everything. People like the familiar.
But somehow, there's none of that with 4th edition? We're supposed to believe psychology just stops applying?

There's a difference between acknowledging the fact that some people don't like change and accusing them of it left and right.

[EvilElitest]

Alright, I'm stupid and lazy. Give me a bullet-point list of things to respond to, and I will.

I was thinking more of just directly responding to the quotes in question, you know what i'm doing right now. Please, i'm just as lazy as you:smallwink:

However, I will likely respond in the only way I can - I think 4e tastes different than you do. You don't actually offer any mechanical critiques of the system that I can see, so all I can say is that "I don't find it that way."

I've offered plenty in the past actually, again and again and again. The whole simplicity


And the numbers refer to this list:
Complaints Menu
1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
3) 4e is unrealistic
4) 4e is too narrowly focused
5) 4e Epic isn't Epic
6) 4e Heroic isn't Gritty
7) 4e is oversimplified
sign,
1) 4E fails as new edition of D&D. IT would be a fine spin off game, but not as a new D&D edition is fails
2) more than that, it is more the massive simplification and the new shallowness in teh game.
3) D&D is unrealistic. A better term is D&D is too inconstant, bad world design, no verisimilitude, and dumbed down to an insulting level
4) partly that, mostly that it is designed for a very hack and slash game. It does that well, but isn't built beyond that
5) That is generally just bad design, not my complaint, but seems to be an effect from a game that spends so much time making things easier for the players
6) 4E heroic isn't consistent
7) certainly


Bears, yeah, some people might not like any change, that doesn't justify unfounded accusation nor does that make the actual points any less apparent. That claim is nothing more than a weak excuse and an attempt to dismiss the claims of others
from
EE

[Frownbear]

There's a difference between acknowledging the fact that some people don't like change and accusing them of it left and right.

I'm pretty sure I've seen EE say what amounts to "3E paladins are the way all paladins should be forever and 4E paladins suck/aren't really paladins because they aren't 3E paladins". That's They Changed It Now It Sucks in a nutshell, isn't it?

[Morty]

I'm pretty sure I've seen EE say what amounts to "3E paladins are the way all paladins should be forever and 4E paladins suck/aren't really paladins because they aren't 3E paladins". That's They Changed It Now It Sucks in a nutshell, isn't it?

Not necesarily. After all, sometimes a change is simply a bad change, even if someone has no problem with changes themselves. Of course, I don't see how are 3ed paladins different than 4ed paladins. The only difference is that they can be of any alignment... except they can't, as evil 4ed paladin needs serious changes in abilities.

[Frownbear]

Not necesarily. After all, sometimes a change is simply a bad change, even if someone has no problem with changes themselves.
But "the way it is X is the way it should always be" is "eww change".


Of course, I don't see how are 3ed paladins different than 4ed paladins. The only difference is that they can be of any alignment... except they can't, as evil 4ed paladin needs serious changes in abilities.
You know "radiant" doesn't actually mean "holy", right? Star Pact at-will does Radiant damage, for example.

I can picture an evil paladin smiting his enemies with sickly red light, or chill viridian power (like the Illearth Stone in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant).

[Oracle_Hunter]

1) 4E fails as new edition of D&D. IT would be a fine spin off game, but not as a new D&D edition is fails
2) more than that, it is more the massive simplification and the new shallowness in teh game.
3) D&D is unrealistic. A better term is D&D is too inconstant, bad world design, no verisimilitude, and dumbed down to an insulting level
4) partly that, mostly that it is designed for a very hack and slash game. It does that well, but isn't built beyond that
5) That is generally just bad design, not my complaint, but seems to be an effect from a game that spends so much time making things easier for the players
6) 4E heroic isn't consistent
7) certainly

Okay, good, this fits nicely in the rubric. Point 1 is Category #1, Point 2 is Category #7, and point 3 is #3. I can only "why does that matter?" to Category #1 complaints and "I don't think so" for categories #3 and #7.

