Things you dislike about 4th edition. [Archive] - Page 6

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-26, 06:50 PM

I've played 4e. I like the idea of skill challenges, but I think it's easy to misuse them. I don't think disarming a trap should be a skill challenge of thievery rolls, for example. Or if the NPC says "I have something that will help you on the task I've asked you to do, but you need to convince me you're worthy."

If a skill challenge situation would realistically be a bunch of rolls versus the same skill (be it athletics, diplomacy, or what have you) I say it should just be a single roll. If it's something that requires multiple rolls, or a problem that the player gets to choose how to approach (chasing a target through a city, for example) I'm all for the idea.

The thing is a Skill Challenge is just a mechanic you should use for complicated situations which would require more than a single attempt to work. Partially, this is a story element, but it is also a mechanical effect. Luck plays a much greater role when you need to only make a single check, while competence is more important if you have to make several rolls.

- Picking a pocket? It's a quick action and it'll depend on luck factors - one roll
- Escaping from Guards? They're persistent, so you probably won't be able to just give them the slip with just one Hide check - skill challenge
- Getting the bartender to give you a free drink? He's either going to feel generous or not - one roll
- Getting the Duke to send a squad of soldiers against a sneak attack only you know about? He's not going to send away his men on a whim, so he'll take some convincing - skill challenge.

With that in mind, it gets much easier to use them off the cuff. Naturally, it's easy to use them as part of a planned adventure - if you want the PCs to have a non-combat encounter as part of the adventure, use a Skill Challenge.

Kompera

2008-08-26, 07:20 PM

considering that it is designed like a board game, and is so inherently shallow compared to 3E (and that is saying something).
Often stated, never represented. Never backed up with fact. Never anything other than an opinion equivalent to "I just don't like it".

Which is fine, but "I just don't like it" is a much clearer case, while "it is designed like a board game" is a statement which should require at least a trivial attempt to support with fact rather than opinion.

Here, I'll show how this works:

D&D 4e plays nothing at all like WoW. (as opposed to "D&D 4e = WoW")
D&D 4e is not at all designed like a board game, it is instead an inherently deep design which plays like a FRPG. (As opposed to your statement above)
D&D 4e is a much more intelligently designed game than 3.x. It has raised the intellectual level of the game by a huge degree. (As opposed to "4e is dumbed down.")

See there? Exact opposite opinions from many expressed in this thread, but equally unrepresented. But they must be true, because I've said them, right?

I can respect and accept "I just don't like it."
I have a hard time accepting or respecting "I don't like it because it's like <foo>, even though I can't support that position at all."
I haven't seen any attempt to respond or rebut requests for such backing. This leads me to conclude that there isn't any such backing, or that this backing is so deeply rooted in opinion that it can't be expressed logically in a manner which doesn't simply reduce to "I just don't like it." Which, again, is a fine and respectable opinion to have.

It isn't constancy from an in game perspective, it is horrible inconsistent (See video game complaint).There is no meaning to this statement. Here, the opposite: D&D 4e is internally consistent. See my video game analogy. This is called circular logic. You state that D&D 4e plays like a video game, fail to support that statement with any fact, and then 'support' your other statements with that unsupported statement.

And while i will say 4E is a battle fighting game than other editions, that is pretty much what it is, a fighting gameAgain, unsupported.

As i said, a board game, it is made for one specific way of playing and tries to do that well.Circular again.

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.Can you cite even one fact to support any of your claims in the above sentence? I'll not argue that any commercially released game is intended to show a profit, but that would apply to D&D 3.x as well, and so citing change as a means to bring in profit is a flawed theory. Since you obviously prefer D&D 3.x, then clearly the profit would have been in continuing to support that game, since 4e sucks so much. Right?
I'd also be interested to hear about just what you think was dismissed which "was important to the game", and how you came to the conclusion that WotC "don't care about D&D".

on the subject, i hate the new FR. I mean really,it is disgustingI truly cherish your freedom to be disgusted by the new FR. But I'd understand your disgust just a little bit more if you would expand on your feelings, and what specifically about the new FR brought you to come to adopt these feelings.

On that subject, i've always been confused by FR hate.And now you've confused me as well. You're disgusted by FR, but you don't understand why others would hate it? Isn't disgust a fair approximation of hate? I would think that someone disgusted by the setting would buy in to others hatred of the setting. But perhaps I'm missing out on some subtlety.

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 mechanicsCould you please cite exactly what in 4e makes you feel that it lacks "world consistency", and why you feel that 4e "plays like a video game in terms of world consistency and is built like a board game in terms of mechanics"? Oracle asked you for specifics, and you responded with more unsupported statements...

But your evading my points, your just dismissing what i said rather than respondingIt's very difficult to respond to a point which is pure opinion, with no backing substance. This is not evasion, it's just the way debate works. Your opinion is irrefutable, that's what 'opinion' means. A discussion on your opinion is necessarily brief. You hold an opinion, and that's the end of the conversation aside from someone stating that they either agree, disagree, or agree or disagree in part. Your thesis is not irrefutable, because thesis also has a specific meaning. Please provide a thesis if you wish to have a discussion on it.

I've offered plenty in the past actually, again and again and again. The whole simplicityYes, you've offered your opinions many times over. And that's great. Dislike/hate/be disgusted by/whatever 4e, that's your freedom in action. But in each case which I have seen you've simply stated your dislike. You've always failed to provide any backing as to why or how you've reached your opinions. If you want to discuss specific points then you'll need to provide a lot more detail than you have in the past.

Gavin Sage

2008-08-26, 09:04 PM

Often stated, never represented. Never backed up with fact. Never anything other than an opinion equivalent to "I just don't like it".

So eliminating long standing classes, giving every class far fewer options in terms of design options, hamstringing magic is particular, while eliminating or compressing skills and making advancing in them practically automatic is..... somehow deeper then 3.5?

To say nothing of more subjective measures.

Which is fine, but "I just don't like it" is a much clearer case, while "it is designed like a board game" is a statement which should require at least a trivial attempt to support with fact rather than opinion.

How often is something expressed in a measurement like say 30ft, versus being expressed in number of squares. You could play 3.5 without a map grid or minature representations. I honestly don't see how one could play 4e without them.

Board Game.

I have a hard time accepting or respecting "I don't like it because it's like <foo>, even though I can't support that position at all."

Except that has been done numerous times in this thread. I just did so above.

I haven't seen any attempt to respond or rebut requests for such backing. This leads me to conclude that there isn't any such backing, or that this backing is so deeply rooted in opinion that it can't be expressed logically in a manner which doesn't simply reduce to "I just don't like it." Which, again, is a fine and respectable opinion to have.

I haven't seen any attempt to respond or rebut my post on how some fairly minor tweaks could go a long way to fixing 3.5 magic. Or even the one on how to fix Grease. Clearly I must be right and true.

Oh wait the lack of something is never proof of accuracy. You suppose there is no backing, I'd say backing for every reason people like 4e has been exspressed. More then once.

I'll gladly make them again.

I truly cherish your freedom to be disgusted by the new FR. But I'd understand your disgust just a little bit more if you would expand on your feelings, and what specifically about the new FR brought you to come to adopt these feelings.

Well I won't speak for EE, but as for me.... I think the start of this would be rather the term "Spellplague" to excuse anything and everything done to Faerun. Triggered by the death of Mystra, which might sound impressive were this not the THIRD time the goddes of magic has died. Way to be creative there WoTC.

The whole notion of trying to shoehorn the new edition onto such an established setting is rather nonsense to begin with. And they do it not so much by destroying the Realms, but by adding even more crap to an already crowded setting. Abeir! A NEW new continent! The Underdark is even less under anything!

I just looked through the Campaign Guide and couldn't groan loud enough. Do we need Sarrukh's to have a sizable kingdom, do we? Let's just be grateful I didn't see Manipulate Form in their little monster entry.

And I dislike that apparently I will need two books to 'replace' my one old campaign setting book. Oh and this description deserves special mention:

The Forgotten Realms Player’s Guide presents this changed world from the point of view of the adventurers exploring it. This product includes everything a player needs to create his character for a D&D campaign in the Forgotten Realms setting, including new feats, new character powers, new paragon paths and epic destinies, and even a brand-new character class never before seen in D&D: the swordmage!

I have to remember to breathe I think (sauce (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/218587200))

And now you've confused me as well. You're disgusted by FR, but you don't understand why others would hate it? Isn't disgust a fair approximation of hate? I would think that someone disgusted by the setting would buy in to others hatred of the setting. But perhaps I'm missing out on some subtlety.

In cases like this I often find myself wondering: Did the person just fail to read properly, or are pretending to have done so in order to engage in troll tactics.

As its very clear what was meant I think. The subtlety missing is of course the distinctiong from what is now 'old' FR versus the 'new' FR. In which it will be often the case of liking the old but loathing the new. I am such a case already.

And the rest of the post I'm not gonna bother with.

Edea

2008-08-26, 09:13 PM

...and even a brand-new character class never before seen in D&D: the swordmage!

O_O

That's....wow. Seriously? (Checks source) ...yup.

Thrud

2008-08-26, 09:14 PM

I think the reason so many people have been using the '4ed is a dumbed down game' is because it takes so much control away from the DM. To me the rules have always been something for the DM to manipulate at will in order to tell the story. (within guidelines, of course, but the rules should never get in the way of the story as far as I am concerned.)

I believe that those people who say 'it is dumbed down' found a happy medium in 3ed where everyone was happy, and they homebrewed enough things to keep the game consistent. 4ed is all about evening out the power levels (something that personally I am against. But hey, I usually prefer to play monks and bards and I rarely take prestige classes, so what do I know?) so it has taken out all the stuff that can be abused in favor of having it nice and safe and foam rubber coated for everyone. This is specifically designed to deal with those powergamers out there who can't play well with others. The problem is that if you didn't have an issue with powergamers, then many of the things that you specifically found entertaining have been removed.

The last game I played in I was a bard. The party wizard wound up assisting the party fighter in saving the entire world from ultimate bad**s, one became king, the other his grand vizier, had riches and a kingdom, etc. My character Edward? He got laid a lot and mooched off of them for the rest of his life, living like a king without any of the responsibilites. Did I do anything pivotal in the final battle? I buffed em a bit, cast a few minor spells, and kept the minions off their backs. So what if my character was inferior to theirs in every way. Their bad**sness was important to the story. I literally have no comprehension as to why that should be a bad thing. Now everyone has to have the same basic power level, and everyone has to be involved to the same degree. Is that bad? Not specifically, but to those of us who never needed it, this is the fact that seems to make the game dumbed down.

The biggest problem that I see with RPGs in general, is that they attract 2 basic types of players. Those who come to the game through a drama backgound, and social misfits. I freely admit to having been a social misfit. I was a nerd (actually, still am, but a nerd with some social skills now.) who had the good fortune to play his first D&D game with a friend's dad, who was a professional actor, DMing. He taught me to have fun with my role no matter what it was. It doesn't matter if you are not as good at xyz as the other players in the game. As long as you play your character correctly, then 'you win'. If I had not had that experience at a very young age, I am sure that I would not have developed much in the way of social skills at all. Much of my abilities to interact with others have come specifically from my first DM.

When you remove any rule that can be abused from the game, you must necessarily be removing many entertaining things as well. Does this mean that everything entertaining has been removed? No, not at all. But it is like a bell curve that has been stretched. The extremes of crappy and godly characters have been removed in the search for allmighty game balance. If you didn't need this game balance to be imposed by someone else, due to having a bunch of players who could actually enter into a social contract with one another and play the intent of the rules rather than the specifics of the rules, then you probably will feel that the game is dumbed down. If, however, you are one of those people who has been cursed with min/maxing powergamers through all their gaming experiences, then I can understand why this would be such a great step forwards for you. It is just that it hasn't been that way for me.

I have had lots of fun having fake sword fights at SCA events with what we call boffers, foam rubber swords that are softer than those pool noodle float thingies. But though I can have fun doing that, it is not as much fun as using Shinai or fighting in full heavy weapons gear.

Dunno if that analogy will work for everyone, but it was the first thing that came to mind.

Anyway, I saw someone commenting on wanting specifics of why anyone would think 4ed is dumbed down. Just trying to put my feelings into words. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Prophaniti

2008-08-26, 09:17 PM

How often is something expressed in a measurement like say 30ft, versus being expressed in number of squares. You could play 3.5 without a map grid or minature representations. I honestly don't see how one could play 4e without them.

Board Game.
First, totally agreed with your post there.

Just wanted to touch on this.

In our one-shot 4e game that we've done so far, we didn't use the battle map much. In order to do this, we converted 'squares' back to their old 5-foot measurements, so we could more easily estimate the distances involved. Yes, it did get confusing sometimes with areas and how different people slid around, occasionally demanding a quick sketch on a piece of scrap paper (the prolific sliding demanded slightly more frequent sketching, but not gratuitously so), but it wasn't really much different from any other system we've used without a battle map.

So, yes, it's doable, you just have to throw out the new system of measurement and convert back to the old one.:smallwink:

OneFamiliarFace

2008-08-26, 09:20 PM

How often is something expressed in a measurement like say 30ft, versus being expressed in number of squares. You could play 3.5 without a map grid or minature representations. I honestly don't see how one could play 4e without them.

Board Game.

I'm curious as to how you played the feet measurements without a map, but have trouble with the squares. Anyway, I'll show you how to make them the same:

3.x
DM: "You enter the room. A goblin is 30 ft away. Another is 40 ft."
Players: "We all get really confused about relative distances after our first move."

4e
DM: "You enter the room. A goblin is 6 squares away. Another is 8."
Players: "We all get really confused about relative distances after our first move."

At most, 4e almost (almost) requires graph paper and a few pencils. For those of us who always used them in 3.x, this isn't an increase in its "board-gameyness." Now, I think I may be the only person in the world who role-plays his monopoly piece, but let me tell you: there are no rules to support this decision in Monopoly.

As long as DnD (any edition) continues to support my making choices based on my character's personality and not only doesn't penalize me for it, but rewards me, then it won't be a board game.

Prophaniti

2008-08-26, 09:31 PM

I have had lots of fun having fake sword fights at SCA events with what we call boffers, foam rubber swords that are softer than those pool noodle float thingies. But though I can have fun doing that, it is not as much fun as using Shinai or fighting in full heavy weapons gear.

Dunno if that analogy will work for everyone, but it was the first thing that came to mind.
This is, in fact, the best analogy I've ever heard for what I think of 4e: It's not unenjoyable, it just feels... padded...
It's like your inside my head!:smalleek:

*sigh*
It's been so long since I did a good melee in full heavy gear. I had to borrow a friends and have yet to have the spare money to get my own... *sniff*

Thrud

2008-08-26, 09:34 PM

The New Bruceski

2008-08-26, 09:45 PM

This is, in fact, the best analogy I've ever heard for what I think of 4e: It's not unenjoyable, it just feels... padded...
It's like your inside my head!:smalleek:

*sigh*
It's been so long since I did a good melee in full heavy gear. I had to borrow a friends and have yet to have the spare money to get my own... *sniff*

Hey, the analogy works pretty well. Back in college one of my friends wanted to practice fighting with me not to make me better, but so that he could flaunt his superiority. Usually ended up with me sulking, because even though he kept promising to be mindful of it, I'd end up being a punching bag to make him look good.

Contrast with another friend when I made some padded swords for a CTF game (that was a blast, but unrelated); we had fun swinging them at each other in the parking lot, then went and got some drinks and laughed over the whole thing.

Thrud

2008-08-26, 09:48 PM

Hey, the analogy works pretty well. Back in college one of my friends wanted to practice fighting with me not to make me better, but so that he could flaunt his superiority. Usually ended up with me sulking, because even though he kept promising to be mindful of it, I'd end up being a punching bag to make him look good.

Contrast with another friend when I made some padded swords for a CTF game (that was a blast, but unrelated); we had fun swinging them at each other in the parking lot, then went and got some drinks and laughed over the whole thing.

Right, powergamers are a problem everywhere, not just in D&D. Kick it up a couple of notches and you invade Poland. Err, i'm just gonna stop there before someone slaps me with any kind of penalties for getting political.

Gavin Sage

2008-08-26, 09:54 PM

I'm curious as to how you played the feet measurements without a map, but have trouble with the squares. Anyway, I'll show you how to make them the same:

3.x
DM: "You enter the room. A goblin is 30 ft away. Another is 40 ft."
Players: "We all get really confused about relative distances after our first move."

4e
DM: "You enter the room. A goblin is 6 squares away. Another is 8."
Players: "We all get really confused about relative distances after our first move."

At most, 4e almost (almost) requires graph paper and a few pencils. For those of us who always used them in 3.x, this isn't an increase in its "board-gameyness." Now, I think I may be the only person in the world who role-plays his monopoly piece, but let me tell you: there are no rules to support this decision in Monopoly.

As long as DnD (any edition) continues to support my making choices based on my character's personality and not only doesn't penalize me for it, but rewards me, then it won't be a board game.

My preferred method of playing D&D is with only a map a player sketches as we go along so nobody gets lost. Distance and position are handled by DM discretion. You either can, can't, or maybe need to make a tumble check, risk AoO, and maybe something else depending. I suppose I should have made that more clear however to better accentuate the point.

Oddly enough getting multiple attacks off melee characters is less of a problem this way. And I feel its more immersive since it aproximates more of what you would feel were it actually happening. No top down view of position makes it less of a tactical game too I think, simply because you can't go "I do X and a goblin can only do Y therefore I'm safe" with ease.

Trying to play a lot of Warlord ablities without a grid though boggles my mind. Though for the people who have been playing a with a map and grid and the like the differences are less then for me. It may not be impossible to play with a grid, but its would be a step up in difficulty to do so I think. And even approaching things in terms of squares sends a message about the style to my mind.

Yes you can imagine around it, but 4e has too long a list of things I have to imagine my way around.

DrowVampyre

2008-08-26, 10:12 PM

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

Definitely 5, sorta 6 (not so much "not gritty" as "things seem the same at all levels"), 7, and kinda 1. And 4, if "multiclassing sucks" is covered by it. I think the "magic isn't magic enough" should be #8, too - I'm all for nerfing the overpowered spells, but I want my magic to be more than "do some damage and cause a minor status effect." And rituals just don't do it for me - cut the casting cost for the vast majority of them and make them usable in 1 full round (for things like Passwall, Comprehend Languages, Knock, Jump, etc., not Raise Dead or the like).

Also, I hate the 4e skill system. I don't see what was so hard about skill points. Granted, some skills needed merging, and I'm glad they did that (snaking shouldn't be 2 separate skills, nor should noticing things, etc.). But "half level + stat mod + minor bonus for class skill training" just does nothing for me, on any level. Seriously, how is it that Frank the Fighter, who's never even attempted to pick a lock, is a better lockpick than Randy the Rogue, who picks locks virtually every day, just because Frank's level 20 and Randy's level 5?

Prophaniti

2008-08-26, 10:37 PM

Trying to play a lot of Warlord ablities without a grid though boggles my mind. Though for the people who have been playing a with a map and grid and the like the differences are less then for me. It may not be impossible to play with a grid, but its would be a step up in difficulty to do so I think. And even approaching things in terms of squares sends a message about the style to my mind.

Yes you can imagine around it, but 4e has too long a list of things I have to imagine my way around.In our game, no one ran a Warlord, so they may have abilities that would have been harder for us, I don't know. I definitely agree with you about the squares sending a message about style.

And a big QFT to your last sentence.

darkzucchini

2008-08-26, 11:55 PM

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?

Theres a few people here (me included) who played 2e, enjoyed the system, and were thrilled when 3e came out, but were really let down with the direction that D&D took with 4e. Now this is "they changed it and now it sucks", but passing it off as nostalgia diminishes serious complaints about the new direction of D&D. There may certainly be some people who want to stay with an old system because they don't want to bother learning new rules, don't want to buy new books, don't find any fault with the old system, or even because of nostalgic reasons. Now, I, for one, have no problem with learning new rules, buying books isn't a problem (not for a pirate like me), I do find faults with every edition of D&D and every roleplaying game in general, and, while I had great memories of old games, those memories will always be with me and I'm sure that I will create new, great memories so long as I am roleplaying with friends. Thus, there must actually be a legitimate change in the content of the game books to have turned me off from them, not just some nostalgia psych bull.

As for a legitimate complaint, I just thought of this recently.

I am a homebrewer and 3e seemed made for homebrewing. I am not talking about setting, or even about creatures, those can all be homebrewed in 4e just fine (and may even take less time, at least for homebrewing those monsters who fit neatly into the templates provided), I am talking about making new classes, new systems for classes, and even new rules. 3e already had a boat load of different systems that you could work off of (Vancian, psionics, ToB), and it wasn't terribly concerned with balance. Now, 4e is totally concerned with balance (I'll admit it, even I like a bit of balance, but it can go too far). Unfortunately, if you create something that unbalances the game under 4e you ruin the central tenet of the system and the main draw for a lot of people. This makes 4e a much more difficult and/or limiting system to homebrew in than under 3e.

Helgraf

2008-08-27, 12:21 AM

Justin_Bacon

2008-08-27, 12:23 AM

The Alexandrian's commentary misconstrues Skill Challenges greatly. In short, it provides a Straw Man Skill Challenge ("get into the castle" indeed) when Skill Challenges are supposed to be tightly focused encounters designed by the DM. To fix the Alexandrian's SC, you just need to divide it up into 3 or 4 skill challenges, each with their own success and failure criteria.

Out of curiosity: How, exactly, is "get into the castle" any less focused than "lost in the wilderness" (which is an example explicitly given in the DMG)?

I think the most amazing thing about the skill challenge mechanics is how many different versions of them we've seen now. There are the original mechanics published in the DMG; the revised version presented in the errata; whatever set of mechanics were used to create the skill challenges in H1; and whatever set of mechanics were used to create the skill challenges in H2. All of these mechanics are different from each other, and have left me scratching my head. The skill challenge system is one of the core mechanics of 4th Edition... how could they not have anything resembling a finalized version of these rules before publishing the core rulebooks?

I'm glad the errata corrected some (but not all) of the probability issues. And I'm also glad that the errata got rid of the mandatory railroading in the DMG version of the rules.

But, unfortunately, the system is still dissociated; has funky probability; and doesn't seem to serve any meaningful purpose. I can see how the RAW can be fundamentally changed to make similar mechanics useful in a variety of ways, but they haven't actually done that with the mechanics they've published.

And, overall, the skill challenge mechanics demonstrate some fairly fundamental incompetence on the part of the designers. Why do I say that? Because one of the explicit design goals the designers set out for the skill challenge mechanics was that they would address the issue of "the guy with the highest skill modifier makes a skill check while everybody else watches".