Now, points 4, 5, and 6 need some backing up. What is it about the 4e system that seems "poorly designed" and how does it fail to do the non "hack and slash" stuff. Finally, what is it about 4e Heroic that is "inconsistent."

I'll refer to my previous post on why 4e is well designed (ease of use, a fine balancing between single systems and variety, and few mechanical inconsistencies) for my views, but I must hear more of yours.

On claims of oversimplification, I would like to hear how you would have preferred to model whatever has been oversimplified and why. I think that 4e provides more than adequate detailing for whatever encounter you'd feel needed rolling in a Heroic Fantasy game, not to mention a framework for adapting rules that is not paralleled in 3e.

I will warn you that if you say "4e is poorly designed because it doesn't model things the way I'd like them to be modeled" then I, once again, have nothing to say to Category #3 complaints. I can only respond if you tell me how they would be better modeled, and why that method is better.

[Morty]

But "the way it is X is the way it should always be" is "eww change".

This trope refers to people who hate change simply because it's a change. Not those who don't like a change because they feel it's bad for rational reasons.


You know "radiant" doesn't actually mean "holy", right? Star Pact at-will does Radiant damage, for example.

I can picture an evil paladin smiting his enemies with sickly red light, or chill viridian power (like the Illearth Stone in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant).

Yes. However, you could do it just as easily with 3ed paladin. Which means both crunch and fluff-wise, 4ed paladins aren't much different from 3ed. In both cases, they're telling you to shut up and play good characters.

[EvilElitest]

I'm pretty sure I've seen EE say what amounts to "3E paladins are the way all paladins should be forever and 4E paladins suck/aren't really paladins because they aren't 3E paladins". That's They Changed It Now It Sucks in a nutshell, isn't it?

Nice strawman. my points were

1) The 4E paladin is in reality basically a converted form of the 3E knight or crusader, certainly not a paladin in any D&D sense.
2) The paladin was a perfectly good class as it was, only the understanding of alignment and what not was screwed up

Now if 4E called the paladin a knight and didn't include the paladin at all, i really wouldn't care. I'd be a little upset, the same way that they didn't include druid, but i wouldn't really care that much. That would be more "they changed it now it sucks" where as i'm more pointing out 4E's general lack luster quality compared to 3E, and considering how bad 3E could be......

Now them taking gnomes out isn't they changed it now it sucks because there isn't an actual reason for it.
from
EE

[Frownbear]

This trope refers to people who hate change simply because it's a change. Not those who don't like a change because they feel it's bad for rational reasons.
"The way it is now is perfect! It doesn't need to be changed!" is a form of "rawr, change bad".


Yes. However, you could do it just as easily with 3ed paladin. Which means both crunch and fluff-wise, 4ed paladins aren't much different from 3ed. In both cases, they're telling you to shut up and play good characters.
Um, what? 3E paladins don't do radiant damage

4E isn't telling you to shut up and play a good character. Radiant damage works fine for evil characters. 3E is telling you to shut up and play a good character, because you lose your powers if you don't.

[EvilElitest]

"The way it is now is perfect! It doesn't need to be changed!" is a form of "rawr, change bad".


Not at all. the first is legitimate, the second is not. If something isn't broken, one doesn't have to fix it.
from
EE

[Starsinger]

EE, I know I've asked you this before, and I'm pretty sure I won't get a satisfactory answer this time either, but could you please put more of an explanation of your dislikes of 4e rather than a string of empty words which provide no insight into your line of thought? How is 4e a video game, exactly? And again, I ask you not to rely on your opinion that its inconsistent. And if you must, how is it inconsistent, and please don't say because it's a like a video game. I mean if you can't answer without resorting to circular logic...

[tumble check]

On Grease:

Are we really still confusing the "interesting utility spells" with "things that power gamers like because it ends the game"?

Let me paste some level 1 utility spells:

By "utility", I mean anything that's not damage, spells only used for buffing and debuffing, enchantment, and summoning. These are from the SRD, btw.