Well, the mechanics they designed didn't actually do that. So instead they wrote rules which required everyone to participate. And when they realized that was an unpopular idea (because it was a really bad idea), they got rid of those rules in the errata.

But the end result of all that is that instead of "the guy with the highest skill modifier makes a skill check while everybody else watches" they gave us "the guy with the highest applicable skill modifier makes SEVERAL skill checks while everybody else watches".

So they took something that they considered a problem and they made it worse while trying to solve it. And the skill challenge mechanics are not the only example of this type of incompetence in the design of 4th Edition.

When the designers say "we fixed the math!" and then, mere days after the core rulebooks are released, Mike Mearls posts to the WotC boards and says (basically), "Whoops! We ****ed up the math!" it's really difficult for me to believe that the game is really this finely-tuned and well-oiled machine.

If you test drive a car and the first thing that happens when you drive off the lot is that one of the wheels falls off... how likely are you to buy that car?

So I think the Complaints Menu needs a #8: 4th Edition is poorly designed and doesn't even accomplish what it's designers say it's supposed to accomplish.

Thrud

2008-08-27, 12:41 AM

*stuff*.

Huh, interesting. I never really looked at the rules all that carefully because I used something that I thought was similar to the skill challenge system in my 3ed game. But when I look at them after what you said, I realize that what I did in 3ed is nothing like what is presented here in 4ed. I mean, one of the biggest complaints people had about 3ed was how diplomacy was used for every social interaction, so there was no need to roleplay because you could just make a roll. (Something that I wholeheartedly disagree with. Diplomacy just doesn't read like that to me, and anyone using it that way is simply trying to break the game by ignoring the intent. But I digress.) Now, there is no need to roleplay becuase you can instead make a bunch of rolls. Umm, how is this an improvement? I need to read the rules again now, because maybe I am making a mistake here.

Ehh, never mind. I just don't care enough. I can't seem to muster enough energy to want to bother looking into the issue.

This is what comes of being a professional lazy bum.

:smallbiggrin:

OneFamiliarFace

2008-08-27, 02:34 AM

*Good stuff and an interesting point*

I definitely know other people have said this, but this is perhaps the best I've seen it stated. This was a strong design issue in 4e, though the errata makes it better. I would say that these encounters take longer to plan than 3.x social encounters in order to make them work properly (which is a reverse for the amount of planning in combat encounters).

There are, however, two things I like about skill challenges:

1) The rules account for multiple skills being useful in a given situation, including being yet another facet for making knowledge skills a very good choice.

2) They mention frequently that players who give good enough reasons should be able to try skills other than the primary ones, encouraging innovation.

Both of these points bring the skill system away from the "most ranks rolls" problem in 3.x. More specifically, it provides a solution to a problem I often encountered in my games as a DM or as a player: that a character with low charisma and no ranks in Diplomacy or Bluff would want to join in on a social encounter, but the minute he says something that requires a roll, he ruins the hard work of the character who built up those skills.

We had a houserule in 3.x that worked quite well called "group checks" which was that everyone who participated in the social encounter would roll the relevant check. The highest modified roll was the base check. Anyone else who scored over ten gave +1 and anyone who scored ten or under gave -1. If a particularly socially inept character still wanted to turn the encounter sour, they were free to do so, but this system helped the diplomatic guy do his thing while also allowing Scarface the Uncharismatic to talk without making a damaging diplomacy or failing bluff check.

Still, I think that Skill Challenges in 4e are useful for when you are planning an encounter that can involve the use of multiple skills, especially the knowledge skills in combination with things like endurance and what-not.

I do have a small problem with Diplomacy and Intimidate as skills, as I do sometimes feel they take away from roleplaying, but they exist in both games. I still use them because I like to have em on my character sheet, and have a way to prove to the DM that my arguments or convincing (or for my players to prove it to me).

Sebastian

2008-08-27, 04:00 AM

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!

just make a feat "skill training: breadmaking" that give you a +5 to ability checks to bake bread.
Of course, everyone 10 levels higher than you willl be as good breadmakers as you are even if they never did it before, but they are heroes, it is only natural that in all they years of adventures they picked up how to make delicious bread.

Starsinger

2008-08-27, 04:14 AM

just make a feat "skill training: breadmaking" that give you a +5 to ability checks to bake bread.
Of course, everyone 10 levels higher than you willl be as good breadmakers as you are even if they never did it before, but they are heroes, it is only natural that in all they years of adventures they picked up how to make delicious bread.

Which presumably is exactly why craft and what not are no longer proper skills in 4e. It's not reasonable to assume that you become better at crafting just because you adventure a lot.

Sebastian

2008-08-27, 04:24 AM

See, this is what I am talking about. There is absolutely nothing in 4e that prevents you from roleplaying

I've honestly had enough of this argument. There is nothing in monopoly, in chess or in risk that prevent you from roleplay, this don't mean they are roleplaying games even less good ones, or that they were designed for it.

The point is that you don't need to roleplay to enjoy 4e, you actually have more fun if you don't, because you don't need to come out with mental acrobatics to justify the absurd mechanics of combat and skill challenges, and that is why I think that 4e sucks as a RPG if ever you can call it one.

all IMHO, of course.

Sebastian

2008-08-27, 04:49 AM

How is 4e a video game, exactly?

Well, just to say one, the monthly patches WotC put out. :)

Sebastian

2008-08-27, 04:54 AM

Which presumably is exactly why craft and what not are no longer proper skills in 4e. It's not reasonable to assume that you become better at crafting just because you adventure a lot.

Then make "skill training breadmaking" a training only skill, of course the higher level character is still better than you, even if he learned to do it only last level.

OneFamiliarFace

2008-08-27, 06:28 AM

I've honestly had enough of this argument. There is nothing in monopoly, in chess or in risk that prevent you from roleplay, this don't mean they are roleplaying games even less good ones, or that they were designed for it.

The point is that you don't need to roleplay to enjoy 4e, you actually have more fun if you don't, because you don't need to come out with mental acrobatics to justify the absurd mechanics of combat and skill challenges, and that is why I think that 4e sucks as a RPG if ever you can call it one.

all IMHO, of course.

Sigh, okay. I will briefly explain what I did not think needed explaining then (but thank you for mentioning that it was opinion, mine is too):

In Monopoly, I decide my Thimble is going to be King of the Railroads. But I don't land on any railroads. Too bad. Roleplaying didn't matter.

In DnD, I decide that I am the long lost prince of Humbertsville, and I want to one day be King of Humbertsville. The DM and I work together, and if I make the right connections and prove myself in various adventures, perhaps finding the lost Relics of Humbertsville, then I will one day, indeed, become the King of Humbertsville. Do any of the combat rules, character classes, power progressions or various other things that people legitimately complain about in 4e have ANY bearing on my ability to do that? No.

All RPGs require some suspension of disbelief to swallow the complicated rules in order to roleplay properly. 4e stretches yours too far, but that doesn't make it a board game. I, for one, find my roleplaying is facilitated by the simpler character generation and more unified mechanics in and out of combat. I can play almost any high fantasy archetype (combat-wise) that I want, and out of combat, the sky is the limit. So if I want to fight with two swords, I play a ranger. But I can be a baker, or a pirate, or a mountaineer, or a Ranger, depending on my choices and backstory. My wizard can't cast "Grease," but that doesn't change his character concept, his background, his quirks, or his personality traits.

This doesn't work for other people, but it doesn't make 4e a boardgame or a video game, as, at any given moment, my options and character actions are decided by ME and me alone, just like in 3.x or any other roleplaying game of anykind.

(Not to mention my more pressing roll as a DM, which is not present in any video game, nor in the vast majority of boardgames, but is still found in all editions of DnD.)

Jayabalard

2008-08-27, 06:54 AM

Which presumably is exactly why craft and what not are no longer proper skills in 4e. It's not reasonable to assume that you become better at crafting just because you adventure a lot.It's no less reasonable than anything else that you get better at due to level.

Knaight

2008-08-27, 07:10 AM

The thing is a Skill Challenge is just a mechanic you should use for complicated situations which would require more than a single attempt to work. Partially, this is a story element, but it is also a mechanical effect. Luck plays a much greater role when you need to only make a single check, while competence is more important if you have to make several rolls.

- Picking a pocket? It's a quick action and it'll depend on luck factors - one roll
- Escaping from Guards? They're persistent, so you probably won't be able to just give them the slip with just one Hide check - skill challenge
- Getting the bartender to give you a free drink? He's either going to feel generous or not - one roll
- Getting the Duke to send a squad of soldiers against a sneak attack only you know about? He's not going to send away his men on a whim, so he'll take some convincing - skill challenge.

The thing is you would be using different skills for escaping from Guards. Acrobatics, Athletics, Streetwise(blending into a crowd), Steath, Thievery(which does encompass disguise if I remember right), and in some cases even History, if it is in an old city and the characters might know the layout.

As for the duke, again there are several social skills that could be useful.

tumble check

2008-08-27, 08:04 AM

Thrud and Bacon win, as usual.

Oh, and you know what the solution to the Skill Challenges problem is?

Don't try to make yet another mechanic that tries to equally spread the spotlight among everyone at all times.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-27, 10:49 AM

Out of curiosity: How, exactly, is "get into the castle" any less focused than "lost in the wilderness" (which is an example explicitly given in the DMG)?

The simple answer is that the Castle Scenario says there are several different ways to get into the castle (bribe a guard, get an invitation in town, scale the wall, find and use a secret door) which do not build upon each other, whereas the "lost in the wilderness" example has one path to follow (getting out of the woods) in which many different skills can help each other.

If you ask for an invitation in town (Diplomacy & Streetwise) it won't make it easier to climb the wall (Athletics). If you can spot a path (Perception) finding true north (Nature) might help you follow that path out of the forest, instead of going deeper.

The proper version of the Castle Scenario is as follows:
1) PCs are in the town. They can make skill checks to find ways to get into the Castle
- Streetwise will reveal that the Duke's chancellor often meets with adventurers to discuss news of the realm, and if they can convince his favorite lieutenant Nick (who hangs out at a bar) to put in a good word for them, they may be invited.
- History will reveal that this Castle was built by the famed halfling architect Bob who is well known for putting secret passages into the castle.
- If no successes, the PCs can always climb the wall or bribe the guards.

2) The PCs then choose an avenue to get into the Castle. Each is a skill challenge, and each has specific success and failure results.
- The Diplomacy Challenge will involve the PCs pulling up a chair with Nick and trying to convince him that they have news for the Chancellor. This uses Bluff (for lying) and Diplomacy (for cajoling), but no Intimidation. If you want to be fancy, Streetwise might reveal some information about Nick that you can use to blackmail him. This is moderate difficulty, probably a 6/3. Success means you get an invitation, failure means you do not.
- The Secret Door Challenge will involve the PCs sneaking around the Castle looking for the secret door. This is mostly a Perception based challenge, though History, Dungeoneering, and Nature might help spot features of the Castle which lead to the secret door. Another moderate difficulty, 6/3 challenge. Success reveals the secret door, failure will alert the guards who will investigate (also, no secret door). If the PCs want to try again after their failure, then it becomes a hard challenge (need to do this without alerting the guards) and failure results in a combat/chase encounter.
- The Bribery Challenge will be Diplomacy and Bluff. A hard challenge, but only 4/3 is required. Success gets the PCs in for X gold, while failure gets them turned away.
- The Infiltration Challenge will not really be a skill challenge at all. PCs will all need to make a Stealth check to get to the moat undetected, Athletics checks to cross the moat, and Athletics checks to climb the wall.

I hope that helps.

Starsinger

2008-08-27, 03:01 PM

It's no less reasonable than anything else that you get better at due to level.

Acrobatics, Athletics, Endurance, Stealth: Adventuring for so long has gotten you in better shape, so you're able to do these things with more ease than before.

Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Nature Religion: You've picked up bits and pieces of lore on your travels.

Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Streetwise: Tales of your deeds have travelled far and wide, and inflated as tales of heroic actions are, they still inspire people to trust you.

Insight, Perception, Thievery: After so many travels, you develop more of a knack for seeing things that are important.

Heal: Hey, you don't slap on 1,000 bandaids without learning how to do so effectively. (First Aid 300/375 joke here)

Jayabalard

2008-08-27, 04:11 PM

Acrobatics, Athletics, Endurance, Stealth: Adventuring for so long has gotten you in better shape, so you're able to do these things with more ease than before.These are the closest, but it's possible to go whole levels without using them at all. If you're not a melee-er, you can even spend entire levels sitting around and doing nothing more strenuous than making some minor somatic gestures from your sedan chair.

Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Nature Religion: You've picked up bits and pieces of lore on your travels. You gain knowledge in these skills even when you aren't in a place where you could feasibly learn anything about them.

Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Streetwise: Tales of your deeds have travelled far and wide, and inflated as tales of heroic actions are, they still inspire people to trust you.Just because you've been adventuring doesn't mean that people actually hear tales about you; with the speed that PCs level, you can easily outrun any stories about you during your travels.

Heal: Hey, you don't slap on 1,000 bandaids without learning how to do so effectively. (First Aid 300/375 joke here)I know you're just being silly with this one, but as long as you have a healer you probably aren't even using this skill.

these are just as far fetched as craft skills increasing by level.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-27, 04:37 PM

these are just as far fetched as craft skills increasing by level.

I agree, the 3e skill system was completely unbelievable. You should only improve skills by practicing them, not because you "gained a level."

Draco Dracul

2008-08-27, 04:49 PM

As someone who plays videogames I find the "It's like a videogame" argument to be in that catigory of true, but so broad as to be pointless. There are so many genres and sub-genres of video games that the only thing universal about videogame is that 1) They use electicity 2) They are presented on some form of screen and 3) They are writen in computer code.

Justin_Bacon

2008-08-27, 05:09 PM

The simple answer is that the Castle Scenario says there are several different ways to get into the castle (bribe a guard, get an invitation in town, scale the wall, find and use a secret door) which do not build upon each other, whereas the "lost in the wilderness" example has one path to follow (getting out of the woods) in which many different skills can help each other.

There are two problems with this argument:

(1) It's not true. Virtually all of the sample skill challenges in the DMG, including "Lost in the Wilderness", feature multiple paths to success which may or may not build on each other.

(2) Your interpretation of the skill challenge mechanics requires any pre-designed skill challenges to be DM-designed railroads for the PCs. And since the DMG specifically tells the DM to pre-design them... well, now we're back to a system that mandates railroading.

One of the ways in which the skill challenge mechanics can be improved is if you use the success-to-failure ratio as a kind of loose guide for how much time you want to spend on resolving a particular task. So the player's propose an action, the DM defines how much time they want to spend resolving it (which will also determine the difficulty of resolving it), and then the players riff on whatever skills they want to use. That's not the system that was published (nor the official system as it now exists), but it has some utility.

For me, however, it's still a pretty questionable utility for two reasons: First, although you're now tracking a bunch of new numbers you don't seem to have appreciably changed the gameplay you get without using the skill challenge mechanics. Second, the system "gifts" you with dissociated mechanics.

If you don't have a problem with dissociated mechanics, the structure provided by those homebrewed mechanics might have some value in terms of encouraging player focus and the like.

But, heck, there are a lot of directions you could take these mechanics that would provide utility: You can use the basic structure to give the players a much greater narrative control by removing the DM's power of determining whether or not a particular skill is actually useful in overcoming a given challenge -- as long as the players can riff up an explanation, they're good to go.

I mean, there's all sorts of ways in which complex skill resolution (tracking multiple successes and/or failures) can be used to positive effect. It actually kinda drives me nuts that WotC took what could have been such a rewarding mechanic and just squandered it.

dentrag2

2008-08-27, 08:41 PM

I know i've become useless to this discussion, a punching bag for people to, well, punch, but Oracle, please put me down for a #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7.

Prophaniti

2008-08-27, 09:03 PM

I agree, the 3e skill system was completely unbelievable. You should only improve skills by practicing them, not because you "gained a level."
An understandable attitude, and one that, on the surface, I agree with, being the Simulationist gamer that I am. On the other hand, this can get annoying in implementation, and even with the system I am currently designing for my own use, I do not use this. Of course, I am using a level-less system of advancement, so it's easy to flavor it that when I purchase an advancement, it means I trained in it in some fashion or another, but that can become just as annoying, with an assumed 'retcon' of what the character did before he purchased the ability.

So far, this is one of those things that I'm willing to allow to not reflect reality very closely. Like something I was working on for equipment damage, the extra bookkeeping and complexity became a bigger annoyance than not reflecting reality as closely as I would like. So that's about where my line is between the convenience of hand-waving it and the satisfaction of it feeling real.

What I don't get is your admittance of this, and your specifying it as a problem with D&D 3.5, when it is, in fact, a problem with all versions of D&D, including 4e, and pretty much every game that uses class mechanics, as well as some others. To hear you say it, especially given that you are a rather vocal proponent of 4e, it seems like you're implying that 4e does not have this issue. Am I wrong? If not, please explain how you think 4e does not suffer from this "completely unbelievable" skill advancement.

OneFamiliarFace

2008-08-27, 09:10 PM

(2) Your interpretation of the skill challenge mechanics requires any pre-designed skill challenges to be DM-designed railroads for the PCs. And since the DMG specifically tells the DM to pre-design them... well, now we're back to a system that mandates railroading.

I agree with the rest of your points, but this one seems the same to me as designing a combat encounter. When designing a combat encounter, you are usually assuming the players will fight that encounter. Similarly, when you make a dungeon (hours of work), you assume the players will be entering said dungeon. But this is not the case:

They could decide to run away from the encounter. They could decide to enter another dungeon. They could decide to stay at home that day, or find another quest they like better.

Likewise, in Oracle's challenge, they could simply decide that they don't want to go into the castle. Or, they could realize they have a decent sum and pay a wizard to fly them over, avoiding all of the challenges.

The system doesn't mandate railroading anymore than any other gaming system based on encounters (yes, 3.x is one of those). 4e just has one additional type of encounter.

As to your other points, Bacon, I'm okay with here saying: You got me, and changing skill challenges to Oracle's idea will be my first houserule! :smalltongue:

Thrud

2008-08-27, 09:37 PM

Or, they could realize they have a decent sum and pay a wizard to fly them over, avoiding all of the challenges.

As long as they don't need to fly for more than about 6 seconds.

:smallbiggrin:

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Thurbane

2008-08-27, 09:46 PM

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
1. Agreed - add to that "too much change for the sake of change alone".
2. Agree, as per 1. above
3. Agreed, but ammended to "4E is less realistic than 3.X"
4. Agreed
5. No comment - i don't really play epic level games in either system, so I don't know enough to have an opinion
6. Agreed, but ammended to "not gritty enough for my tastes"
7. Agreed

:smallbiggrin:

OneFamiliarFace

2008-08-27, 09:48 PM

As long as they don't need to fly for more than about 6 seconds.

:smallbiggrin:

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

:smalltongue: I shulda seen this'n comin.

Mass Fly can be sustained for 5 minutes!!! That's a tall castle if he can't get you over at 40ft/6 secs. Sorry, 8 squares/round. (Afterall, I have to see my miniatures floating over the wall! :smallwink:)

Thrud

2008-08-27, 09:55 PM

:smalltongue: I shulda seen this'n comin.

Mass Fly can be sustained for 5 minutes!!! That's a tall castle if he can't get you over at 40ft/6 secs. Sorry, 8 squares/round. (Afterall, I have to see my miniatures floating over the wall! :smallwink:)

Fair enough. Unless a guard sees them and shoots at them, and then they take out the guard. 'coz then the effect would end because the combat was over.

:smallbiggrin:

Sorry, I know I am intentionally being a pain. It has been a long day. I'll be good from now on and go make some dinner to get my blood sugar back up. It seems to have finally cooled down to the point where I can stand the added heat that will be caused by cooking any sort of food I have in the house right now. Damn I have to get an AC at home. FEH!

OneFamiliarFace

2008-08-27, 10:03 PM

Fair enough. Unless a guard sees them and shoots at them, and then they take out the guard. 'coz then the effect would end because the combat was over.

:smallbiggrin:

Sorry, I know I am intentionally being a pain. It has been a long day. I'll be good from now on and go make some dinner to get my blood sugar back up. It seems to have finally cooled down to the point where I can stand the added heat that will be caused by cooking any sort of food I have in the house right now. Damn I have to get an AC at home. FEH!

No no! That's actually a good point too. I had to look things up for awhile to figure that out. Any spell or ability that last "until the end of the encounter" actually lasts 5 minutes unless it specifically says otherwise, but since you have to have a 5 minute rest between encounters to get your powers back, it goes away. If, however, you rush on to the next area, then it isn't a new encounter, it is the same encounter.

So yeah, not being a pain at all. I thought it was funny. Of course, I still respond to funny with serious for some reason... I have a problem :D

FoE

2008-08-27, 10:06 PM

3. Agreed, but ammended to "4E is less realistic than 3.X"

Pffft! You play a game set in a world filled with magical creatures, and you're worrying about realism?

Zeta Kai

2008-08-27, 10:29 PM

As I've said before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52317), the thing about 4th Edition that I really dislike is the fact that it came out about 2-3 years before it probably should have. I think 2009-2010 would have been a good time for a new system, & I think 3.X still had some mileage left to it. 4E was rushed, & it shows.

wodan46

2008-08-27, 11:35 PM

1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
It has dungeons and dragons in it, and all the other typical elements. Unless you think having a balanced game system goes against D&D, I dunno.
2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
Rather unfair, given that its been out for the fraction of the time 3.5e has.
3) 4e is unrealistic
And the Bard making the Balor Lord his BFF wasn't?
4) 4e is too narrowly focused
How so? It provided a big pile-o-mechanics for combat, and solid advice for skill/roleplay/misc noncombat stuff. Given the hissyfit people have been throwing over Skill based encounters, that's probably the way if should be. And was the exact same as 3.5e and other past editions, except both elements are better worked.
5) 4e Epic isn't Epic
You get to punch 20 foot Demons in the face. Does a game have to be brokenly unbalanced for it to be Epic?
6) 4e Heroic isn't Gritty
In the sense that neither you nor the enemies make Save or Die rolls, and don't have to waste large amounts of time healing up between battles.
7) 4e is oversimplified
It removed overpowered tools that allowed critical game unbalances. Its like complaining that you are no longer allowed to bring your P90 to a swordfighting game.