Alarm: Wards an area for 2 hours/level.
Endure Elements: Exist comfortably in hot or cold environments.
Hold Portal: Holds door shut.
Mount: Summons riding horse for 2 hours/level.
Unseen Servant: Invisible force obeys your commands.
Comprehend Languages: You understand all spoken and written languages.
Detect Secret Doors: Reveals hidden doors within 60 ft.
Detect Undead: Reveals undead within 60 ft.
Floating Disk: Creates 3-ft.-diameter horizontal disk that holds 100 lb./level.
Disguise Self: Changes your appearance.
Magic Aura: Alters object’s magic aura.
Silent Image: Creates minor illusion of your design.
Ventriloquism: Throws voice for 1 min./level.
Animate Rope: Makes a rope move at your command.
Enlarge Person: Humanoid creature doubles in size.
Erase: Mundane or magical writing vanishes.
Expeditious Retreat: Your speed increases by 30 ft.
Feather Fall: Objects or creatures fall slowly.
Jump: Subject gets bonus on Jump checks.
Reduce Person: Humanoid creature halves in size.



Are these game-breaking? If so, it's because I was too sloppy in editing the list. I don't deny that there are game breakers, but I'm trying to show that there are plenty of utility spells that don't break the game.

Indeed, many of these spells have been made Rituals. But WotC has specifically made Rituals take too much time to cast in battle or on the fly. That means that innovative and silly uses for these spells have been axed. What if I want to Comprehend Languages in the middle of a battle because some Orc is trying to talk to me? What if I want to cast Jump on someone so they can get to a higher place in battle(assuming there is one)? What if I want to Animate this Rope so as to get a circumstance bonus on my Intimidate check against some commoner that I'm a powerful magician? You can't do any of that.

But look, I'm not stupid. I understand that WotC increased casting times for many reasons. Quite a few of these spells were game breakers, and now they've made it so that some of them can only be done outside of battle. They also wanted to make it so that you can't layer on a dozen buff spells in just a few rounds at the beginning or before a battle such that it became a given, something you always had to do. I get it.

They also wanted to make it so that it wasn't only one character who could do all this. A Wizard's utility was unmatched in 3.5. And so, because it would be lame for everyone to be able to learn "magic", they called them Rituals, and everyone can do it. So now, once again, the spotlight is able to be evenly divided among all party members, even for "magic"!

All we're saying is that we think it's lame. We're not secretly wishing that casters were game-breakers again because we're powergamers. I rarely play casters. Casters now use the same mechanics as other Classes, which is to say damage. Most of the Wizard's "utility" has been stripped of him and is now accessible to everyone. "Magic" is now "Martial" and "Divine" by another name. "Ritual" is the new "Magic", and is no longer exclusive.

And much like how most 4e arguments boil down: we just don't like it that way.

[Deepblue706]

No, no, look at the leveling rules. Jokes aside (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html) any mook with an INT 11 can become a wizard at 2nd level under RAW. 2nd level comes whenever it comes - it doesn't come faster or slower for you if you decided you wanted to become a wizard or just take another level in fighter. It's easy to argue that, for whatever reason, that first level isn't the same amount of effort, but it just is unsupportable when you use RAW for 2nd level.

But then, that's why houserules are so popular in 3e, no? :smallwink:

EDIT:
Oh! Wait, you meant if we ignored D&D entirely, wouldn't it be harder to become a wizard than a fighter. Um, I suppose so, but it also might not be :smallbiggrin:

...What? I...that...I really don't think you understood what I was trying to say.

[Oracle_Hunter]

...What? I...that...I really don't think you understood what I was trying to say.

Please, reiterate.

@Tumble Check: You really don't think that spells like Icy Terrain or the Cantrips provide enough of the utility you presented in your list?

...or do you really think it's reasonable for a Wizard to be able to buff, debuff, and pinch-hit for the Rogue all at level 1? I think there's plenty of utility left in the 4e magic system (as I've said before) but maybe here is another matter of absolute taste.

But seriously, nobody was excited when they saw 4e Cantrips? :smallconfused:
Man, I've been waiting for those since 2e! They're awesome!