Thurbane

2008-08-28, 02:39 AM

Pffft! You play a game set in a world filled with magical creatures, and you're worrying about realism?
Well, yeah...but refer to the previous XX pages of debate for the relative "realism" I am talking about. :smallwink:

Sebastian

2008-08-28, 02:40 AM

I agree, the 3e skill system was completely unbelievable. You should only improve skills by practicing them, not because you "gained a level."

yes, but while in 3e you could assume that put ranks in X = you trained and praticed X off-screen, or if you like, simply say that you can put ranks into a skill only if you reasonably had a chance to use, study or improve it, it is a little harder do the same in 4e where is just assumed that your PC just get better at everything from armwrestling to "history of the rutabaga".

edit: you could even say that skill point represent exactly that, the time a character can put to training skills fighter get less because they pass all their time in combat training or checking their weapons/ armors, while rogues have a lot of free time and can pick up more new stuff, a good int make you easy pick up new trick while you go, etc,

Knaight

2008-08-28, 06:48 AM

An understandable attitude, and one that, on the surface, I agree with, being the Simulationist gamer that I am. On the other hand, this can get annoying in implementation, and even with the system I am currently designing for my own use, I do not use this.
Honestly, its not that hard. In a skill based game, whenever someone rolls maximum, or minimum, give it a tick, once the amount of ticks exceeds the skill level, it increases by one. Fudge doesn't work with this, but it has a nice little table on the character sheet that shows the numbers needed. Normally I hate tables, but since that one is on the character sheet, no problem.

TwystidMynd

2008-08-28, 08:46 AM

DM: "So you guys want to set up camp. Do you have a watch set?"
Rogue: "Yeah, I'll take the first 2 hours of watch."
<Party finishes setting up the watch rotation>
<DM begins rolling for random encounters>
Rogue: "Wait a second. I wanna try to tie a square knot!"
DM: "Uh... ok. Roll a Use Rope check?"
<Rogue rolls a 2>
Rogue: "2 + 5 ... that's a 7."
DM: "You make a knot."
<DM begins rolling for random encounters>
Rogue: "Wait a second! Jeez. I'm not done. I wanna try to tie a square not again."

This continues until the Rogue has spent roughly 30 minutes of game time trying to roll enough 1s and 20s to gain his skill point.

How is this better than just assuming people read books, practice skills, etc. while in downtime?
Acrobatics, Athletics, and Endurance can all be abstracted by saying you stretch, do aerobics, wrap it up into travel time, etc.
Stealth can be practiced by reading a "How to ..." book, and during travel.
Dungeoneering, History, Nature, and Religion can all be done by reading books before bed, or being "lost in thought."
Bluff, Streetwise, Intimidate and Diplomacy can both be learned by reading fiction about clever/charistmatic characters, or by keeping a journal (you'd be surprised how much a nightly journal entry will help you keep your thoughts fluid and cohesive).

Sure, you can make it more real, but I feel that, in my games, it would slow down gameplay for an extremely miniscule increase in pseudo-realism.

Thurbane

2008-08-28, 08:51 AM

Can't argue with that - one of the DMs in our (3.5) group toyed with the idea of only allowing player's to out ranks into skills they used during the previous level, or took time out to learn from someone with the skill. Great idea in concept, a real drag in practice. After a very short debate, the proposed houserule was rejected.

dentrag2

2008-08-28, 09:29 AM

Pffft! You play a game set in a world filled with magical creatures, and you're worrying about realism?
Yes. Yes we do. You expect gravity to apply to any book that you read correct? 4E is a lot less realistic than 3.5E (It even had rules for being set on fire for heavens sake.)

TwystidMynd

2008-08-28, 09:55 AM

Yes. Yes we do. You expect gravity to apply to any book that you read correct? 4E is a lot less realistic than 3.5E (It even had rules for being set on fire for heavens sake.)

4e has rules for that, too. They're less complicated, but "Ongoing 5 fire damage" is how you model being on fire.

Although I'm not sure what that has to do at all with gravity... especially since gravity is a nebulous entity in 3.5, too. It certainly doesn't work like it does in the Newtonian universe (which, of course, isn't an accurate representation of the universe in which we live, either)... because gravity causes velocity to change downward, which would mean that falling 20 feet SHOULD be MORE than twice as dangerous as falling 10 feet. In the 3.5 world, it doesn't work like that. Soooo... clearly 3.5 isn't "realistic" either. If that's not enough evidence, try to explain Tenser's Floating Disc, Fly, Levitate, Boots of Flying, or the constant 5% chance to jump half an inch upward, or the constant 5% chance to jump 6 feet.

Any time someone complains about the lack of realism in any system, and compares it to another system, flaws in both can be found. They're both abstractions... they aren't SUPPOSED to model reality in any real way. That's what Physicists and Mathematicians do. Game designers try to make games. So, in my opinion, it matters less about how realistic something is portrayed, and more about how fun it is to play it out. However, in some others' opinions, modeling realistic situations is fun for them. For those people, I posit that no edition of D&D - indeed, no RPG system at all - is all too accurate.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-28, 10:53 AM

What I don't get is your admittance of this, and your specifying it as a problem with D&D 3.5, when it is, in fact, a problem with all versions of D&D, including 4e, and pretty much every game that uses class mechanics, as well as some others. To hear you say it, especially given that you are a rather vocal proponent of 4e, it seems like you're implying that 4e does not have this issue. Am I wrong? If not, please explain how you think 4e does not suffer from this "completely unbelievable" skill advancement.

Yeah, that was sarcasm, referencing the quoted poster. This is, again, an example of mechanical disbelief that I still find baffling.

On Skill Points
You are playing D&D, a game where you get tougher, hit better, and learn new skills at random points when you have killed enough monsters or saved enough princesses. The "level" system of advancement is a consistent part of D&D, and yet now, suddenly, people are objecting to it? Why are they playing D&D? It's like arguing that "hey, people don't fight as well as they get injured. I wish D&D had a wounds system" - you would probably just be happier playing a game that already has a wound system!

Skills didn't used to improve, and neither did ability scores (except through magic), but in 3e you suddenly had "skill points" that were gifted to you every level to spend on what you wanted. You literally got better at tying ropes because you just killed a horde of goblins, if you wanted to "associate" the mechanism. It was ludicrous, but that's how the game was played, and people seemed to understand that.

Now, in 4e when you gain a level, instead of throwing "skill points" around, all of your skills get better every other level. You're still getting better at tying ropes by killing goblins - this has not changed. But for some reason, people find it beyond the pale for someone to get a little better at everything every other level instead of radically getting better at, say, Use Rope, even if you never actually used the darn skill in game. It's based on the same darn mechanic, and yet it's suddenly unbelievable? Pah!

Re Bacon: It's no surprise that I heartily disagree with your assessment, As OneFamiliarFace rightly points out, Skill Challenges are a mechanism for resolving the actions of characters, not some sort of Soup Can (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SoupCans) puzzle to railroad your PCs. For the record, I homebrewed nothing in my example, I just read the Errata'd rules in the DMG and designed an encounter around them. It took me 10 minutes, and it was easy to do.

I do not understand the fetishization of "disassociated mechanics" personally, since D&D is nothing but disassociated mechanics (as far as I can tell) and has been since its inception. I won't argue against it, but this is why we will never see eye-to-eye on any discussion.

Prophaniti

2008-08-28, 11:54 AM

Yeah, that was sarcasm, referencing the quoted poster. This is, again, an example of mechanical disbelief that I still find baffling.
Alright, we'll move on from that, then. Sarcasm doesn't translate in plain text very well.

I do not understand the fetishization of "disassociated mechanics" personally, since D&D is nothing but disassociated mechanics (as far as I can tell) and has been since its inception. I won't argue against it, but this is why we will never see eye-to-eye on any discussion.
To quote from Ron Edwards article on Simulationism:

Internal Cause is King
Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action.
This is why some people don't like "disassociated mechanics", because they ignore this. The key here is NOT whether the mechanics model reality well, but rather whether the rules model the imagined reality well. Now, of course, some people want the setting to feel like reality for the most part, and in such a case you have a really easy measuring stick to hold your rules up against, one you live in every day.

Now, it's true D&D, like any other tabletop RPG, has always had such "disassociated" mechanics, and these are sometimes necessary. As I said in the post you just responded to, sometimes the extra bookkeeping and complexity becomes less desirable than failing to model the situation satisfactorily (everyone has a different level of tolerance for this). However, D&D has actually had a fairly strong Simulationist element in the past (he talks about this a bit in the article, link here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/)). The different editions usually put a fair bit of effort into things like Stronghold building and so forth, coming up with mechanics to justify and represent the character aquiring or building a castle.

Remember that the primary desire is to have the rules represent the imagined reality as closely as possible. The real world only comes into the picture based on how much one desires the setting to reflect the real world, which is quite a lot for some.

Mechanics that are difficult to explain in-game and designers who do not attempt to justify mechanics in-game are the enemy that we repudiate. Recall our earlier discussion about justifying the more extravegant melee powers, and your "Spark" answer. This is a good example. The complaint here is twofold:
That there are any melee 'powers' that require such an explanation (from those who want it closer to reality);
That the designers did not at least go to the effort of coming up with such and explanation, so that the powers and rules at least made internal sense.

Remember, Internal Cause is King to us. The rules should model what would happen in the game universe, not dictate purely game actions and leave the justification to us. That's not the kind of game we want, not least because that approach often leads to actions that are very difficult to explain in-game. See Selective Amnesia for known powers. A decent and typical game mechanic that makes absolutely no sense at all from inside the imagined reality.

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 11:58 AM

My (extensive) list of dislikes

1. Insufficient numbers of base classes in the PHB
2. Selection of base classes in PHB. Warlord and Warlock are both ridiculous classes. Warlocks are on my short list of classes banned in my 3.5 campaign.
3. Explicit class roles. It's not the job of the game company to decide on an ideal party, set roles, or anything like that. The players can infer that just fine on its own. This smacks of EQ/WOW/eyc. uberguilds dictating to their members how to set up their characters.
4. Powers system. This doesn't work at all.
4a. Old-fashioned attack and damage rolls, with "powers" limited to a few TOB style classes is how I want my games. I don't want fighers using "at will powers". I want them making attack and damage rolls,a nd getting additional "options" from feats. Rogues should be weaker and more vulnerable in combat than most other classes, barring the ability to sneak attack/backstab. (An ability that was overpowered in 3.5 as well, and which I've found it necessary to nerf to prevent rogues taking over the game)
4b. Arcane-type characters should not be reliant on a tiny selection of "powers". They focus magic excessively on combat, and worse, remove the feeling of the spellcaster learning his art through study (wizard) or intuition and talent (sorcerer). I can't buy a Wizard even bothering with books of arcane lore when he has "at-will" powers; nor can I buy clerics et al. gaining power from their diety when they have powers on a refresh timer (which is precisely what they are on; it's just measured in "rounds", "encounters", and "days" instead of seconds or minutes)
4c. Relegation of noncombat effects to the bizarre, unnecessary "ritual" system. Magic should be restricted to magic classes; to get it should require multiclassing and the associated trade-offs.
5. Addition of dragonborne and tieflings. Tieflings are an ok splatbook race. Dragonborn are just silly, and banned in my campaigns. After reading "Races of the Dragon" I'm astounded anyone can seriously buy them as a race.
6. Removal of gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs. All of these races needed thought, not removal.
7. Eladrin. Astoundingly stupid. "It looks like an elf but it's not an elf because it's somehow confusing that elves have subraces!" Bizarrely, it wasn't confusing for there to be 3 types of FR dwarf. I have yet to find anyone who was actually unclear on which elf was which. If by some cosmic coincidence I ever actually tried playing this steaming pile of whale manure, Eladrin would have to become high elves, "eles" would be wood elves, Dragonborn would be half-orcs, and tieflings would probably need to be re-qorked into half elves. I'd have to pull gnomes out of my ass somehow I guess.
8. Lack of racial penalties and excessive bonuses. Humans should be a baseline race; no bonuses or penalties. Other races should have balanced bonuses and penalties.
9. Departure from traditional AD&D/D&D spellcasting. I've hated systems that don't use a "spellbook-style" (whether that's a book, a list of spells to cast from like the sorcerer, or getting them from a diety) since I tried Earthdawn, another system that died a well-deserved death.
9a. Removal of armor-spellcasting restrictions. 'Nuff said.
10. Lack of character-customizability. LAck of splatbooks notwithstanding, there is no way this system can possibly support the level of mechanical customization that 3.5 could. It is simply not possible to tinker with new and interesting combinations of races, classes, and abilities. Multiclassing is a joke; you can get 1 multiclass.
11. "Heroic", "Paragon", "Epic" tiers
a. Don't "tier" my campain for me. I decide that. If I want my campaing to still be doing dungeon crawls at 30, that's what we're going to do. I don't want "Epic" stuff going on, perio, and I don't want "heroic" stuff at low levels.
b. Paragon paths get forced on the player. There aren't enough of them, and there's no practical option to not take one.
c. Paragon path is supposed to replace PrCs, but doesn't allow nearly as much variety.
12. Magic items in PHB. These go in the DMG.
13. Excessive focus on class balance. Balancing classes isn't important. This isn't an MMORPG where you might not get to go on a raid if your class is "less needed". The sudden desire for "balance" is a product of the MMORPG age, and its paradigms creeping into pen and paper RPGs, combined with internet groupthink inventing problems of certain classes dominating the game that don't actually occur in play unless you have an absolute boor playing a wizard/druid AND a DM with no leadership skills
13a. Along those same lines, trying to address problems outside the control of the publisher. People unwilling to commit the time they claimed was the biggest campaign killer of all. "Oh, I can't play tonight, I've had such a hard day at work and I wanna sit home and play EQ2". You can't remedy people's lack of courtesy with an "easier" game system
14. Common BAB. Stupid
15. Same mechanic for everything. This takes away the magic feel of magic. Game mechanics should be more complex, and magic should not simply be a bizarre form of archery.
16. Trained/untrained skill mechanic. too binary; skills levels should be customizable.
17. Skill challanges. Silly.
18. Removal of barbarian, druid, sorcerer, bard, monk from PHB. No excuse for this, especially in light of adding two trash classes in their place.
19. Removal of "save-or-<insert here>" and other spells that break message-board theoretical games. These are absolutely necessary for magic to be magic.

There's been a lot of people asking "well, why should X class be able to dominate/press the win button?" Answer: They can't. If they can, the DM is not compromising their abilities appropriately. It's not only PCs that get magic; magic only dominates when the antagonists have an undersupply of it. Magic-using opponents should be a staple of a well-run campaingn, assuming it's at an average or higher level of magic in general.

There's also been a lot of "why should magic be better than melee?" Well, why shouldn't it? Because it's "less fun" for melee classes? Is that why it's so hard to find anyone to play a healing class, and in of the 3 D&D campaigns I'm in right now, theres only 2 wizards, 1 cleric, and 1 habitually MIA druid? I don't want to play in a campaign where the world's rules revolve around making everyone "equally useful" or trying to "get everone involved in every scene". Metagame egalitarianism is not a convincing reason in my book; this speaks only to unreasonable fears of boorish players dominatiing every campaign as if it were a WoW battleground instance.

Part of being an adult is not being in the spotlight all the time. Learn to deal.

20. Fewer magic-item slots, and reduction in importance of magic gear. Getting magic gear is fun, and it should have an important effect.

Those are my opinions after reading the 4E PHB, and seeing the arguments here. I see a lot of 4e advocates trying to convince everyone that 4E has no tangible disadvantages compared to 3E, and explain away numerous problems based on the assumption that everyone wants "balance". 4e doesn't give anything I call balance. Balance comes when the party is properly challandged, and it comes from the DM. Balancing the classes serves no purpose at all.

nagora

2008-08-28, 12:15 PM

Part of being an adult is not being in the spotlight all the time. Learn to deal.
I don't think 4e is aimed at adults. I'm not trying to be sarcy here, I really do think it's intentionally aimed at a younger market than older editions. Or, perhaps, it's not trying to cater for the older end of the market, so the average age of the target market is lower.

FoE

2008-08-28, 12:16 PM

tumble check

2008-08-28, 12:30 PM

I don't buy the "magic should be for magic classes" argument against rituals. How is allowing any class to take a feat in order to use rituals different than allowing anyone to multiclass to wizard/cleric/sorceror (http://ah.indolents.com/comic/13) whenever they go up a level, especially when they haven't had any training?

Because a high-level Fighter can take the feat and, assuming he has the skill check for it, can begin casting fairly high-level Rituals.

I don't categorically dislike that Rituals can be cast by everyone now, what I don't like is that these Rituals have replaced almost all of the traditional utility spells, so that now the Wizard is just a blaster(and no, I'm not ignoring the Wizard's cantrips and Utility Spells, but they hardly deserve mention). Moreover, the Wizard now uses the same in-round mechanics as the rest of the classes, so that now they do not have the unique feel that they always used to. No, I'm not talking about "game-breaking mechanics", I'm talking about the feel, the mystique, the versatility. Basically, Wizards are now reflavored Warlocks or Rangers whose "projectiles" can hit several things at once and do minor effects.

Zeta Kai

2008-08-28, 12:39 PM

Rogues should be weaker and more vulnerable in combat than most other classes, barring the ability to sneak attack/backstab. (An ability that was overpowered in 3.5 as well, and which I've found it necessary to nerf to prevent rogues taking over the game)

I agree with almost everything else that you said, but this stood out as the most ludicrous thing I've read in a while. I mean, what kind of campaign are you running? Did you ban all Wizards, Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers, & Barbarians? Because all of those classes are generally more powerful than Rogues, both on paper & in actually gameplay. The Rogue is my favorite class, but if anything, Sneak Attack should be even more useful than it is now, not less (or at least useful in more situations).

Also, it's only 5 more pages of flames/counter-flames before this thread is elligible for locking. Better get your rants in while you can, folks!

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 12:41 PM

I don't buy the "magic should be for magic classes" argument against rituals. How is allowing any class to take a feat in order to use rituals different than allowing anyone to multiclass to wizard/cleric/sorceror (http://ah.indolents.com/comic/13) whenever they go up a level, especially when they haven't had any training?

1. It's not an argument. People don't have to justify not liking it.
2. One is a class, the other is a feat. Giving up an entire class level of character development to begin learning a new class is completely different than gaining access to magic by simply taking a feat.
3. They may or may not have had training. It can take place "off camera"" or however the DM and player work it out. It's not valid to assume there's "no training" because it doesn't involve some mechanical cost other than the normal tradeoff of levelling in a different class.
4. Rituals differentiate combat magic and noncombat magic into 2 systems, one mysteriously accessible to spellcasting classes and one open to anyone, for no in-universe justifiable reason. Why would the laws of magic revolve around using it for fighting?

These are reasons I don't like it. I'm not trying to convince anyone to see it my way, and I'm getting tired of seeing arguments from 4E proponents trying to tell me "well, you should like it."

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-28, 12:44 PM

Now, it's true D&D, like any other tabletop RPG, has always had such "disassociated" mechanics, and these are sometimes necessary. As I said in the post you just responded to, sometimes the extra bookkeeping and complexity becomes less desirable than failing to model the situation satisfactorily (everyone has a different level of tolerance for this). However, D&D has actually had a fairly strong Simulationist element in the past (he talks about this a bit in the article, link here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/)). The different editions usually put a fair bit of effort into things like Stronghold building and so forth, coming up with mechanics to justify and represent the character aquiring or building a castle.

Huh. Well, that pretty much explains it then. I'm a bit surprised that so many Simulationists converted to 3e, since 2e was clearly the more "simulationist" of the 2, but I'm sure y'all have your reasons.

Thanks for the link, by the by - it was a bit long for me to read thoroughly, but I learned enough through skimming to get the point.

Personal Views Time
Game systems, for me, exist to create a shared reality for DMs and PCs use to tell stories. Every reality has the rules it lives by - those are the rules in the rulebook. Some realities express certain themes and storylines better than others - D&D is an excellent place for Swords-and-Sorcery, good v. evil stuff, while Shadowrun does Dystopian Cyberpunk quite well. The granularity of the rules is often a reflection of these themes; Swords-and-Sorcery stories seldom dwell on the healing of wounds or dealing with diseases from drinking from rivers, while any Dystopian world demands these very things, because life sucks.

I see no reason to impose my idea of what is an appropriate model for reality on other game designers. This, I believe, is the central conceit of the Simulationist. It is not whether or not a system has rules regarding the construction of a stronghold, but whether those rules match one's personal belief as to what those rules must be to be "realistic." If I wanted to simulate my personal "rules system" for how the world works, I'd write up my own system! One of the beauties of using someone else's system is that you get to see how a world that operates differently from your own would work. Also, it takes a lot less time to do :smalltongue:

So, when I play D&D I do not bemoan the fact that the characters fight as well at 1 HP as they do at 100 HP, nor that melee works by having characters take turn swinging at each other. This is despite the fact that Shadowrun provides a much more Simulationist version of combat, life and death, where a gunshot wound is likely to ruin your whole week, and every time you step up to whack some guy with a sword, you risk getting dropped by his counter-stroke before it's even "his turn." Different systems for different stories.

Finally, I don't check my imagination at the door. If a game system doesn't tell me exactly why I get better at swinging swords every time I go up a "level" I can make up a reason, if it really matters. If a spell says it does fire damage to a single target, I can imagine what that means, even if I don't have a paragraph of flavor text describing the shape, color, and smell of that ball of flame. I do not need a game designer to tell me why a non-magical character can restore "Hit Points" by talking to someone - I can imagine how that would work. As a DM, I imagine what the world looks like - that's my job - and as a PC I imagine what my character looks like, and how he does the things he does.

Pen & Paper RPGs are, first and foremost, a game of imagination - whether you use expensive miniatures and cardboard tiles or pennies and graph paper, everything that goes on in the world you create, goes on in your mind. Any opportunity to use my imagination is a boon, and it is the one thing that separates Pen & Paper RPGs from Computerized ones. D&D is one of my favorite systems because it doesn't require a fixed setting, like Shadowrun, World of Darkness, and Deadlands do. It allows me to change fluff aspects of the world they present without worrying about the mechanical parts of the system it might affect. As a result, I prefer gaming systems where the fluff is minimal, because it means I don't have to worry as much about correcting player perceptions during the game.

In conclusion, I choose RPG systems by virtue of the themes and stories they attempt to tell and their ability to achieve those ends. I reject the idea that rules need to be "realistic" based on whatever that word means to me - if I wanted to play using my own rules, I'd make my own system! Rules are designed to aid in the telling of stories - nothing more. Imagination is used to create those stories, and the more room the rules give me to exercise my imagination, the better I am able to tell those stories. If a system fails to explicitly fluff why a rule works a given way, or why skills are set up in a particular fashion, I will gladly put in my own fluff if I find it necessary for the story!

FoE

2008-08-28, 12:45 PM

One is a class, the other is a feat. Giving up an entire class level of character development to begin learning a new class is completely different than gaining access to magic by simply taking a feat.

But it's still a case of "magic is available to anyone who wants it." So who cares if the prerequisite is a feat or a skill level?

Why would the laws of magic revolve around using it for fighting?

Because that's what the entire game revolves around! And when you're not in a fight, then you're looking for one!

Jayabalard

2008-08-28, 12:47 PM

Oh, come on. It's a game, man. We play to entertain ourselves.I don't see the problem; sharing the spotlight doesn't impact my fun or entertainment. If you have a need to have the splotlight all of the time then, as he said, that's something that you need to learn to deal with.

I really do think it's intentionally aimed at a younger market than older editions. I see it the same way.

FoE

2008-08-28, 12:49 PM

I don't see the problem; sharing the spotlight doesn't impact my fun or entertainment.

And now everyone shares the spotlight equally! Huzzah for Fourth Edition! :smallbiggrin:

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 12:49 PM

I agree with almost everything else that you said, but this stood out as the most ludicrous thing I've read in a while. I mean, what kind of campaign are you running?

A very good one, thank you.

Did you ban all Wizards, Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers, & Barbarians? Because all of those classes are generally more powerful than Rogues, both on paper & in actually gameplay.

Not really. They're only more powerful on message boards. I believe I made it clear that I don't buy this in my original post; simply stating it again isn't going to change my mind. I have yet to see it really occur, and it would take a few occurenes to convince me seeing as I've not seen it occur in any game I've been involved in. Really, if this is a common problem I must have fabulous luck.

The Rogue is my favorite class, but if anything, Sneak Attack should be even more useful than it is now, not less (or at least useful in more situations).

No, it shouldn't. Sneak attack should, at best, work once once in any given encounter; maybe twice if there are a lot of opponents or the Rogue has some method of losing notice once he makes his attack. Rogues shouldn't expect to be as powerful as pretty much anyone else in combat.

As for it being your favorite class, well, sorry. You don't have to play in my game.

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 12:55 PM

But it's still a case of "magic is available to anyone who wants it." So who cares if the prerequisite is a feat or a skill level?

No, it's not. In the case of requiring multiclassing it's avaiable to any player that wants it; if his character multiclasses then it's assumed he had the aptitude and access to whatever training he needed. If other characters don't get it, it doesn't mean they could have. They may have lacked the aptitude or opportunity or both. The reason it's avialble to anyone is purely metagame; it isn't necessarily that way from an in-universe perspective.

If we allow any character to "learn rituals", now, anyone can get it from an in-game perspective. One doesn't need to learn magic as a profession, just go take some ritual lessons and you have them. Bizarrely, it requires years/months/whatever of training to learn combat magic, but anyone can learn rituals?

And really, why can Joe Fighter burn a feat to learn rituals, but he can't burn one to learn to cast a Wizard at-will power?

Because that's what the entire game revolves around! And when you're not in a fight, then you're looking for one!

So, excluding metagame reasons, it's totally arbitrary.

Shosuro Ishii

2008-08-28, 01:18 PM

So, excluding metagame reasons, it's totally arbitrary.

That may as well be the design philosphy for 4ed. The metagame is more important than anythign else in 4ed.

Shadowtraveler

2008-08-28, 01:29 PM

Bizarrely, it requires years/months/whatever of training to learn combat magic, but anyone can learn rituals?I'd imagine the ritual books you have to buy provide instructions on what to do. And you're required to spend time reading it in order to actually use them.

Besides, it takes two feats to learn rituals, not one: One to get training in Arcana or Religion, and then the Ritual feat. Unless you made Int your highest stat, you're never going to be as good at it as wizards.

TwystidMynd

2008-08-28, 01:33 PM

No, it's not. In the case of requiring multiclassing it's avaiable to any player that wants it; if his character multiclasses then it's assumed he had the aptitude and access to whatever training he needed. If other characters don't get it, it doesn't mean they could have. They may have lacked the aptitude or opportunity or both. The reason it's avialble to anyone is purely metagame; it isn't necessarily that way from an in-universe perspective.

Talk about selective thinking.
Is it impossible to imagine that, in 3.x, gaining a level in Wizard can amount to going to Wizard Academy and picking up a few spells?
Or that, in 4.0, people who don't have the Ritual Casting feat simply don't have the aptitude for it? And those that do have the feat have the aptitude? Even a Fighter can be intelligent (just look a Roy).

Frownbear

2008-08-28, 01:38 PM

4. Rituals differentiate combat magic and noncombat magic into 2 systems, one mysteriously accessible to spellcasting classes and one open to anyone, for no in-universe justifiable reason. Why would the laws of magic revolve around using it for fighting?

Because people developed war magic into quick spells, for the same reason people invented guns. There are some other spells (like flight) that got invented as rituals--these are Utility powers.

Some spells you absolutely have to cast quickly (like Magic Missile). Some spells it's OK to take 10 minutes for.

Furthermore, the powers listed are the ones your PC wizard might have, as an adventurer (whose life is in danger a lot). It's the same reason so much of the 3.x spell list was all about combat! An NPC wizard may well have a "Tenser's Floating Disk" power and a "Secret Chest" power, because his area of study/specialization was in transportation.

Frownbear

2008-08-28, 01:39 PM

That may as well be the design philosphy for 4ed. The metagame is more important than anythign else in 4ed.

You're confusing the metagame and the game.

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 01:40 PM

Talk about selective thinking.
Is it impossible to imagine that, in 3.x, gaining a level in Wizard can amount to going to Wizard Academy and picking up a few spells?

Yes, it is. I've never seen a Wizard Academy that allows people to stop in and pick up a few abilities like it was a community college. In fact the only Wizard college that comes to mind is Sorcere. Students are there for what, 10 years? I wouldn't play in a campaing that had E-Z Wizard academies, and I wouldn't play 4e for the same reason: pick up a book, drop 2 feats, and presto, instant ritualist.

Or that, in 4.0, people who don't have the Ritual Casting feat simply don't have the aptitude for it? And those that do have the feat have the aptitude? Even a Fighter can be intelligent (just look a Roy).

High intelligence is notnecessarily representative of magical aptitude. Highly intelligent people in the real world have no aptitude for certain areas of study.

As for the feat representing the aptitude, it may represent that, but it is not enough of a sacrifice to justify the actual learning, nor does it address the bizarre differentiation of magic into combat and noncombat applications.

FoE

2008-08-28, 01:40 PM

No, it's not. In the case of requiring multiclassing it's avaiable to any player that wants it; if his character multiclasses then it's assumed he had the aptitude and access to whatever training he needed.

Oh, so we assume characters had the training to use all-powerful magic, but never bothered to use it?

"Why, Fighter McSwordy, you don't need to stop adventuring and go to a special wizard school to learn to cast magic! You see, the power to cast magic was within you all along! For some reason, however, you never used it, even though situations arose in the past where the ability to cast spells would have been useful!" :smalltongue:

If we allow any character to "learn rituals", now, anyone can get it from an in-game perspective. One doesn't need to learn magic as a profession, just go take some ritual lessons and you have them. Bizarrely, it requires years/months/whatever of training to learn combat magic, but anyone can learn rituals?

Magic is a force of nature, as common as air and water, but it does not easily bend itself to the will of mortals. Even the most minor of rituals requires time and expensive material components. Oh, magic might be useful now and then, but for the most part, people rely on steel and brawn. Most people don't bother learning how to use it.

However, there are a few individuals who have learned to use magic as a weapon. These spellcasters have trained for months or even years in order to use their natural abilities the same way a warrior uses a sword. And since it is an exceedingly harsh world, much of a wizard's focus is on defending him or herself.

Still, magic is not a tool that lends itself willingly. Even the greatest wizard in existence must rely on scrolls and spellbooks.

nagora

2008-08-28, 01:47 PM

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 01:48 PM

Oh, so we assume characters had the training to use all-powerful magic, but never bothered to use it?

"Why, Fighter McSwordy, you don't need to stop adventuring and go to a special wizard school to learn to cast magic! You see, the power to cast magic was within you all along! For some reason, however, you never used it, even though situations arose in the past where the ability to cast spells would have been useful!" :smalltongue:

Blatant strawman

Magic is a force of nature, as common as air and water, but it does not easily bend itself to the will of mortals. Even the most minor of rituals requires time and expensive material components. Oh, magic might be useful now and then, but for the most part, people rely on steel and brawn. Most people don't bother learning how to use it.

However, there are a few individuals who have learned to use magic as a weapon. These spellcasters have trained for months or even years in order to use their natural abilities the same way a warrior uses a sword. And since it is an exceedingly harsh world, their focus is always on using magic to defend themselves; the rest can be accomplished with rituals.

That's silly. Why would you spend years learning this combat magic when it's no more useful than regular fighting, and provides you no advantage in using the rituals everyone else can anyhow?

And why could you not spend those natural abilities to learn magic for noncombat purposes? "It's a harsh world." So? Even on harsh worlds, people do lots of things besides fight.

And why is it that "years of training" allow you to use magic for fighting so easily, but rituals don't get any easier? It "doesn't easily bend to mortals... unless they get in a fight?"

These justifications are fluff tacked onto the metagame reason of "balance" that I reject as an imperative in the first place.

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 01:55 PM

Because people developed war magic into quick spells, for the same reason people invented guns. There are some other spells (like flight) that got invented as rituals--these are Utility powers.

That's pretty weak. Why does magic lend itself to fast casting for fighting but not for anything else? We also developed computers to speed data processing, but in 4E you can only develop the "gun" not the "computer" and for the sole reason that it's "balanced."

Some spells you absolutely have to cast quickly (like Magic Missile). Some spells it's OK to take 10 minutes for. [/quote]

Why are the laws of magic mysteriously adapting themselves to the degree of convenience needed by the caster?

Furthermore, the powers listed are the ones your PC wizard might have, as an adventurer (whose life is in danger a lot). It's the same reason so much of the 3.x spell list was all about combat! An NPC wizard may well have a "Tenser's Floating Disk" power and a "Secret Chest" power, because his area of study/specialization was in transportation.

And there you have it. The aren't in the book, so it's not a matter of "might".

Furthermore, it goes right back to the problem of "powers". I don't want "powers." I want spells in a book, and I don't want my Wizard railroaded into certain types because it's "balanced" and having the same tiny list as every other "adventuring wizard." (In the event I played a Wizard, which I rarely do)

Prophaniti

2008-08-28, 01:56 PM

Huh. Well, that pretty much explains it then. I'm a bit surprised that so many Simulationists converted to 3e, since 2e was clearly the more "simulationist" of the 2, but I'm sure y'all have your reasons.For me, it was a matter of starting with 3e, and not having anyone around who still played 2e. As I said, my first DM was my dad, and he wholeheartedly embraced 3e. I'd love to give it a try, but the opportunity has not yet presented itself. I've already added "Aquire 1e or 2e manuals and make ask make my group play them" to my long list of future RPG projects.

Thanks for the link, by the by - it was a bit long for me to read thoroughly, but I learned enough through skimming to get the point.Yeah, he has pretty thick syntax. I catch myself writing that way, sometimes, even on the board here. I need to cut back on that, so more people will actually read my posts.:smalltongue:

if I wanted to play using my own rules, I'd make my own system!Incidentally, this is exactly what I am currently working on from my list of RPG projects.:smallbiggrin:

Because people developed war magic into quick spells, for the same reason people invented guns. There are some other spells (like flight) that got invented as rituals--these are Utility powers.

Some spells you absolutely have to cast quickly (like Magic Missile). Some spells it's OK to take 10 minutes for.

Furthermore, the powers listed are the ones your PC wizard might have, as an adventurer (whose life is in danger a lot). It's the same reason so much of the 3.x spell list was all about combat! An NPC wizard may well have a "Tenser's Floating Disk" power and a "Secret Chest" power, because his area of study/specialization was in transportation.
This is a pretty weak argument. The point about "war magic" is your best one, but I don't buy that calling down meteors on someones head with magic was developed to the point where you can do it in less than 6 seconds, but Silence, Comprehend Languages, Arcane Lock, and Knock, all arguably spells that more people would use more often, were not.

As for your second point, I'd agree with Diamondeye. That's awfully convenient of magic, making only those spells take more time to cast that it's ok for.

Your last point is... I don't even know what to say. It is always assumed, in these discussions, that RAW is the law of the universe. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's the way we do things here. The abilities in the book are not the ones a character might have, they're the only ones the character can have. This is like the argument about whether NPCs should follow the same basic rules as the PCs (when the game necessitates direct interaction with them, of course), only with the "No" side turned up to 11. I just don't see how it would make any sense to allow an NPC to use Comprehend Languages as a standard power, but force the PCs to use it as a Ritual. Either the spell requires a Ritual or it does not. From the way I read it, that's dependant on the spell, not the caster.

mostlyharmful

2008-08-28, 02:22 PM

TwystidMynd

2008-08-28, 02:41 PM

Yes, it is. I've never seen a Wizard Academy that allows people to stop in and pick up a few abilities like it was a community college. In fact the only Wizard college that comes to mind is Sorcere. Students are there for what, 10 years? I wouldn't play in a campaing that had E-Z Wizard academies, and I wouldn't play 4e for the same reason: pick up a book, drop 2 feats, and presto, instant ritualist.

I'm sorry; I must be lost.

What game are we talking about, where there is only one Wizard Academy, and it's named Sorcere?
Because I've been playing D&D for quite some time and never encountered it, even though I've played many Wizards over the years.
I believe you're confusing the set of abstract worlds that can be played using the D&D system with either a book you've read, a story you've heard, or a campaign you've played in.

Besides, how do you explain someone who has gone Fighter 5/Wizard 1/Monk 3? It's not like they ever stopped fighting. And, by your explanation above, when the fighter was level 4, he was assumed to not have the aptitude to be a Wizard. Somehow, though, at level 6 he picked up the aptitude?
Or was he always assumed to have the aptitude? So then any fighter of any level can be assumed to have the aptitude to become a wizard?

As for "presto! wizard" it usually takes 4 levels to drop 2 feats, 2 levels if you are talking about a character who tries to take Ritual Casting at 2nd level, or 1 level if you're a Human who wants Ritual Casting at 1st level.
In the first case, I'd say 4 levels worth of commitment to studying ritual casting isn't exactly "instant" as you seem to imply with your tone.
In the second and third cases, we're talking about a character who is working towards studying Rituals since they're 1st level characters, which definitely fits into my definition of a character having an aptitude for magic.

nagora

2008-08-28, 02:41 PM

For me, it was a matter of starting with 3e, and not having anyone around who still played 2e. As I said, my first DM was my dad, and he wholeheartedly embraced 3e. I'd love to give it a try, but the opportunity has not yet presented itself. I've already added "Aquire 1e or 2e manuals and make ask make my group play them" to my long list of future RPG projects.
Well, don't forget the PDFs are still available, but obviously hardcopies are far more useful for most uses.

Jayabalard

2008-08-28, 02:52 PM

I don't buy that calling down meteors on someones head with magic was developed to the point where you can do it in less than 6 seconds, but Silence, Comprehend Languages, Arcane Lock, and Knock, all arguably spells that more people would use more often, were not.If anything, this seems like it should be reversed; calling down meteors should be a ritual and the other spells should not be.

I'm sorry; I must be lost.

What game are we talking about, where there is only one Wizard Academy, and it's named Sorcere?I asked Google; Google says he's probably talking about one of D&D's officient settings, specifically Forgotten Realms (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Sorcere). If you're going to berate someone, at least take a few seconds to check.

In this particular case, he's claimed that the only school that he knows of in a D&D setting is this Sorcere; if you know of another, feel free to add that to the discussion.

Kletian999

2008-08-28, 03:00 PM

That's pretty weak. Why does magic lend itself to fast casting for fighting but not for anything else? We also developed computers to speed data processing, but in 4E you can only develop the "gun" not the "computer" and for the sole reason that it's "balanced."

Some spells you absolutely have to cast quickly (like Magic Missile). Some spells it's OK to take 10 minutes for.

Why are the laws of magic mysteriously adapting themselves to the degree of convenience needed by the caster?

[/QUOTE]

I think it's healthiest to considering rituals as the "Science" of the DnD world whereas magic class powers are still the mystical will force we know and love. The PHB describes that while long and complicated, as long as the instructions are followed the result will occur as a result of the natural order. If you ever heard of pre-evolution theories to the origin of life: Sponetenous Generation: there was a huge school of though for "receipes" to create different organism. The one in my old science textbook was "Receipe for Bees" and went something like

Slaughter a cow in an open field
Apply certain herbs and honey to the body
Wait 2 weeks- bees will emerge from the corpse

Doesn't that sound like a ritual to you?
_____________

You can also consider it's far easier and faster to wreck things than it is to do anything creative or constructive- thus combat spells are fast.
As for why meteor swarm becomes just as fast as magic missle, it's only the case when you the high enough level to "learn" it. Perhaps you knew of the spell but couldn't execute it effectively (in 6 seconds or less) until you hit the normal level.
_________

Someone asked why anyone would learn combat magic in a world where it matches effectivness of melee prowess: the answer is simply you were born with 16+ int and 10- Strength: or perhaps social factors influence your career choice. Either way, just because PCs get to decide their stats after choosing class doesn't mean "life" works out that way (life in terms of whenever you ask a hypothetical "real world" challenge to game mechanics).

Jack Zander

2008-08-28, 03:08 PM

You create mice by leaving some cheese wrapped in a cloth in the corner of a floor. The droppings that appear later and the missing cheese proves that the cheese turned into a mouse.

TwystidMynd

2008-08-28, 03:19 PM

If anything, this seems like it should be reversed; calling down meteors should be a ritual and the other spells should not be.

I asked Google; Google says he's probably talking about one of D&D's officient settings, specifically Forgotten Realms (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Sorcere). If you're going to berate someone, at least take a few seconds to check.

In this particular case, he's claimed that the only school that he knows of in a D&D setting is this Sorcere; if you know of another, feel free to add that to the discussion.

If you're going to berate someone, at least take a few seconds to consider the argument before jumping the gun.
I wasn't claiming that Sorcere didn't exist. I've read plenty of Forgotten Realms material to recognize the reference. However, the Forgotten Realms isn't the only setting that D&D can support, whereas he posed his argument as if it were. My post was meant to point that out, which I think it did in a more circuitous manner than was necessary, and I'm sorry I confused you by doing so.

If you'd REALLY like me to list a number of Schools of Wizardry, then I will, but I warn you, they're all made up by various DMs in homebrewed settings. This doesn't make them any less meaningful, but you're unlikely to recognize them. The fact that they exist in some world run in the D&D setting is all the validity they need to prove as a counterpoint to the argument "There is only one Wizard Academy in D&D!"

Jayabalard

2008-08-28, 03:32 PM

However, the Forgotten Realms isn't the only setting that D&D can support, whereas he posed his argument as if it were.Nope, he didn't .... He didn't say there was only one, just it was the only one that he knew about. That doesn't imply that FR is the only D&D setting.

If you'd REALLY like me to list a number of Schools of Wizardry, then I will, but I warn you, they're all made up by various DMs in homebrewed settings. This doesn't make them any less meaningful, but you're unlikely to
recognize them. Actually, it does make them less meaningful. You can't assume that everyone is going to play in a game world like the homebrew worlds that you play in (especially when they say they dislike that kind of world) but we can assume that many people are going to play in the official settings.

Going back to what he disagreed with:
Is it impossible to imagine that, in 3.x, gaining a level in Wizard can amount to going to Wizard Academy and picking up a few spells?Since there aren't many schools of wizard in the default D&D settings, it is indeed impossible to imagine that gaining a level in wizard is from going to wizard academy and picking up a few spells.

Hence his counter: "Yes, it is. I've never seen a Wizard Academy that allows people to stop in and pick up a few abilities like it was a community college."

If you want to make a counter argument, you'll need to come up with enough schools of magic in official settings to actually justify having people go off to wizard school to pick up spells, or go with a completely different explanation.

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 03:38 PM

What game are we talking about, where there is only one Wizard Academy, and it's named Sorcere?

I said it was the only one I can think of off hand. Do you know of some other ones? And specifically, are they the sort of place where you can drop in, sign up, and take some quicky spell classes in night school?

Because I've been playing D&D for quite some time and never encountered it, even though I've played many Wizards over the years.
I believe you're confusing the set of abstract worlds that can be played using the D&D system with either a book you've read, a story you've heard, or a campaign you've played in.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm poinitng out that for someone to just run over the the Wizard Academy and learn spells at the drop of a hat, there has to be a Wizard Academy willing to do that.

Besides, how do you explain someone who has gone Fighter 5/Wizard 1/Monk 3? It's not like they ever stopped fighting. And, by your explanation above, when the fighter was level 4, he was assumed to not have the aptitude to be a Wizard. Somehow, though, at level 6 he picked up the aptitude? Or was he always assumed to have the aptitude? So then any fighter of any level can be assumed to have the aptitude to become a wizard?

No. You're A) Not listening to me and B) making a hasty generalization. If any given fighter at any given level hasn't learned magic he may lack the desire, aptitude, opportunity, or any combination of those. My explaination wasn't that a fighter who didn't learn magic DIDN'T have the aptitude, it was that he MIGHT NOT have it, but that it could be a lack of desire, opportunity, or a combination.

Furthermore, just because any given fighter displays, by learning magic later in their career, that they DO have all three elements, that does not mean we can generalize that to any other given fighter.

It's easy to explain the character above; he was studying magic when he had the chance during his fighting career and at CL 6 he finally grasped it well enough to consistently cast simple spells. However, shortly thereafter, he took up a new course of fighting and left his magical studies off again, perhaps finding them not as rewarding as he'd first imagined, or possibly hoping to learn a fighting style that relied less on armor and meshed better with spellcasting, which he plans to go back to at CL 11 or higher.

As for "presto! wizard" it usually takes 4 levels to drop 2 feats, 2 levels if you are talking about a character who tries to take Ritual Casting at 2nd level, or 1 level if you're a Human who wants Ritual Casting at 1st level.
In the first case, I'd say 4 levels worth of commitment to studying ritual casting isn't exactly "instant" as you seem to imply with your tone.
In the second and third cases, we're talking about a character who is working towards studying Rituals since they're 1st level characters, which definitely fits into my definition of a character having an aptitude for magic.

It certainly is "instant" when the ONLY thing the character has given up is feats. A 3.x fighter who takes a level of wizard accepts a great deal of compromise to their fighting progression: less BAB that level, less HP, and the inability without specialized items or further specialized training (PrC) to cast their spells while retaining their armor.

Jerthanis

2008-08-28, 03:38 PM

Also to bear in mind, when you drop the Ritual use feat you get access to Rituals, you might not be as great at them as a "Caster" class without upping you relivant skill but you get just as much access to powerful magic effects as a dedicated magic user. In 3.5 if you took a level of Wizard you get access to First level spells only... it means one less UMD roll to use high level stuff but in mid or high level play having a CL1 Wiz dabble isn't all that useful.

Which is another example of how, in 3.5, you had over a million options, only 8 or 9 of which were useful in any respect. The other 999,991+ options just serve as traps for inexperienced players.

In 4th edition, you can decide to make noncasters have some additional utility for the not-insignificant cost of two feats and a bucketload of gold. If you're a fighter who decides to become a ritual caster, that fighter has to wait four levels before she can even start. In any party with casters already in it, there's almost no use at all in the idea, but it means that you don't absolutely need a cleric and nothing else in every single party if you want to be able to heal diseases or death, and you don't absolutely need a wizard and nothing else if you need to bust magic seals or fortell far off locations. It means a Fighter/Ranger/Rogue/Warlord party is just as viable as Paladin/Warlock/Wizard/Cleric.

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 03:46 PM

I think it's healthiest to considering rituals as the "Science" of the DnD world whereas magic class powers are still the mystical will force we know and love.

What does healthy have to do with it? Healthy in terms of trying to convince people they really should like 4E?

The PHB describes that while long and complicated, as long as the instructions are followed the result will occur as a result of the natural order. If you ever heard of pre-evolution theories to the origin of life: Sponetenous Generation: there was a huge school of though for "receipes" to create different organism. The one in my old science textbook was "Receipe for Bees" and went something like

Slaughter a cow in an open field
Apply certain herbs and honey to the body
Wait 2 weeks- bees will emerge from the corpse

Doesn't that sound like a ritual to you?

Not really, no. This is a ritual that's supposed to duplicate effects like Flying as numerous posters have cited, not just things that can happen in the real world as a matter of course.

You can also consider it's far easier and faster to wreck things than it is to do anything creative or constructive- thus combat spells are fast.
As for why meteor swarm becomes just as fast as magic missle, it's only the case when you the high enough level to "learn" it. Perhaps you knew of the spell but couldn't execute it effectively (in 6 seconds or less) until you hit the normal level.

That doesn't work either. The wrecking is what happens as a result of the spell being cast on someone or something. Causing the effect in the first palce isn't wrecking; you're actually creating or summoning energy or matter from somewhere.

Someone asked why anyone would learn combat magic in a world where it matches effectivness of melee prowess: the answer is simply you were born with 16+ int and 10- Strength: or perhaps social factors influence your career choice. Either way, just because PCs get to decide their stats after choosing class doesn't mean "life" works out that way (life in terms of whenever you ask a hypothetical "real world" challenge to game mechanics).

But yet life in this world somehow works out that magic works just as effectively as everything else, no more, no less. That's not magic for me. I can accept magic like that in a setting like RIFTS, but not in a medieval/primitive world.

The bottom line is that I don't accept a need for class balance. Without that, I see no reason to go through the mental gymnsatics of justifying a world that reflects 4E mechanics, when I already liked 3.5 fluff and mechanics better anyhow.

FoE

2008-08-28, 03:48 PM

That's silly. Why would you spend years learning this combat magic when it's no more useful than regular fighting, and provides you no advantage in using the rituals everyone else can anyhow?

Because they come from a family of spellcasters. Because they heard a higher calling to serve their god. Because they're lousy with a weapon, and yet are naturally-talented at casting spells.

The point is, everyone has different reasons for making the choices they do. Why would people choose to play fighters and monks in 3.5 when wizards and druids were all-powerful at higher levels?

The fact is, spellcasters do gain incredible power. But here's the catch: no matter what class you take, adventurers are special people. At high levels, their abilities verge on the realm of the gods. They do things that should be impossible. This is as true for warriors as it is for spellcasters.

TwystidMynd

2008-08-28, 03:48 PM

Nope, he didn't .... He didn't say there was only one, just it was the only one that he knew about. That doesn't imply that FR is the only D&D setting.
You're misrepresenting his argument. Allow me to refresh your memory:

Is it impossible to imagine that, in 3.x, gaining a level in Wizard can amount to going to Wizard Academy and picking up a few spells?

Yes, it is. I've never seen a Wizard Academy that allows people to stop in and pick up a few abilities like it was a community college. In fact the only Wizard college that comes to mind is Sorcere.
He says it's difficult to imagine a Wizard Academy that allows people to stop in and pick up a few spells. That's an incredibly limited imagination, given a game system that THRIVES on imagination.
I didn't ask if it's impossible to "find a Wizard Academy in a published setting" that allowed a character to do so. I asked him to use his imagination within the scope of the rules of D&D.

Going back to what he disagreed with:Since there aren't many schools of wizard in the default D&D settings, it is indeed impossible to imagine that gaining a level in wizard is from going to wizard academy and picking up a few spells.
My original point is that, he had argued that a 4th level Fighter, in 3.5, was "assumed to not have any magical aptitude" but that his argument falls apart as soon as that same fighter levels up and takes a level in Wizard. You've completely ignored that, but I'll forgive you. To address your new argument, I ask you how someone would pick up a level in Wizard, if they wanted to? Do they spontaneously gain the knowledge of how to cast Tenser's Floating disc, or do they have to go to a Wizard Academy and pick up a few spells? Granted, that may take some time, but there is also a time investment when deciding to pick up Ritual Casting in 4e (which was another point I made previously).

FoE

2008-08-28, 03:51 PM

Do they spontaneously gain the knowledge of how to cast Tenser's Floating disc, or do they have to go to a Wizard Academy and pick up a few spells? Granted, that may take some time, but there is also a time investment when deciding to pick up Ritual Casting in 4e (which was another point I made previously).

Silly Twystid. Everyone knows that when you multiclass, the magical Character Class Fairy comes and grants you new super-powers with a touch of her wand. :smalltongue:

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 03:52 PM

The point is, everyone has different reasons for making the choices they do. Why would people choose to play fighters and monks in 3.5 when wizards and druids were all-powerful at higher levels?

Mainly because that's an invention of the internet, not real play.

The fact is, spellcasters do gain incredible power. But here's the catch: no matter what class you take, adventurers are special people. At high levels, their abilities verge on the realm of the gods. They do things that should be impossible. This is as true for warriors as it is for spellcasters.

In 4E it is. I don't get why you're putting it in italics. I know that's how 4e works.

I t's also why I refuse to play 4e. I don't want to play a game where it's equally true for everyone. I don't want "epic levels" and "abilities verging on the Gods" period, but I especially don't want nonspellcasters having them. That is not fun in my opinon.

TwystidMynd

2008-08-28, 03:54 PM

It's easy to explain the character above; he was studying magic when he had the chance during his fighting career and at CL 6 he finally grasped it well enough to consistently cast simple spells. However, shortly thereafter, he took up a new course of fighting and left his magical studies off again, perhaps finding them not as rewarding as he'd first imagined, or possibly hoping to learn a fighting style that relied less on armor and meshed better with spellcasting, which he plans to go back to at CL 11 or higher.

I apologize for asking an unsuitably specific question.

How do you explain a Fighter who has had no interest in magic for years, level up to level 4, and then "all of a sudden" decides to take a level in Wizard? In 3.x, this is a valid choice for a player to make. Do you suggest that you retcon the character, to claim that he has been studying magic the entire time? Or does he have a spark of inspiration?

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 03:56 PM

He says it's difficult to imagine a Wizard Academy that allows people to stop in and pick up a few spells. That's an incredibly limited imagination, given a game system that THRIVES on imagination.
I didn't ask if it's impossible to "find a Wizard Academy in a published setting" that allowed a character to do so. I asked him to use his imagination within the scope of the rules of D&D.

It's not an incredible limitation on imagination that I can't find something believable which would exist for no purpose besides justifying arguments that somehow 3.5 is just as unbelievable as 4. In other words, you consider it "limited imagination" that

My original point is that, he had argued that a 4th level Fighter, in 3.5, was "assumed to not have any magical aptitude" but that his argument falls apart as soon as that same fighter levels up and takes a level in Wizard.

That wasn't my argument. Stop misrepresenting it.

You've completely ignored that, but I'll forgive you.

He's ignoring it because it's a strawman. It could have been lack of aptitude, desire, or opportunity.

To address your new argument, I ask you how someone would pick up a level in Wizard, if they wanted to? Do they spontaneously gain the knowledge of how to cast Tenser's Floating disc, or do they have to go to a Wizard Academy and pick up a few spells?

False dilemma

Granted, that may take some time, but there is also a time investment when deciding to pick up Ritual Casting in 4e (which was another point I made previously).

And a false one. It doesn't involve the compromise of fighting ability that taking a spellcasting level did in 3.5

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 03:59 PM

Go play a different game, then. Why are you wasting your time Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch?

I am; I'm playing 3.5. This thread is about dislikes of 4e, or did you not see the title?

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 04:02 PM

How do you explain a Fighter who has had no interest in magic for years, level up to level 4, and then "all of a sudden" decides to take a level in Wizard? In 3.x, this is a valid choice for a player to make. Do you suggest that you retcon the character, to claim that he has been studying magic the entire time? Or does he have a spark of inspiration?

He's probably been studying the entire time, during periods when nothing else was going on. That's between him and the DM.

The player may all of a sudden decide it, but the character may have been studying it all along. The effects of this investment of time and effort manifest themselves in his eventually-lower-than-average hipoints, BAB, and different save distribution, among other things.

Jayabalard

2008-08-28, 04:02 PM

You're misrepresenting his argument.Nope, I'm representing what was said pretty well

He says it's difficult to imagine a Wizard Academy that allows people to stop in and pick up a few spells. That's an incredibly limited imagination, given a game system that THRIVES on imagination.Actually, what he said that he hadn't seen any, and that the only one that comes to mind is Sorcere, and that he dislikes the idea and wouldn't play in a campaign that had them. The last bit makes it pretty obvious that the first part, the "Yes, it is" is rhetoric. Making snide comments about his lack of imagination doesn't really help your argument.

I happen to agree with his point of view; I find the idea of a world filled iwth wizard community colleges pretty ludicrous, and don't have any interest in playing in that world.

FoE

2008-08-28, 04:04 PM

I don't get why you're putting it in italics.

It's for a little thing we call ... EMPHASIS!

It's also why I refuse to play 4e … I don't want "epic levels" and "abilities verging on the Gods" period, but I especially don't want nonspellcasters having them. That is not fun in my opinion.

In which case, why are you even playing D&D?

Morty

2008-08-28, 04:08 PM

In which case, why are you even playing D&D?

Because DnD 3ed doesn't mean "superheroes with abilities rivaling the gods" and some people kind of, you know, like it? And shocking as it may sound, shift towards powerful side of the scale is something that turns them away from 4ed. I don't like 3ed's unbalance, it disrupts the game for me. But I'm not offended because someone dares not to share this opinion, which can't be said about some 4ed defenders.

Diamondeye

2008-08-28, 04:08 PM

It's for a little thing we call ... EMPHASIS!

Yes, yes, you're very cute. However, the fact is that emphasizing that something is part of 4E in a thread specifically about 4E is pretty much just shouting the obvious.

[quote]In which case, why are you even playing D&D?
Because I enjoy it, and because it's perfectly playable without all this "epic" and "rivalling the gods" nonsense.

Why are you concerning yourself with why I'm playing? Everyone does not need to play with your assumptions of what should be in the campaign.

Starsinger

2008-08-28, 04:13 PM

Because I enjoy it, and because it's perfectly playable without all this "epic" and "rivalling the gods" nonsense.

Yes, yes, you're very cute. However, the fact is that pretending that something is an integral part of 4E is pretty much ridiculous.

Just like in 3.5, nobody is going to tie you down and force you to play past level 20. In fact, just like in 3.5 nobody is going to tie you down and force you to play any particular level range you don't want to. Nevermind that epic 3.5 characters are way more "rivaling the gods" than epic 4e characters.

Jayabalard

2008-08-28, 04:14 PM

Why are you concerning yourself with why I'm playing? Everyone does not need to play with your assumptions of what should be in the campaign.Because you're saying not nice things about the game that they like, and they feel the need to lash out at someone because of that.

To address your new argument, I ask you how someone would pick up a level in Wizard, if they wanted to? Do they spontaneously gain the knowledge of how to cast Tenser's Floating disc, or do they have to go to a Wizard Academy and pick up a few spells? Neither. There aren't Wizard academies for them to go to learn, nor do they spontaneously start casing. In debate, what you're offering is called a "False Dilemma"

If a fighter wants to learn spells he has to have at least Magery 0 and then put points into those skills; if they don't have a teacher but have good reference materials they pay double character points; if they don't have even the reference materials they can't learn the spells.

Nevermind that epic 3.5 characters are way more "rivaling the gods" than epic 4e characters.That's really not relevant, since he's not going to be playing at those levels in 3e.

What is relevant is that low level 4e chaaracters are far more epic than 3e ones.

Morty

2008-08-28, 04:16 PM

Just like in 3.5, nobody is going to tie you down and force you to play past level 20. In fact, just like in 3.5 nobody is going to tie you down and force you to play any particular level range you don't want to. Nevermind that epic 3.5 characters are way more "rivaling the gods" than epic 4e characters.

On the other hand though, in 3ed people with class levels, such as PCs, are describes as "extraordinary, but not unique" and that PCs are indistinguishable from the rest of the populace unless they work for it. In 4ed PCs are special, unique and Better Than Everyone right off the bat, even on 1st level.

FoE

2008-08-28, 04:22 PM

and some people kind of, you know, like it? And shocking as it may sound, shift towards powerful side of the scale is something that turns them away from 4ed. I don't like 3ed's unbalance, it disrupts the game for me. But I'm not offended because someone dares not to share this opinion, which can't be said about some 4ed defenders.

Ah yes, of course. Clearly the only reason this thread reached 49 pages is because the 4E people keep posting here in order to deride any criticisms made by its detractors. Everyone who had something bad to say summed up all of their arguments in one post and never returned to this thread again.

Come on, Mort. There's enough animosity in this thread without accusing each other of being fanatics. Let's not make enemies of each other over a silly game. :smallsmile:

On the other hand though, in 3ed people with class levels, such as PCs, are describes as "extraordinary, but not unique" and that PCs are indistinguishable from the rest of the populace unless they work for it. In 4ed PCs are special, unique and Better Than Everyone right off the bat, even on 1st level.

And I'll concede that might turn people off. Fair enough.

Jayabalard

2008-08-28, 04:32 PM

Ah yes, of course. Clearly the only reason this thread reached 49 pages is because the 4E people keep posting here in order to deride any criticisms made by its detractors.Yup. Whole pages of people disregarding the OP's request not to debate but just list things that you disliked about 4e. Debate that starts when some 4e supporter has to prove someone wrong. Pages where a single individual has nearly half the posts on the page, disagreeing with what people dislike and being generally derisive of any opinion that 4e could be lacking in any way.

Frownbear

2008-08-28, 04:35 PM

Because DnD 3ed doesn't mean "superheroes with abilities rivaling the gods" and some people kind of, you know, like it? And shocking as it may sound, shift towards powerful side of the scale is something that turns them away from 4ed. I don't like 3ed's unbalance, it disrupts the game for me. But I'm not offended because someone dares not to share this opinion, which can't be said about some 4ed defenders.

...er, you realize that 4E characters end up as a lot less powerful than 3E characters?

Morty

2008-08-28, 04:36 PM

Ah yes, of course. Clearly the only reason this thread reached 49 pages is because the 4E people keep posting here in order to deride any criticisms made by its detractors. Everyone who had something bad to say summed up all of their arguments in one post and never returned to this thread again.

You're more right that you think. If you read this thread through, you'll notice that it reached 49 pages exactly because pro-4ed people come here and try to prove every single criticism wrong. Though I admit reading those 49 pages is an Epic-level challenge.

Come on, Mort. There's enough animosity in this thread without accusing each other of being fanatics. Let's not make enemies of each other over a silly game. :smallsmile:

It stopped being about D&D long ago. Now it's just two groups of people unable to accept that someone might disagree with them without being dead wrong, blind, etc.

...er, you realize that 4E characters end up as a lot less powerful than 3E characters?

Maybe. But they start off much more powerful than those from 3ed which was sort of my point. I don't like high-powered games so I don't play high-level D&D. But in 4ed, low-level chracters are already powerful.

Jayabalard

2008-08-28, 04:37 PM

...er, you realize that 4E characters end up as a lot less powerful than 3E characters?you realize that 4E characters start off a lot more powerful than 3E characters?

Which is really the important part; people who don't like the power level of 4e generally don't play 3e to high level.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-28, 04:41 PM

Morty

2008-08-28, 04:46 PM

Hey, another open question:

What is it about 4e characters that makes them "too powerful" for 1st level? As a follow up, what characteristics would make up an appropriately powered 1st level character?

It's more about relative power than power itself. PCs are described as the scant few people with class levels and that most people are much less powerful than them. So they get full class powers and abilities, healing surges, second winds and so on, while most people they encounter don't. And I liked how in 3ed PCs were skilled, strong and full of potential but on par with the rest of the world.

Knaight

2008-08-28, 04:46 PM

DM: "So you guys want to set up camp. Do you have a watch set?"
Rogue: "Yeah, I'll take the first 2 hours of watch."
<Party finishes setting up the watch rotation>
<DM begins rolling for random encounters>
Rogue: "Wait a second. I wanna try to tie a square knot!"
DM: "Uh... ok. Roll a Use Rope check?"
<Rogue rolls a 2>
Rogue: "2 + 5 ... that's a 7."
DM: "You make a knot."
<DM begins rolling for random encounters>
Rogue: "Wait a second! Jeez. I'm not done. I wanna try to tie a square not again."

This continues until the Rogue has spent roughly 30 minutes of game time trying to roll enough 1s and 20s to gain his skill point.

How is this better than just assuming people read books, practice skills, etc. while in downtime?

First people play the games for enjoyment, so nobody is going to grind, its boring, and the game isn't competitive. Second it eliminates having to keep track of experience points, it either makes rolling a 1 suck less, or rolling a 20 be even better(D&D should probably only use the 1, d100 games would use both,), it compensates naturally to deal with bad luck, it comes about naturally, stuff which happens more often will improve faster, simulating experience without keeping track of points, and not encouraging combat for its own sake, it is out of the way, and the GM doesn't have to worry about it. The only real downside is that it doesn't model passive skills well, or give the players as much choice in advancement, although what they do with their characters does influence this.

Yes people grind in MMOs, but thats partially because they don't typically come with stories and the players typically can't influence the world, plus you get animations. There are exceptions to all three of these things, but they are the predominant reasons.

Edea

2008-08-28, 04:47 PM

What is it about 4e characters that makes them "too powerful" for 1st level?

I...dunno about this 'super powerful 1st level character' stuff. The two main points going for it are probably 1) the way hit points are determined now (and the healing surge/second wind mechanics), or 2) at-will attack powers.

It sure as hell isn't encounter/daily/utility powers, the skill/feat systems, magic items, or rituals, because compared to 3.5, those are all super-weaksauce. I felt that 4e was a power-down across the board.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-28, 05:07 PM

It's more about relative power than power itself. PCs are described as the scant few people with class levels and that most people are much less powerful than them. So they get full class powers and abilities, healing surges, second winds and so on, while most people they encounter don't. And I liked how in 3ed PCs were skilled, strong and full of potential but on par with the rest of the world.

Interesting.

So how do you feel about the Human Bandit or Guard in the MM? Both have armor, weapons, and decent at-will and encounter powers. Nothing as flashy as PCs, but the actual class abilities of 4e characters are fairly weak - unlike, say, 3e's immunity to disease or Detect Evil.

In fact, the only advantage that PCs in 4e have at low levels would be Action Points and Healing Surges - that is to say, they are more durable than the average joe, and can sometimes do many things at once.

Is it just the extra durability that comes along with being an adventurer that sticks in your craw, or is it something more?

Morty

2008-08-28, 05:13 PM

So how do you feel about the Human Bandit or Guard in the MM? Both have armor, weapons, and decent at-will and encounter powers. Nothing as flashy as PCs, but the actual class abilities of 4e characters are fairly weak - unlike, say, 3e's immunity to disease or Detect Evil.

Human Guard or Human Bandit stands absolutely no chance against PC of appropriate level. They both have one encounter ability and can only whack foes with their weapons otherwise.

In fact, the only advantage that PCs in 4e have at low levels would be Action Points and Healing Surges - that is to say, they are more durable than the average joe, and can sometimes do many things at once.

Action Points(a mechanic I generally dislike, but that's another thing) and Healing Surges are quite a lot. But they're not all, there's also the full choice of powers, feats and skills.

Is it just the extra durability that comes along with being an adventurer that sticks in your craw, or is it something more?

What I described above and the design philosophy in which PCs are Just Plain Better, connected with PCs and NPCs using different rules, which only emphasizes that.

ImperiousLeader

2008-08-28, 05:24 PM

On the other hand though, in 3ed people with class levels, such as PCs, are describes as "extraordinary, but not unique" and that PCs are indistinguishable from the rest of the populace unless they work for it. In 4ed PCs are special, unique and Better Than Everyone right off the bat, even on 1st level.

I played in an Eberron 3.5 campaign. And Eberron PCs are consider special and unique, right from 1st level. So I see this as less of an edition thing, than an evolution of DnD in general.

Frownbear

2008-08-28, 05:27 PM

you realize that 4E characters start off a lot more powerful than 3E characters?

Not relative to everything else!

Morty

2008-08-28, 05:28 PM

I played in an Eberron 3.5 campaign. And Eberron PCs are consider special and unique, right from 1st level. So I see this as less of an edition thing, than an evolution of DnD in general.

Yet another thing I dislike Eberron for. Anyway, in 3ed such approach isn't supported by the rules. You can do it that way or another way if you like. In 4ed, rules are written with PCs being the only non-villains with any power in mind.

Starsinger

2008-08-28, 05:40 PM

Hey, another open question:

What is it about 4e characters that makes them "too powerful" for 1st level? As a follow up, what characteristics would make up an appropriately powered 1st level character?

People obviously enjoy that nethack like sense of "I could die at first level to a housecat that crits me once". I mean nobody wants to be Boromir who only dies when he's badly out numbered and dies like a hero. People obviously want to die like a punk from a lucky shot by faceless kobold archer #7.

Morty

2008-08-28, 05:42 PM

Jerthanis

2008-08-28, 05:45 PM

Human Guard or Human Bandit stands absolutely no chance against PC of appropriate level. They both have one encounter ability and can only whack foes with their weapons otherwise.

Odd... I just ran a 1v1 sample battle between a Half-Elf Charisma Paladin and a Human Bandit, and the Charisma Paladin lost after hitting with his daily AND his Encounter power, using an action point and his second wind.

Paladin's admittedly are fairly bad at "Soloing", and the bandit was lucky to hit with his Dazing strike, but still... I think you're drastically overestimating how strong PCs are in 4th edition.

Heck, you've got to be level 3 or 4 to not get steamrolled by orcs in this edition.

Morty

2008-08-28, 05:48 PM

Odd... I just ran a 1v1 sample battle between a Half-Elf Charisma Paladin and a Human Bandit, and the Charisma Paladin lost after hitting with his daily AND his Encounter power, using an action point and his second wind.

That's... surprising to say the least, because in the fight I've just been through in a 4ed game a 1st level Eladrin TWFing ranger took out a 3rd level Soldier without breaking a sweat using Jaws of the Wolf.

Paladin's admittedly are fairly bad at "Soloing", and the bandit was lucky to hit with his Dazing strike, but still... I think you're drastically overestimating how strong PCs are in 4th edition.

Could be, although see above. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that PCs are supposed to be Just Plain Better and Unique heroes right from the start. It's in the rulebooks, stated few times.

Heck, you've got to be level 3 or 4 to not get steamrolled by orcs in this edition.

That's only because orcs happen to be statted out as foes of certain level.

Frownbear

2008-08-28, 06:02 PM

That's only because orcs happen to be statted out as foes of certain level.

Or... maybe it's intentional, to show that orcs are a major threat, and first-level PCs have a tough time with them?

Third-level 3E PCs can tear through (presumably NPC-classed) town guards, too.

Morty

2008-08-28, 06:09 PM

This thread just keeps on proving my point. You apparently can't dislike 4ed without several people coming up and saying that nope, you can't. I really don't uderstand it. When I encounter people who criticize something I like, I let them do it. I don't feel the need to ask them tp explain in detail on why they don't like it and try to prove each and every point wrong.

Or... maybe it's intentional, to show that orcs are a major threat, and first-level PCs have a tough time with them?

You can, however, make those orcs 1st level threat if you shift their stats a bit. Not to mention some of those orcs are Minions, which by definition are mooks for Heroes to wade through. It's apparently badass or something, but in any case if proves that PCs in 4ed are supposed to be much more heroic.

Third-level 3E PCs can tear through (presumably NPC-classed) town guards, too.

Can they? It all depends on how much exactly those guards have the levels of Warrior, how they fight, and so on. But yeah, you're right- the difference being, you can actually make some veteran guards with Fighter levels in 3ed, while in 4ed people with class levels are supposed to be extremely rare and unique.

Kompera

2008-08-28, 06:15 PM

Pffft! You play a game set in a world filled with magical creatures, and you're worrying about realism?I defend this position. Everyone has a different level where suspension of disbelief can be easily maintained. Playing D&D, any version, is more 'realistic' than playing Bunnies and Burrows. To me, at least. Because I am a human and can play a human fighter in D&D, any version, and I am not a bunny.

My objection comes when people who hold this view go on to try to describe just why they feel that 4e is less realistic than 3.x. There the rationality of the position starts to fall down into highly subjective points, which look mostly to me like "I was used to the way it was. It's not like it was any more, and so I've lost my ability to immerse myself in it."

Which is not to say that this isn't a fine opinion to have. But it doesn't really make any kind of case for 4e being less realistic than 3.x.

Frownbear

2008-08-28, 06:17 PM

You can, however, make those orcs 1st level threat if you shift their stats a bit. Not to mention some of those orcs are Minions, which by definition are mooks for Heroes to wade through. It's apparently badass or something.
Yes, you can customize monsters to be more or less of a threat easily. This is good, and it's irrelevant to orcs being level 3-4 challenges.

Some of those orcs are minions, yes. They'll go down quickly. How is this relevant to the fact that an orc encounter is very likely to steamroll a group of first-level PCs? So they might take a couple down with them. This is a problem?

Can they? It all depends on how much exactly those guards have the levels of Warrior, how they fight, and so on. But yeah, you're right- the difference being, you can actually make some veteran guards with Fighter levels in 3ed, while in 4ed people with class levels are supposed to be extremely rare and unique.
Yes, the adventuring PCs are supposed to be overall better than town guards.

But you can make people with class levels all you like. That's what the NPC class templates in the DMG (or are they in the MM?) are for! If you want the town guards to be badasses that could stomp all over the PCs, make them 8th-level fighter-templated guards or whatever. By default the guard isn't as good as PCs, but then a default guard in 3E would be a Warrior 1 or something. If the guards are so much better than the PCs why aren't they handling the problems the PCs are handling?

Edit: and if you don't think that a 3E party can take a couple of Warrior 4 or 5s at level 3... well, I think you seriously underestimate 3E PCs.
If you're making your guards level 10 or something... well, you really want the PCs to feel weak and useless, I guess.

Knaight

2008-08-28, 06:20 PM

Can they? It all depends on how much exactly those guards have the levels of Warrior, how they fight, and so on. But yeah, you're right- the difference being, you can actually make some veteran guards with Fighter levels in 3ed, while in 4ed people with class levels are supposed to be extremely rare and unique.

I think there is a higher level solider and such for that stuff(I never bought the MM, the PHB just didn't interest me enough, and I already had a better system, which I didn't when I found 3.5. A free better system), and NPC stats are really easy to screw around with. Oh and in your post you even mentioned that you could always drop the orcs stats down, so if you can do that, the guards stats can go up. That said, minions are always minions, and they are there for heroic scenes. There is no denying that.

Kompera

2008-08-28, 06:22 PM

Way to pull off a strawman. Good job, I was starting to think this thread was getting halfway reasonable. But I see I was grossly mistaken.:smallsigh:Right. Because 4e having characters be too powerful at 1st level while 4e Wizards having been horribly nerfed and underpowered isn't in any way, shape, or form contradictory and ridiculous.

Summon Straw Golem...

Morty

2008-08-28, 06:24 PM

Some of those orcs are minions, yes. They'll go down quickly. How is this relevant to the fact that an orc encounter is very likely to steamroll a group of first-level PCs? So they might take a couple down with them. This is a problem?

The very fact that there are "minions" who are supposed to go down in one hit makes 4ed PCs much more heroic.

Yes, the adventuring PCs are supposed to be overall better than town guards.

This is true. But 3ed pictures that much better.

But you can make people with class levels all you like. That's what the NPC class templates in the DMG (or are they in the MM?) are for! If you want the town guards to be badasses that could stomp all over the PCs, make them 8th-level fighter-templated guards or whatever. By default the guard isn't as good as PCs, but then a default guard in 3E would be a Warrior 1 or something. If the guards are so much better than the PCs why aren't they handling the problems the PCs are handling?

Yeah, there are NPC templates. But the ones for NPCs are much weaker than PCs and those for monsters make them Elite. Also, guards don't handle the problems PCs do because they're being paid to guard the town, not go into dangerous places and fight monsters. PCs do this because they're weirdos who actually like such things. That's what makes them PCs, without the need to put them on the pedestal as 4ed does.

Edit: and if you don't think that a 3E party can take a couple of Warrior 4 or 5s at level 3... well, I think you seriously underestimate 3E PCs.
If you're making your guards level 10 or something... well, you really want the PCs to feel weak and useless, I guess.

Now, really can't we have a 4ed discussion without putting words into someone's mouth and otherwise twisting their points until they suit your needs? It's not about PCs getting kicked by town guards, it's about PCs being unique, special and Just Plain Stronger. As it's written in DMG few times.

Right. Because 4e having characters be too powerful at 1st level while 4e Wizards having been horribly nerfed and underpowered isn't in any way, shape, or form contradictory and ridiculous.

Show me any post where I said that wizards has been horribly nerfed in 4ed and then we'll talk. Or are you one of those people who attribute all anti-4ed arguments to every single person who dislikes it?
I'm getting really tired of getting jumped at every time I make a negative statement about 4ed, really.

Starbuck_II

2008-08-28, 06:25 PM

Right. Because 4e having characters be too powerful at 1st level while 4e Wizards having been horribly nerfed and underpowered isn't in any way, shape, or form contradictory and ridiculous.

Summon Straw Golem...

Wait, aren't the Golems made out of Straws CR 4? I don't think 1st level PCs can handle them (seriously, they exist).

Jerthanis

2008-08-28, 06:27 PM

Could be, although see above. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that PCs are supposed to be Just Plain Better heroes right from the start.

Doesn't follow for me. PC has 36 HP with a high Con and a Defender class... Enemy has 37 when he's a damage/mobility archetype. They have comparable hit bonuses and defenses. The only clear difference between NPCs and PCs is that NPCs often don't have the means of activating their Healing Surges for themselves.

That's only because orcs happen to be statted out as foes of certain level.

I don't see how this matters. If I statted out Human Guards as level 30s, and the PCs started at level 1, they can't break the law, or they'll get obliterated by the Guards. Similarly, if in the game, Orcs are or become the threat the PCs are expected to deal with... in 3.5, 1st level characters steamroll through it with ease. If Orcs are the threat in 4th edition, 1st level characters will be kicked around brutally.

If your 1st level Fighter is, storyline wise, a farmboy who picked up his father's sword to defend against an Orc raid, in 3rd edition you could probably pretty easily fight them off at 1st level, while in 4th you're pretty much screwed. I can't imagine how this is anything less than a decrease in PC power.

If you compare a character's power by their numbers in one edition to their numbers in another edition... you won't get a sense of their real power. A 1st level Fighter in 3.5 will have maybe a +4 to +6 to hit, and a similar Fighter in 4th will have +8 or even +9 to hit. This sounds like it's inflating the power of Fighters, but if you compare the numbers they're being expected to hit, and what regularity they need to hit at, and the ACs of the monsters they face, they're really no better off. Similarly, a 1st level 4th edition character will have about twice or three times the HP of a 1st level 3rd edition character, but considering the fact that even 1st level minions are doing 4 or 5 damage, where their 3rd ed equivalents did probably 1d4-1 damage, that increase in HP is only making the longevity of the character approximate the same longevity you may be used to.

Morty

2008-08-28, 06:30 PM

Doesn't follow for me. PC has 36 HP with a high Con and a Defender class... Enemy has 37 when he's a damage/mobility archetype. They have comparable hit bonuses and defenses. The only clear difference between NPCs and PCs is that NPCs often don't have the means of activating their Healing Surges for themselves.

And Daily powers. And Utility powers. And magical gear. And all those lines in PHB and DMG saying that PCs are way above normal people.
I guess it's my fault for getting into this discussion, really. I don't like how PCs vs. NPCs distinction is handled in 4ed, but I guess it's too simple.

Knaight

2008-08-28, 06:34 PM

Morty

2008-08-28, 06:38 PM

Probably not magical gear at first level. And they have 1 daily power, which is likely to be dodged. Meaning that if it hits, the PCs probably win, if it doesn't, the guard does. Which bears a certain resemblance to a softened save or die, but thats besides the point. And what the lines say is that they already have some experience. Its not that they are far more powerful, its that they are assumed to already know what they are doing. There are more than a few lines hinting at a greater destiny, but thats not the same thing. The way more powerful than normal people thing happens at paragon and epic descriptions, at levels 7 and 14 in 3.5, its the same thing, and thats what they were going for.

Check out page 150 of DMG, the "Adventurers Are Exceptional" part. Also page 157.
But really, this discussion is going nowhere. I and some other people don't like the way some thigs, NPC/PC distincion among them, are handled in 4ed. Is it so hard to accept? I'm not trying to argue with everyone who professes to like those things. Why are you?

Jerthanis

2008-08-28, 06:53 PM

Check out page 150 of DMG, the "Adventurers Are Exceptional" part. Also page 157.
But really, this discussion is going nowhere. I and some other people don't like the way some thigs, NPC/PC distincion among them, are handled in 4ed. Is it so hard to accept? I'm not trying to argue with everyone who professes to like those things.

No, it's not... I just have this feeling like people who skim the 4e PHB come away saying, "Nothing could beat these guys!" and the harsh reality is that they die extremely easily.

In fact, it seems like I'm mostly misinterpreting your real beef with 4th edition, which I read to mean that "PCs are stronger than everything else" when it seems like you might just have a problem with "PCs and NPCs aren't modeled using the same mechanics" which I really have no argument against.

It just seems like people complain that 4th edition is all about PCs trashing paper tigers and patting each other on the back in congratulations over their empty win. 4e is hard!

Morty

2008-08-28, 06:57 PM

No, it's not... I just have this feeling like people who skim the 4e PHB come away saying, "Nothing could beat these guys!" and the harsh reality is that they die extremely easily.

In fact, it seems like I'm mostly misinterpreting your real beef with 4th edition, which I read to mean that "PCs are stronger than everything else" when it seems like you might just have a problem with "PCs and NPCs aren't modeled using the same mechanics" which I really have no argument against.

It just seems like people complain that 4th edition is all about PCs trashing paper tigers and patting each other on the back in congratulations over their empty win. 4e is hard!

*Sigh* Alright then. 4ed PCs aren't, in fact, more powerful than 3ed ones, neither do they win fights more easily. I haven't really claimed that before I was dragged into it. What I did claim, is that low-level 4ed PCs are much more heroic and special than those from 3ed. Now, it's not like someone won't try to pick this statement apart...

Knaight

2008-08-28, 06:58 PM

But really, this discussion is going nowhere. I and some other people don't like the way some thigs, NPC/PC distincion among them, are handled in 4ed. Is it so hard to accept? I'm not trying to argue with everyone who professes to like those things. Why are you?

Not liking NPC/PC distinction is totally different from thinking that characters are invincible. At low levels a few guards or bandits will be more than enough to drop them all, and either leave them their or finish them off. More along the lines of description/mechanics separation. I don't even like NPC/PC distinction. The post two above mine pretty much covers it. The characters look powerful, but a group of kobolds or guards are going to win. Unless they are minions, but thats an entirely different thing, and is entirely taste.

The low level heroic-ness thing comes from them winning fights more easily, which they don't, except for with minion mechanics. Basically how heroic fourth edition characters are is pretty much determined by how much the GM uses minions.

Morty

2008-08-28, 07:01 PM

Not liking NPC/PC distinction is totally different from thinking that characters are invincible. At low levels a few guards or bandits will be more than enough to drop them all, and either leave them their or finish them off. More along the lines of description/mechanics separation. I don't even like NPC/PC distinction. The post above mine pretty much covers it. The characters look powerful, but a group of kobolds or guards are going to win. Unless they are minions, but thats an entirely different thing, and is entirely taste.

See above. I never claimed 4ed characters are invincible, merely that they're much more heroic, special, etc. They're, to quote DMG "trailblazers and thrill seekers" and also "unique because they have class levels".
I still don't belive that a band of bandits will kick PCs' butts, though. I played a playtest adventure on this board and 6 1st level PCs defeated 4 3rd level hobgoblins quite easily.

Knaight

2008-08-28, 07:06 PM

See also: mechanics/description separation. They are trailblazers and thrill seekers, the rest of the world is smart enough not to go blazing a trail into a dungeon. As for unique because they have class levels, well, see mechanics/description separation again. Sure class levels are uncommon, but they are just means to an end, which mechanically isn't all that different from normal monsters/NPCs, although they usually have more abilities. They aren't heroic, and are special and unique in the sense that they act like total idiots and delve dungeons, and I'm not using the good definition of special. As for heroic, see the minions comment, which is an edit because I got ninja'd(I think thats the spelling).

Oh and as for the bandits thats just because they outnumbered them. In a one on one, if they miss with the dailies, they are screwed. That and bandits, being bandits, should probably get the drop on them. Four to six, assuming that the PCs are somewhat scattered, means two bandits are fighting two people simultaneously, or one is dealing with 3. Just fighting two people at once is difficult, even when they aren't flanking. Three is extremely difficult. D&D has always been extremely nice when it comes to people ganging up on someone(too nice in my opinion, minions probably shouldn't be getting great advantages, with their point being what it is, but everybody else should be getting a bit more of an advantage than they have. Flanking being only +2, please.), but even in D&D three to one is going to be more than a 2 level difference. With things being as they most likely are(bandits outnumbering, so 8 or 9 to six, minimum, and bandits getting the drop and surprise round), try that fight again. In a straight fight 6 trained combatants should be able to take out 4 thugs. Thats just not how the fight is actually going to happen.

Jerthanis

2008-08-28, 07:08 PM

*Sigh* Alright then. 4ed PCs aren't, in fact, more powerful than 3ed ones, neither do they win fights more easily. I haven't really claimed that before I was dragged into it. What I did claim, is that low-level 4ed PCs are much more heroic and special than those from 3ed. Now, it's not like someone won't try to pick this statement apart...

I guess my trouble is that I just can't seem to separate the fact that in 4th edition, characters wield no more power than the other beings occupying their world with them from the claim that 4e 1st level heroes are more heroic and special than 3e 1st level heroes.

I'm sorry, I just am failing to see how a 4e character being no stronger than a 3e character of the same level can translate to the 4e character being any more heroic or special by default... except maybe if you define heroics as going up against difficult foes and overcoming them anyway.

Morty

2008-08-28, 07:08 PM

That's really not the vibe I'm getting. I tried to interpret 4ed in a way that makes PCs less heroic and unique, because I prefer it that way, but I couldn't. And I don't like description/mechanics separation very much either. It simply doesn't feel right to me.

I guess my trouble is that I just can't seem to separate the fact that in 4th edition, characters wield no more power than the other beings occupying their world with them from the claim that 4e 1st level heroes are more heroic and special than 3e 1st level heroes.

I'm sorry, I just am failing to see how a 4e character being no stronger than a 3e character of the same level can translate to the 4e character being any more heroic or special by default... except maybe if you define heroics as going up against difficult foes and overcoming them anyway.

Good for you then. I don't have any problem with people having completely different perception of things that I do.
Also, if what was discussed above was the only problem I have with 4ed, I'd be playing it happily without any doubt.

Knaight

2008-08-28, 07:14 PM

The thing is, the DMG does claim they are special in some cases. Not hugely special, but more than they actually are. The fluff and crunch don't match up, which would be really annoying, but since I honestly couldn't care less what the fluff says since I'm just going to replace it all anyways, it doesn't bother me. Not that I'm actually willing to GM fourth edition, or its my preferred game. Too much minis focus.

Actually that should be added to the list of 7 things, unnecessary focus on miniatures. If it isn't on there already.

Morty

2008-08-28, 07:16 PM

The thing is, the DMG does claim they are special in some cases. Not hugely special, but more than they actually are. The fluff and crunch don't match up, which would be really annoying, but since I honestly couldn't care less what the fluff says since I'm just going to replace it all anyways, it doesn't bother me.

As I said, it's not a big thing. But the focus on heroism and dramatics is annoying nevertheless.

Jayabalard

2008-08-28, 07:18 PM

Not relative to everything else!Perhaps not relative to specific things, but if really do look at everything else then yes, they are on the whole more powerful, more special, more heroic right from the beginning.

Or are you one of those people who attribute all anti-4ed arguments to every single person who dislikes it?That one.

Thurbane

2008-08-28, 09:11 PM

Question: as someone who's only really played 4E once - do commoners (etc.) even have stats in 4E?

Dhavaer

2008-08-28, 09:21 PM

Question: as someone who's only really played 4E once - do commoners (etc.) even have stats in 4E?

Maybe. There's something called a 'human rabble', a second level minion. Whether it's actually meant to represent commoners or not is up in the air.

Knaight

2008-08-28, 09:46 PM

Perhaps not relative to specific things, but if really do look at everything else then yes, they are on the whole more powerful, more special, more heroic right from the beginning.

Again this pretty much depends on minions, they are the balancing point. In a minionless game, they aren't really any more ahead on the power advantage. In a game where everybody is a minion, a villian, or some sort of super henchman(so maybe 4-8 of these per villian.) then the characters are downright amazing. The DMG assumes a very specific amount of minions with its various hero statements, and I can't say its that consistent. This is of course relative to 3.5, compared to say OD&D, they have a huge advantage.

Gavin Sage

2008-08-28, 11:00 PM

People obviously enjoy that nethack like sense of "I could die at first level to a housecat that crits me once". I mean nobody wants to be Boromir who only dies when he's badly out numbered and dies like a hero. People obviously want to die like a punk from a lucky shot by faceless kobold archer #7.

Hey if Fluffy slices my throat open damn right I'm going into negative HP! Have you seen what happens how big and exposed those arteries are?

Flammable examples aside tangible risk of death is an good element in an RPG. And when you are level 1 you should be a beginner where yes anything with a weapon and ill intent should be a noticable threat. It makes the eventual achievement that much more thrilling because you had to wait for it.

4e tries to make you super-special-awesome all the time, because ooh boy your just that good. However combine this with keeping the top end balanced and you end up with everybody feeling like some mid level adventure no matter their actual level. Which would be okay were it not for oh epic destinies like becoming immortal And of course hard to play the destined hero being found in the idyllic country side when they already have "Super Slash!" or similarly named power.

turkishproverb

2008-08-28, 11:35 PM

Right. Because 4e having characters be too powerful at 1st level while 4e Wizards having been horribly nerfed and underpowered isn't in any way, shape, or form contradictory and ridiculous.

Summon Straw Golem...

It is if you A: think wizards are nerfed in terms of non-damage ability. For example being able to do thinks that physics shouldn't allow but don't take over other niches, like mage hand or proper illusions.

or

B: your talking about the wizard being nerfed besides or after LEVEL 1? As in the class is nerfed overall?

Starsinger

2008-08-29, 12:03 AM

Spoilered for space Hey if Fluffy slices my throat open damn right I'm going into negative HP! Have you seen what happens how big and exposed those arteries are?

Flammable examples aside tangible risk of death is an good element in an RPG. And when you are level 1 you should be a beginner where yes anything with a weapon and ill intent should be a noticable threat. It makes the eventual achievement that much more thrilling because you had to wait for it.

4e tries to make you super-special-awesome all the time, because ooh boy your just that good. However combine this with keeping the top end balanced and you end up with everybody feeling like some mid level adventure no matter their actual level. Which would be okay were it not for oh epic destinies like becoming immortal And of course hard to play the destined hero being found in the idyllic country side when they already have "Super Slash!" or similarly named power.

Lemme dig through the vitriol... There's a difference between a palpable risk of death and "Oh boop, the DM rolled 12 damage, time to roll up a new character." Combat at level 1 in 4e is dangerous if you act stupid or you're not careful, it's not inherently dangerous because most CR 1 creatures can cut the wizard down in one hit.

Justin_Bacon

2008-08-29, 12:03 AM

People obviously enjoy that nethack like sense of "I could die at first level to a housecat that crits me once". I mean nobody wants to be Boromir who only dies when he's badly out numbered and dies like a hero. People obviously want to die like a punk from a lucky shot by faceless kobold archer #7.

This, again, goes back to a wider point regarding the lack of flexibility and range in 4th Edition.

In previous editions of the game, you had a wide range of power from the painfully mortal experience of 1st level all the way up to the demigod-like heights of 20th level (and beyond). This catered to a wide range of tastes: Some people liked low level adventures. Some people liked mid-level adventures. Some people liked high level adventures.

In 4th Edition, however, the bottom and the top of this power scale have been lopped off and everything that was left behind was then smeared out over 30 levels.

You can see a similar loss of flexibility and range in other places: The loss of non-combat support in terms of skill uses, powers/spells, and equipment. The narrower range of mechanical playing styles. And so forth.

The designers openly described this as the "sweet spot".

Well, that's great if they happened to find your sweet spot. But if they didn't -- or if, like me, you appreciated the range of possibilities the game afforded you -- then you're screwed. Instead of just being able to pick the classes and the levels you liked to play, in 4th Edition you have to re-design the entire game.

Thrud

2008-08-29, 01:55 AM

Well, that's great if they happened to find your sweet spot. But if they didn't -- or if, like me, you appreciated the range of possibilities the game afforded you -- then you're screwed. Instead of just being able to pick the classes and the levels you liked to play, in 4th Edition you have to re-design the entire game.

Hmm, good point. They missed my sweet point because I like playing lower powered characters, and 4th ed bumped up beginning power levels. And yes, the did do this very thing, specifically by adding minions. Hmm, lets give the player characters HORDES of critters that they can hack their way through without even breaking a sweat. And lets not even disguise it sligtly. They each have one hit point. You hit them and they pop like balloons. So, the player characters can stroll through vast groups of minor irritants, and then finally get to the 'good stuff' the fight against someone who actually gets to share the core mechanic. If you don't like high powered games, this feels like you are fighting enemies armed with nerf weapons To us it really doesn't matter that there are acutally bad guys who do get to have some minor share in the powers of the heroes, simply because hacking your way through to them feels too much like playing WoW, making your way to the dungon.

Now if you like high powered games, then you also get nerfed, because as many pro 4ed players have mentioned in the past, at high levels the game is much weaker than 3ed.

So, that leaves those of us who like low powered games, and those of us who like high powered games scratching our heads saying 'hey, who gave you the right to tell me where the sweet spot is?'

This is the core reason behind us saying that 4ed seems to be aimed at younger players. Beacuse WotC in their infinite wisdom decided that 3ed has edges that were too sharp, and we MIGHT cut ourselves, so they coated all those dangerous bits with foam to protect us whether we want it or not.

Unfortunately some of us out here were able to make that decision on our own, and our decision doesn't mesh with WotCs.

And before anyone flames me NO this does not mean that if you play 4ed you are a child. It means that 4ed hit your sweet spot, so you are happy with it, so you don't care that it took away ours.

Starsinger

2008-08-29, 02:00 AM

They each have one hit point. You hit them and they pop like balloons. So, the player characters can stroll through vast groups of minor irritants, and then finally get to the 'good stuff' the fight against someone who actually gets to share the core mechanic. If you don't like high powered games, this feels like you are fighting enemies armed with nerf weapons To us it really doesn't matter that there are acutally bad guys who do get to have some minor share in the powers of the heroes, simply because hacking your way through to them feels too much like playing WoW, making your way to the dungon.

1. You know, you don't have to use minions. It's not like they're mandatory and WotC will come and burn your house down if you don't.

2. Y'know most of the time in WoW you usually don't kill something in one hit unless you vastly out level it, still nice job including a 4e=WoW statement in your post. I hear if you do it enough times you get a T-Shirt. :smalltongue:

Thurbane

2008-08-29, 02:07 AM

1. You know, you don't have to use minions. It's not like they're mandatory and WotC will come and burn your house down if you don't.While that's true, of course, I (and a lot of others apparently) think it's just a silly mechanic, and seriously hurts suspension of disbelief.

Edea

2008-08-29, 02:09 AM

I think the nerf-padding is actually due to 4e's effort to be tournament-friendly, but why they decided to transmit that to everyone who wants to play it...I guess they wanted to kill two birds with one stone sales-wise and not have to rewrite everything?

As for high-powered low-level characters...I'm just not getting it. I think 4e characters are simply weaker that 3e characters, period.

The only thing 4e chars've got going for them is their max HP limit in the early running, and it's SO easy to plug that in, UA style, for a 3e game; hell, that, action points, and the whole healing surge mechanic could probably just get thrown in on top of normal 3e healing, and then you'd REALLY have super-healthy characters. A simple cut-and-paste.

Everything else is almost a definite downgrade (power system(rituals as well), skills, feats, and equipment included), and the downgrades are not things easily inserted into the previous edition (especially the equipment and the power system; total paradigm shifts, there).

Starsinger

2008-08-29, 02:12 AM

As for high-powered low-level characters...I'm just not getting it. I think 4e characters are simply weaker that 3e characters, period.

Hey, Edea, remember when that group of about 5 of us cut down the entire squad of about 12 kobolds that attacked us because we were so amazing and they couldn't even scratch our awesome 20+ HP at first level?

... Yeah I don't remember it that way either. What with us practically TPKing (The Wizard and Rogue ran away the rest of us died) and all that...

Edea

2008-08-29, 02:16 AM

For serious. Granted that's 'the infamous encounter' AND for some brilliant reason I can't really recall atm we had the battle OUTSIDE. Shifting madness ensued.

Thrud

2008-08-29, 02:17 AM

1. You know, you don't have to use minions. It's not like they're mandatory and WotC will come and burn your house down if you don't.

2. Y'know most of the time in WoW you usually don't kill something in one hit unless you vastly out level it, still nice job including a 4e=WoW statement in your post. I hear if you do it enough times you get a T-Shirt. :smalltongue:

Ohh, ohh, thats that sarcasm stuff. Dang, and just when I thought I would never get to see any on this thread.

:smallbiggrin:

Ahem. I would like to point out, however, that I felt that way upon having first glanced through the game. And the way I felt was not changed by having played it. And after the first game a friend who is an absolute rabid WoW player came up to me and said 'This feels JUST like Wow.' So interestingly enough I have 2 totally differing viewpoints from people who playing the game feel it is like WoW. And I am afraid that this is a point that really can't be discussed. It feels like that to me. I don't like WoW, thus that contributes to my dislike of 4ed. My friend loves WoW, this tempers his dislike of 4ed to something more like ambivalence. That is just the way he feels. It is not a rational, logically reasoned out argument. It is just the way we feel. Obviously you do not feel that way. Good for you, or bad for you depending on your like of WoW. I don't see why it should be an issue that I feel that way about the game, though, unless you are trying to tell me that my feelings are wrong, and therefore I should substitute your obviously more correct ones?

Ohh, look, I can do sarcasm too.

Hmmph. Now I am being snarky for snarky's sake. So, I will apologize, but I will leave my previous statement up just because the commentary that caused it is so prevalent and it irritates me. I leave it as an act of minor catharsis.

nagora

2008-08-29, 03:56 AM

The designers openly described this as the "sweet spot".

Well, that's great if they happened to find your sweet spot. But if they didn't -- or if, like me, you appreciated the range of possibilities the game afforded you -- then you're screwed. Instead of just being able to pick the classes and the levels you liked to play, in 4th Edition you have to re-design the entire game.
The odd thing about that is that people who disliked low-levels had been simply starting at above 1st level for decades. It seems to me that, if the designers wanted to make the game easier for newbies to play, they could just have put some text in to say "Start your first characters at 4th level; once you're familiar with the game try the low levels - they're fun too but much harder!" or something like that.

Why take the option away?

Thurbane

2008-08-29, 04:11 AM

The odd thing about that is that people who disliked low-levels had been simply starting at above 1st level for decades. It seems to me that, if the designers wanted to make the game easier for newbies to play, they could just have put some text in to say "Start your first characters at 4th level; once you're familiar with the game try the low levels - they're fun too but much harder!" or something like that.

Why take the option away?
Excellent point.

Sebastian

2008-08-29, 04:31 AM

Sebastian

2008-08-29, 04:59 AM

I apologize for asking an unsuitably specific question.

How do you explain a Fighter who has had no interest in magic for years, level up to level 4, and then "all of a sudden" decides to take a level in Wizard? In 3.x, this is a valid choice for a player to make. Do you suggest that you retcon the character, to claim that he has been studying magic the entire time? Or does he have a spark of inspiration?

If I was a DM I'd ask the player to A) tell me of such decision with at least a level in advance (i.e if he wat to take his 5th level as a wizard he must tell me at least when he start 4th level) and B) justify it to me even just as lip service (find someone that is willing to train him, use some time to actually train/studying magic, maybe even putting some ranks in "knowledge:arcana" to represent these studies, etc. Someone would call it a home rule, to me is just a prerogative of the DM to have the last word in what class(es) a character can pick, either at 1st level or later. Of course this would be more or less true for any other classes or combination thereof. Some would just be easier than others.

Frownbear

2008-08-29, 05:00 AM

Ahem. I would like to point out, however, that I felt that way upon having first glanced through the game. And the way I felt was not changed by having played it. And after the first game a friend who is an absolute rabid WoW player came up to me and said 'This feels JUST like Wow.' So interestingly enough I have 2 totally differing viewpoints from people who playing the game feel it is like WoW. And I am afraid that this is a point that really can't be discussed. It feels like that to me. I don't like WoW, thus that contributes to my dislike of 4ed. My friend loves WoW, this tempers his dislike of 4ed to something more like ambivalence. That is just the way he feels. It is not a rational, logically reasoned out argument. It is just the way we feel. Obviously you do not feel that way. Good for you, or bad for you depending on your like of WoW. I don't see why it should be an issue that I feel that way about the game, though, unless you are trying to tell me that my feelings are wrong, and therefore I should substitute your obviously more correct ones?.

I asked the WoW fan in my group and he looked puzzled and said it was nothing like WoW. Maybe it's just a matter of playstyle? Are you running combat encounter after combat encounter, with WoW style quests?

Sebastian

2008-08-29, 05:14 AM

Hey, another open question:

What is it about 4e characters that makes them "too powerful" for 1st level?

The "six hour rest fix it all" is the first thing that come to mind.

Really, healing surges are not too bad, they works fine enough with hit points (even if you can have some weird moment with them), what really breaks the game for me is that no matter how hurt you are, after a six hour nap you are back at full strength like nothing happened.

Sebastian

2008-08-29, 05:33 AM

Interesting.

So how do you feel about the Human Bandit or Guard in the MM?

They are not people, they are monsters. They exist only to fight or at least oppose the PCs, they are not their equals, their peers and noone of the other NPCs are

Proably that is why I prefer 2nd edition over the succesive edition, because in 2nd at least a 1st level the difference between Pcs and NPCs are minimal, they have the same hit points the same THAC0 the same NWP, the only thing that take them apart is, I dunno, attitude? Potential? the PCs are the one that have courage enough to go out of the village and fight the goblins or whatever, they have no particolar advantages over the others people they are just willing to take the risks. To me it just make it more interesting that 4e or even 3e. Of course at later levels things change (even if in 2nd PCs are more vulnerable at any level) but is those first levels that make a difference.

Knaight

2008-08-29, 07:49 AM

Now if you like high powered games, then you also get nerfed, because as many pro 4ed players have mentioned in the past, at high levels the game is much weaker than 3ed.

So, that leaves those of us who like low powered games, and those of us who like high powered games scratching our heads saying 'hey, who gave you the right to tell me where the sweet spot is?'

This is the core reason behind us saying that 4ed seems to be aimed at younger players. Beacuse WotC in their infinite wisdom decided that 3ed has edges that were too sharp, and we MIGHT cut ourselves, so they coated all those dangerous bits with foam to protect us whether we want it or not.

And before anyone flames me NO this does not mean that if you play 4ed you are a child. It means that 4ed hit your sweet spot, so you are happy with it, so you don't care that it took away ours.

There is no denying that they extended the sweet spot, and made the game focus on one particular part. That said its still dangerous, your typically not going to drop from a single spell after totally resisting it 20 times, but its still easy enough to die, even with dumb luck. A crit or two is going to kill somebody. As for taking away your sweet spot, 3.5 is still there, 2nd edition is still there, AD&D is still there. Nothing was taken away, yours just wasn't built in, which while more than enough to hate fourth edition, is a totally different thing. Fourth edition is a less general game, built for one specific thing, which it does well.

As for the whole healing surges and such, its hit points being abstracted. Which in itself is annoying when trying to model serious injuries.

Jayabalard

2008-08-29, 08:09 AM

There is no denying that they extended the sweet spot, and made the game focus on one particular part. Yes, it can be denied; because the "sweet spot" isn't the same for everyone.

Kletian999

2008-08-29, 08:11 AM

What does healthy have to do with it? Healthy in terms of trying to convince people they really should like 4E?

Not really, no. This is a ritual that's supposed to duplicate effects like Flying as numerous posters have cited, not just things that can happen in the real world as a matter of course.

That doesn't work either. The wrecking is what happens as a result of the spell being cast on someone or something. Causing the effect in the first palce isn't wrecking; you're actually creating or summoning energy or matter from somewhere.

But yet life in this world somehow works out that magic works just as effectively as everything else, no more, no less. That's not magic for me. I can accept magic like that in a setting like RIFTS, but not in a medieval/primitive world.

The bottom line is that I don't accept a need for class balance. Without that, I see no reason to go through the mental gymnsatics of justifying a world that reflects 4E mechanics, when I already liked 3.5 fluff and mechanics better anyhow.

I used "healthy" in terms of "People who've been thinking too hard about stuff and can't get their head around the issue". You don't have to like 4e because of it but this particular aspect of 4e seems like less of a disconnect under this interpretation.

When I meant "Like a ritual" I meant the whole combination of components (Cow, herbs, honey), prescripted actions (slaughter then apply), and time.

I consider the "wrecking spells" to be pulling fairly raw energy (make fire go here) from the ether, instead of trying to do much shaping: I can see where some of the offense spells don't match that ascetic.

Knaight

2008-08-29, 08:17 AM

Yes, it can be denied; because the "sweet spot" isn't the same for everyone.

They are calling it the sweet spot, and it was highly extended. With the other stuff being gritty(and a gritty game really shouldn't be using the adjective sweet anyways), and pushed out, and extremely epic(at which point sweet spot also isn't the best adjective. They took 1 part of the game, and dramatically extended it. We are all in agreement on this. Personally its not even a part I like.

TwystidMynd

2008-08-29, 09:59 AM

If I was a DM I'd ask the player to A) tell me of such decision with at least a level in advance (i.e if he wat to take his 5th level as a wizard he must tell me at least when he start 4th level) and B) justify it to me even just as lip service (find someone that is willing to train him, use some time to actually train/studying magic, maybe even putting some ranks in "knowledge:arcana" to represent these studies, etc. Someone would call it a home rule, to me is just a prerogative of the DM to have the last word in what class(es) a character can pick, either at 1st level or later. Of course this would be more or less true for any other classes or combination thereof. Some would just be easier than others.

This is entirely reasonable.

However, this "inform me one level prior!" stuff isn't covered in the rules, for 3.x or for 4e. So, if you're going to use it in your 3.x campaign, then you might as well use it in your 4e one too. Ask the player to warn you a level in advance before he decides to take the Ritual Casting feat, and there you go... you no longer have to squirm about how to rationalize the "Presto! Instant-mage!" fluff, because it doesn't exist in 4e either.

I recognize that you, Sebastian, may not have been responding to the lengthy debate I was involved in, so forgive me if I used your post to further my point, when that wasn't your intent.

Nerd-o-rama

2008-08-29, 10:05 AM

You know, for all its faults, I do kind of miss proper multiclassing. I know it could get silly, but it gave character-building a lot more spice.

Other than that, Skill Challenges kinda suck (they're better erratad, though) and the new fluff for Forgotten Realms is bleh. Good thing I don't really play in FR, and Eberron is mainly staying static.

Everything is else pretty good. Different, but fun.

Prophaniti

2008-08-29, 10:26 AM

you no longer have to squirm about how to rationalize the "Presto! Instant-mage!" fluff, because it doesn't exist in 4e either.
So, out of curiosity, and because it's fun to poke a fire* with a stick, how do you rationalize the fact that any idiot who takes the feat can use magic to open a lock or raise the dead or spy on people, but it takes specialized training and a superior intellect to blow things up?

*meaning this thread, not any individual

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 11:36 AM

Question: as someone who's only really played 4E once - do commoners (etc.) even have stats in 4E?

Commoners only have stats if it is necessary.

Full Answer
For the completely generic NPC Commoner, you can use the Human Rabble in the MM for stats and skills, but how often are you really going to have a significant encounter with them? This is kind of a return to the old 0th Level Character concept from 2e - if the PCs want to take them out, they can do it easily.

However, if you want to make an Angry Mob, you can take those Rabble, throw in a couple of Fanatics (or whatever the upgraded Rabble is called) and a Demagogue to lead them (it's a template), and low-level PCs will have a fight on their hands, just from sheer weight of numbers. This is different from both 2e and 3e - and is a nice change, IMHO.

Now, that said, what about haggling you have to do with shopkeepers and such? The DMG suggests you just use static DCs instead of figuring out all the modifiers a full character would have. It's just a bartender, he doesn't need to be statted out to let the PC haggle over drink prices.

Finally, the full fledged NPC. For people that the PCs are going to have significant and frequent encounters with, you should make an NPC using the "NPC creation rules" found in the DMG. If the interactions will mostly be combat-oriented, it's easiest to take an appropriate monster, level it as necessary, and maybe throw a template on top of it. If they are mostly non-combat encounters, brew one up from square one.

Summary
4e gives the DM a flexible approach to statting out commoners. For Joe the Mucker, you can use the Rabble entry in the MM - he's not important enough to worry about a full skill set, and he shouldn't be a challenge to the PCs. For slightly more important NPCs (like Innkeepers, Merchants, and so on) you can either use static DCs to represent the difficulty that the PCs have in fooling them, or a non-minion MM entry if they need to be fought. These NPCs should represent some challenge to the PCs, but they're not going to be story-sensitive enough to require knowing exactly how many ranks in History he has.

For the most important NPCs (kings, other adventurers, captains of the guard) you can either adjust a similar MM entry (level up, throw a template on it) or build it up from scratch (using the NPC Creation guidelines in the DMG) depending on your preference. These NPCs are big players in the story, and they will be found in many different situations - they need the most detail of all.

All NPCs have "stats" in 4e - but it is up to the DM how those stats are represented in terms of PC interaction.

EDIT:

So, out of curiosity, and because it's fun to poke a fire* with a stick, how do you rationalize the fact that any idiot who takes the feat can use magic to open a lock or raise the dead or spy on people, but it takes specialized training and a superior intellect to blow things up?

Fluff
As it says in the 4e fluff, wizards gain their power by manipulating the mystic energies of the world. Their spells are not "written down" in the sense that you could read someone else's spellbook and figure out how to cast Magic Missile - heck, it's not even written down. The spells in spellbooks are the most complicated for the wizard to cast - Dailies, by and large - and those notes help to attune the wizard's own brain to the flows needed to execute those spells.

There is some flexibility in a wizard's mind, but it is not infinite. Eventually, in order to make room for more complex manipulations, the wizard must wipe out the old pathways, losing access to certain spells. Spellbooks are, as has been noted, minor magical items, and in the process of re-wiring the wizard's own brain, he can erase the runes that are no longer useful to him. Handy, that.

Rituals, however, are of a different character. These have been built by the greatest wizards and priests of all time to work for everyone. They are complicated and, unlike normal wizard spells, require external foci to work. This means they take a long time to cast, are expensive to use, and can be very tricky in application. Only great scholars of Arcana, Religion, or the Healing Arts can make these Rituals work correctly every time, and it is dangerous for the untrained to do so.

Fortunately, unlike wizardry, these Rituals are taught, not invented. A wizard must devote his life to the study of his own mind, and how it interacts with the mystic forces of the Universe - a Ritualist needs only the right words, materials, and knowledge to make them work.

So, Rituals are a different kind of magic than wizardry, and certainly different from Divine powers which require only consecration to a God. Warlocks, it should be noted, gain their powers through mysterious Pacts with obscure forces, so while knowledge is important for forging these Pacts, it has nothing to do with improving them.

There's my fluff. If you don't find it believable, I would ask you this in turn: why is it that 3e wizards can't cast cure light wounds, clerics can't cast glitterdust, and bards can do both?

Starsinger

2008-08-29, 11:58 AM

AKA_Bait

2008-08-29, 12:21 PM

The "six hour rest fix it all" is the first thing that come to mind.

Really, healing surges are not too bad, they works fine enough with hit points (even if you can have some weird moment with them), what really breaks the game for me is that no matter how hurt you are, after a six hour nap you are back at full strength like nothing happened.

Yes, that mechanic has always bothered me as well. Given healing surges though, it's only going to matter on the toughest of days, as after they settle down to rest they can burn their remaining ones to heal back up to full regardles unless they have had to spend them all, or most of them, already.

Other than that, Skill Challenges kinda suck (they're better erratad, though)

The errata didn't really do much though. It removed some of the more henious parts, but really skill challenges could have been better handled by just saying 'make your players take skill checks for stuff' and giving a suggested table of DC's. Worse, IMO, they made already painfully easy DC's easier in the eratta.

Blackfang108

2008-08-29, 12:33 PM

Hey, Edea, remember when that group of about 5 of us cut down the entire squad of about 12 kobolds that attacked us because we were so amazing and they couldn't even scratch our awesome 20+ HP at first level?

... Yeah I don't remember it that way either. What with us practically TPKing (The Wizard and Rogue ran away the rest of us died) and all that...

I've been at negative hitpoints three times in as many sessions, as well as nearly being executed by a dubious legal authority. And our Ranger WAS executed.

at low levels, minions ARE dangerous. don't let anyone tell you differently.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 12:44 PM

The errata didn't really do much though. It removed some of the more henious parts, but really skill challenges could have been better handled by just saying 'make your players take skill checks for stuff' and giving a suggested table of DC's. Worse, IMO, they made already painfully easy DC's easier in the eratta.

I largely agree. Skill Challenges work best if they're a mechanic sitting in the background rather than in the PCs faces. All they need to know is that this is an extended check, with the DM calling for appropriate skill rolls depending on the RP.

The DCs are also a bit low. I've been using the old table (so Moderate for LVs 1-3 = 15 for skills) but I drop the rolls by 5 for flat ability checks (Moderate = DC 10 for STR checks). So far, it seems to work pretty well - Moderate DCs are about 50/50 for trained folks while untrained folks are worse off, and Hard Checks are nigh-impossible for the untrained, and just hard for the trained. The ridiculously well trained are about 50/50 for Hard checks, and Moderate checks are pretty easy.

I'm still undecided on the change in the failure rate, but the people who've done the maths seem to think it's the right way to go, as far as I can tell.

TwystidMynd

2008-08-29, 01:03 PM

So, out of curiosity, and because it's fun to poke a fire* with a stick, how do you rationalize the fact that any idiot who takes the feat can use magic to open a lock or raise the dead or spy on people, but it takes specialized training and a superior intellect to blow things up?

*meaning this thread, not any individual

I believe that the rationalization falls within the realm of the DM. In any edition.

4e will allow a 4-int idiot to take the Ritual Caster feat.
3.x will allow a 4-int idiot to take a level in Wizard.

Neither edition says that the idiot will make a GOOD Ritual Caster or Wizard, but they're allowed to do so.

I will agree that it's rather strange that there are no ability requirements in 4e, and in my own games, I would ask for a suitably strong character background if someone wanted to play a wizard with 4 Int, but I can imagine a fool-savant who has no redeeming qualities other than being able to conjure a flame from nothingness. Or to knock on a door (for 10 minutes) and have it open eventually. Or to unknowingly cradle a corpse until it comes to life again. To be precise, I think of a character much like Ned from The Venture Brothers, execpt that he can unknowingly cast magic.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 01:18 PM

I will agree that it's rather strange that there are no ability requirements in 4e, and in my own games, I would ask for a suitably strong character background if someone wanted to play a wizard with 4 Int, but I can imagine a fool-savant who has no redeeming qualities other than being able to conjure a flame from nothingness. Or to knock on a door (for 10 minutes) and have it open eventually. Or to unknowingly cradle a corpse until it comes to life again. To be precise, I think of a character much like Ned from The Venture Brothers, execpt that he can unknowingly cast magic.

Well, there aren't explicit ability requirements, but there are implicit ones to be found in the Ritual Checks.

Knock, or example, is just a +5 Arcana Check that substitutes for a Thievery or Strength check. If you have an INT penalty, then even if you are trained in Arcana you'll probably have a hard time even opening nonmagical locks (DC 20 at Heroic, so a 13+ for an INT 10 fellow at 4th level). Magical Locks are probably beyond you (it's essentially an opposed Arcana check). Only the most basic of rituals (that is, those which do not require a roll at all) can be down by anyone with the requisite knowledge (Ritual Caster, and therefore trained Religion or Arcana).

The same applies with Raise Dead - though there, if you roll poorly enough, he's not coming back at all.

Thrud

2008-08-29, 01:27 PM

As for taking away your sweet spot, 3.5 is still there, 2nd edition is still there, AD&D is still there. Nothing was taken away, yours just wasn't built in, which while more than enough to hate fourth edition, is a totally different thing.

Err, yes, and that is why we are still playing it. But if you look at the thread title, this is a thread about why we dislike 4ed. We are expressing our opinions to others who feel the same way, figuring out exactly what it is that we dislike. Others keep posting why they like 4ed. There have been other threads for that, and there will be again.

But your statement 'nothing was taken away, yours just wasn't built in' is absolute gibberish. We are comparing 3ed to 4ed. If something was in 3ed, and not put into 4ed, then it has been taken away from those of us who like it. As I said, they hit your sweet spot. So you like it. But in the games we have played, the healing surges just seem to make the players virtually invulnerable. Oh, not within a specific combat, of course, though as far as I have seen so far, I have never been in a situation that was particularly close to killing me. Unless your statement refers to the fact that the physical 3ed books still exist. And yes, that is true, but has no bearing on the topic of this thread, which is about reasons why we dislike 4ed, and my reasons are due to comparisons with 3ed.

Now, even when adventuring, a few minutes after the combat much of your damage is healed. And some hours later, most of the rest of it. I enjoyed having a difficult game where you had to hoard your resources from fight to fight. Cleric healing spells were incredibly precious. Fighters being dumb and not protecting the wizard led to quite possibly a dead wizard, etc. I just don't get that feel any more. Now, if you open up a door, and there are kobolds on the other side, the fighters don't have to bother with holding them at the door to protect the wizard, as he has an infinite number of attack spells, and can heal himself if necessary, and has tons of hitpoints anyway.

Is it possible for him to die? Yes. But it is HARDER. Especially when you view the adventure as a whole. A standard dungeon crawl where you thought your way through problems, carefully hoarded resources, and maybe were forced out of the 'dungeon' just doesn't seem to happen the same way any more. This is where I get my padding analogy, and this is where we get the '4ed is more powerful at lower levels' statement. You can't just look at a single combat. You must take game sessions as a whole. Because in a single combat it is still possible for crappy luck to kill people off. (Though I still state that as far as my experience goes, it is much harder than it was in earlier editions.)

Crow

2008-08-29, 01:56 PM

Our group has gotten close to being taken out just a few times over 4 sessions so far. I am running 5-character XP encounters against 4 characters too. The only deaths we've had were due to player stupidity (assumed the group of bad guys were minions), and DM luck (twice I had a string of really good rolls when rolling for the monsters). Otherwise, my group pretty much steamrolls most encounters. The only time this wasn't true, was when I ran them against 3 encounters one after another (no healing surge uses other than second wind plus whatever the cleric could manage, and no refreshing of encounter powers), and the players still pushed their way through. That was the battle where the one player assumed the bad guys were minions.

(Now comes the part where someone who was not there tells me we were doing it wrong.)

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 01:59 PM

(Now comes the part where someone who was not there tells me we were doing it wrong.)

You're doing it wrong! :smalltongue:

nagora

2008-08-29, 02:02 PM

The only deaths we've had were due to player stupidity (assumed the group of bad guys were minions),
Nice example of the meta-game getting in the way of the roleplay.

Starsinger

2008-08-29, 02:10 PM

Nice example of the meta-game getting in the way of the roleplay.

And they sure got what they had coming to them.

The New Bruceski

2008-08-29, 02:10 PM

Err, yes, and that is why we are still playing it. But if you look at the thread title, this is a thread about why we dislike 4ed. We are expressing our opinions to others who feel the same way, figuring out exactly what it is that we dislike. Others keep posting why they like 4ed. There have been other threads for that, and there will be again.

But your statement 'nothing was taken away, yours just wasn't built in' is absolute gibberish. We are comparing 3ed to 4ed. If something was in 3ed, and not put into 4ed, then it has been taken away from those of us who like it. As I said, they hit your sweet spot. So you like it. But in the games we have played, the healing surges just seem to make the players virtually invulnerable. Oh, not within a specific combat, of course, though as far as I have seen so far, I have never been in a situation that was particularly close to killing me. Unless your statement refers to the fact that the physical 3ed books still exist. And yes, that is true, but has no bearing on the topic of this thread, which is about reasons why we dislike 4ed, and my reasons are due to comparisons with 3ed.

Now, even when adventuring, a few minutes after the combat much of your damage is healed. And some hours later, most of the rest of it. I enjoyed having a difficult game where you had to hoard your resources from fight to fight. Cleric healing spells were incredibly precious. Fighters being dumb and not protecting the wizard led to quite possibly a dead wizard, etc. I just don't get that feel any more. Now, if you open up a door, and there are kobolds on the other side, the fighters don't have to bother with holding them at the door to protect the wizard, as he has an infinite number of attack spells, and can heal himself if necessary, and has tons of hitpoints anyway.

Is it possible for him to die? Yes. But it is HARDER. Especially when you view the adventure as a whole. A standard dungeon crawl where you thought your way through problems, carefully hoarded resources, and maybe were forced out of the 'dungeon' just doesn't seem to happen the same way any more. This is where I get my padding analogy, and this is where we get the '4ed is more powerful at lower levels' statement. You can't just look at a single combat. You must take game sessions as a whole. Because in a single combat it is still possible for crappy luck to kill people off. (Though I still state that as far as my experience goes, it is much harder than it was in earlier editions.)

You may not have been in dangerous situations, but I have. My fighter has died twice due to poor tactics (though one was only poor in hindsight -- I took point and more enemies came in from the side, forcing the rest of the party to back up instead of join me). We've also had a very large number of occasions of characters making death rolls, saved by last-second heal checks. The defenders do still need to hold the door against kobolds, because they get more healing surges than the squishies. Our Wizard goes through his surges like a fat kid through pie; any sort of tap and he needs at least one. Cleric healing spells are still precious (not only for the extra d6+wis hp, but also because they gain ways to heal that don't use surges).

We still have adventures we need to think our way through (be more efficient), carefully hoard resources (healing surges, potions, daily powers), and have been forced out of the dungeon (I'd rather deal with what kobolds set up while we're away than sleep in their warren).

I suppose what I don't understand is people citing "harder to die from bad luck" as a >downside<. If I go down, it should be because I screw up. I took on a guy I couldn't handle, or I let myself get surrounded. I held off for one more round before using my second wind, or I pushed the Big Red Button in the trapmaster's tomb. I want to have a story to go with why my character died, something more than "the guy with a scythe rolled a 20."

Justin_Bacon

2008-08-29, 02:11 PM

Really, healing surges are not too bad, they works fine enough with hit points (even if you can have some weird moment with them), what really breaks the game for me is that no matter how hurt you are, after a six hour nap you are back at full strength like nothing happened.

That, IMO, is actually the result of a different design principle in 4th Edition that I disagree with: They decided to primarily focus the game on tactical combat and, in the process, removed the strategic portion of the game.

This made the game theoretically easier to balance, but it removed an aspect of gameplay that I enjoyed. (It also contributed to narrowing the range of playing styles supported by the game.)

Of course, discussing healing surges also brings us to another area where the designers demonstrated incompetency: They promised to get rid of the 15-minute adventuring day and, instead, made it worse. There's a longer explanation on my website (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/playtesting-4th.html#nova-cycle), but the short version is: The nova cycle is more prevalent in 4th Edition because there's a greater incentive for PCs to blow their most powerful abilities and then rest. And healing surges create a hard-cap limit which force the party to stop and rest (in a way that, beyond extremely low levels, simply didn't exist in 3rd Edition).

(Which is why I say "theoretically easier to balance". Because when the designers repeatedly say "we did X!" and then it turns out that they ended up doing the exact opposite of X, it calls into question their ability to design a game at a fairly fundamental level.)

The New Bruceski

2008-08-29, 02:22 PM

That, IMO, is actually the result of a different design principle in 4th Edition that I disagree with: They decided to primarily focus the game on tactical combat and, in the process, removed the strategic portion of the game.

Could you explain what you mean by tactical and strategic? I know there's a difference, but people's opinions on what that difference is seem to be all over the place. (Case in point: in another thread a guy took issue with calling 4e "tactical" and preferred "strategic").

Thrud

2008-08-29, 02:24 PM

You may not have been in dangerous situations, but I have. My fighter has died twice due to poor tactics (though one was only poor in hindsight -- I took point and more enemies came in from the side, forcing the rest of the party to back up instead of join me).

You see, here you are still citing specific examples within a single fight. So you have had worse luck in combats, or the DM is overcompensating by sending too much against you too soon. But take a look at what happened after the combat. Very quickly you were completely up to strength again. This is what I consider padding the sharp edges. Everyone can cite examples of how they died in a specific fight. That is how luck comes into play in a game where fighting occurs. But AFTER that is what interests me. We did badly in this fight. Cleric uses up a few of his dwindling supply of spells to cure fighters. Wizard has no spells left and is down to his crossbow. Do we press on? If we leave will they have much greater numbers when we come back, because they have called in reinforcements? Did we get enough treasure out of the experience to do more than break even or loose cash, or should we press on.

Whereas now it is simply. 'use healing surges, we are all fine again, lets head on. We are a little lower on healing surges now, though, so maybe we won't do TOO many more encounters.'

You like that. We don't. Simple as that.

Crow

2008-08-29, 02:24 PM

I suppose what I don't understand is people citing "harder to die from bad luck" as a >downside<. If I go down, it should be because I screw up. I took on a guy I couldn't handle, or I let myself get surrounded. I held off for one more round before using my second wind, or I pushed the Big Red Button in the trapmaster's tomb. I want to have a story to go with why my character died, something more than "the guy with a scythe rolled a 20."

Some people don't like the idea that they can virtually guarantee success under the right circumstances. It's boring for some people. I mean really, why even roll dice?

I always hear 4e proponents saying how 4e is a more narrative game than 3.x, especially when discussing skill challenges in social situations. Isn't it just as easy to say that the guy with a scythe knew a trick that caught your character off guard? If the game can be narrative in one area, why not the other? Hell, maybe it *was* just a lucky shot?

Thrud

2008-08-29, 02:27 PM

Could you explain what you mean by tactical and strategic? I know there's a difference, but people's opinions on what that difference is seem to be all over the place. (Case in point: in another thread a guy took issue with calling 4e "tactical" and preferred "strategic").

Tactics are used in a single battle. Strategy is used over the course of an entire war.

In the example here, 4ed focuses everything on the individual battle. The rules are pretty much set up so that virtually all your resources are returned to you after each battle. Therefore you no longer have to do more than focus on the individual encounter, because after it is over, unless someone is dead, most of your capabilities are back to full power.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 02:46 PM

Some people don't like the idea that they can virtually guarantee success under the right circumstances. It's boring for some people. I mean really, why even roll dice?

I always hear 4e proponents saying how 4e is a more narrative game than 3.x, especially when discussing skill challenges in social situations. Isn't it just as easy to say that the guy with a scythe knew a trick that caught your character off guard? If the game can be narrative in one area, why not the other? Hell, maybe it *was* just a lucky shot?

The flip side of this coin is that people generally don't want their characters to die an ignoble death. Being clipped by a natural 20 the first round of a fight and dying from the critical doesn't seem very heroic. Heck, that's always been my problem with Save or Die effects - I could die at any given time, without warning; not so heroic.

So, on one hand you have people who don't want to automatically succeed at things that should be challenging - the thief taking 20 on a pick locks, or the rogue with enough Tumble to ignore AoOs. On the other hand, you have people who don't want situations where their character can be snuffed out due to bad luck alone - see here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html) for how anticlimactic that can be.

4e Propaganda
The proponents of 4e cite it as a middle path. The modifiers available for skills and combat are just not going to allow you to auto-succeed (or auto-fail) on checks that should (from a narrative sense) be challenging. If you have to roll a die, then the result will be meaningful. Additionally, by reducing the strength of critical hits (and upping HP), and eliminating Save or Die effects, a "lucky shot" alone won't be enough to kill you. One-Shot KOs are rare at all stages of 4e and there is almost always an escape clause (Saving Throws) even in the most dire of situations. You will always get a chance to cheat death, even if that chance gets increasingly slim as time goes on.

That said, it is still possible (and easy!) to die from foolhardiness. Nobody is going to Crit you to death when you're at full HP, but if you're out of Healing Surges and fleeing, it is quite possible that the next ambush you stumble upon will kill you in short order. Elite Traps can make short work of a wounded party that stumbles into them, and a failure to flee when the odds turn against you can get you killed.

Summary
1) 4e keeps modifiers low enough that any time you should roll a die (narratively speaking), there is a chance for failure.

2) The elimination of Save or Die spells, almost always having the opportunity to "Save to End," and the rebalancing of Crit. damage and HP reduce the chance that a single roll can take out your undamaged character.

3) 4e is still dangerous enough that foolhardy PCs can get themselves killed due to bad luck. Well-prepared and savvy ones will at least have a chance to cheat death, but even they are not guaranteed success.

EDIT:

Therefore you no longer have to do more than focus on the individual encounter, because after it is over, unless someone is dead, most of your capabilities are back to full power.

Except for your Healing Surges and Dailies - which are two of the most important resources in 4e. Healing Surges form the basis for nearly all healing - so if you run into an encounter without any remaining, it doesn't matter how many Leaders you have in the party, someone is going to die.

Dailies now include a significant portion of every party member's combat abilities and include most Magic Item effects. If you start fighting encounters while your dailies are empty, you can find yourself unable to extradite the party from a sticky situation, if one comes up. This is also why "nova-ing" is not as common as some would lead you to believe in 4e - unless you have a tight control on how many encounters you're facing a day (and let's face it - you shouldn't as a PC) it is foolish to expend all of your aces in a single fight that doesn't require it. Additionally, Encounters and At-Wills are more than enough to get you through most situations so there is no intrinsic pressure to expend Dailies just to survive (unlike with the 3e Wizard).

The New Bruceski

2008-08-29, 02:46 PM

[...]

Whereas now it is simply. 'use healing surges, we are all fine again, lets head on. We are a little lower on healing surges now, though, so maybe we won't do TOO many more encounters.'

You like that. We don't. Simple as that.
Really, replace "healing surges" with "Cleric's spells" and that statement could easily apply to earlier editions. It's a different way of thinking about the game and combats than what you enjoy, but I hardly think that any edition favors either viewpoint.

I think I understand the difference (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, there's an implied "I think it's the case that" before any thoughts I'm saying come from you). I see healing surges as resources to be managed, you see them as free health to be squandered. I focus on strong daily powers that have been used, you focus on weaker (but not as weak as what some had to resort to in previous editions) at-wills or encounter powers that come right back. I prefer parties where every character drops from full power to (about) half power over a day, and you prefer parties where some characters stay fine and others drop from full power down to zero.

Does that sound about right?

Crow

2008-08-29, 02:53 PM

Stuff...

I was raised on Shadowrun. I guess having the possibility that I might be snuffed out just like that is what makes the game exciting for me. Obviously, this isn't the case for everybody.

It is a bit frustrating though when it is fully possible to crit on a level 1 enemy with a daily and still not take him out of the fight.

Oh well, we're going to be doing our 5th session here in a few weeks, so at least we're still having fun.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 03:00 PM

I was raised on Shadowrun. I guess having the possibility that I might be snuffed out just like that is what makes the game exciting for me. Obviously, this isn't the case for everybody.

It is a bit frustrating though when it is fully possible to crit on a level 1 enemy with a daily and still not take him out of the fight.

Oh well, we're going to be doing our 5th session here in a few weeks, so at least we're still having fun.

Oh, I totally understand Shadowrun. It's just when I'm playing Heroic Fantasy (instead of Gritty Dystopia) it feels lame to get an arrow through the eye in the surprise round and die. Or to face down a Gorgon in a narrow hallway, knowing that some day my LV 8 Fighter-Rogue is going to fail a save and be out for the rest of the day.

As for the last point: what's good for the goose is good for the gander. When only PCs could get Crits, it seemed a bit "unfair" for the monsters. But you have to balance that with the demands of Heroic Fantasy. YMMV, of course, but generally I get the sense that people 'round these parts like NPCs and PCs playing by the same rules :smalltongue:

Justin_Bacon

2008-08-29, 03:07 PM

Really, replace "healing surges" with "Cleric's spells" and that statement could easily apply to earlier editions. It's a different way of thinking about the game and combats than what you enjoy, but I hardly think that any edition favors either viewpoint.

I've been playing D&D since 1989, and I can safely say that I have never played in a campaign where cleric spells were the only source of healing. In fact, cleric spells have rarely even been the primary source of healing. Potions and wands have almost always filled that need.

Starsinger

2008-08-29, 03:10 PM

I've been playing D&D since 1989, and I can safely say that I have never played in a campaign where cleric spells were the only source of healing. In fact, cleric spells have rarely even been the primary source of healing. Potions and wands have almost always filled that need.

Which doesn't weaken his point at all.

Justin_Bacon

2008-08-29, 03:12 PM

Which doesn't weaken his point at all.

True. It completely demolishes his point. In 4th Edition you have a hard-cap in the form of healing surges; in 3rd Edition you have a highly variable cap which can be varied depending on how you choose to invest your resources.

Thrud

2008-08-29, 03:13 PM

Really, replace "healing surges" with "Cleric's spells" and that statement could easily apply to earlier editions. It's a different way of thinking about the game and combats than what you enjoy, but I hardly think that any edition favors either viewpoint.

I think I understand the difference (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, there's an implied "I think it's the case that" before any thoughts I'm saying come from you). I see healing surges as resources to be managed, you see them as free health to be squandered. I focus on strong daily powers that have been used, you focus on weaker (but not as weak as what some had to resort to in previous editions) at-wills or encounter powers that come right back. I prefer parties where every character drops from full power to (about) half power over a day, and you prefer parties where some characters stay fine and others drop from full power down to zero.

Does that sound about right?

Not really. If you go back to the beginning of what started this tangent of the thread, it was a discussion about how 4ed low level characters are tougher, stronger, and harder to kill than 3ed characters. This was brought about by a discussion of how WotC decided that they knew where the 'sweet spot' was for everyone and so decided to make a game that focuses entirely on that sweet spot. Many of us disagreed with that concept. This got into a tangent of people asking how we could possibly consider 4ed low level characters more survivable.

O.K. hopefully we are now on the same page as to how we have gotten here so far.

Now, I dislike healing surges in the game, because they make the adventure as a whole much easier. Lets take an example. I have a party of 3ed characters. We have a tricked out healing cleric with healing domain and high wis. Lets say he has 4 cure lights. That seems pretty reasonable. Now those 4 cure lights have to keep the whole party alive through an adventure.

In 4ed. EVERYONE has lots of healing surges. Yes, the wizard does have less. But instead of a total of 4 spells FOR THE WHOLE PARTY you now have at least a half a dozen PER CHARACTER. This is a massive difference. And it changes strategic play totally. Does it have a huge affect on each individual battle? Not quite as much, though there is still some affect. (you don't have to retreat back to the cleric to get out of danger and get cured. You can just do it yourself at least once.)

And because of the way healing surges are defined, you get a static amount of curing each time, no random bad luck to come into play, and enough of them to completely cure ALL of your on average 3 times more hitpoints than you had at 1st level in 3ed, sometimes several times over.

Compare to maybe being able to cure all of another characters hitpoints once. If you get a good roll. Maybe. AND that takes all of the clerics other spells out of play. For the entire day.

How is that even on the same page of resource management? 3ed is much much harder at low levels. I found that fun. Apparently you did not. That is why I see 4ed as padded and less fun. That is why you find it to be an excellent change. That is such a fundamentally different viewpoint that there really isn't much common ground here.

Starsinger

2008-08-29, 03:35 PM

True. It completely demolishes his point. In 4th Edition you have a hard-cap in the form of healing surges; in 3rd Edition you have a highly variable cap which can be varied depending on how you choose to invest your resources.

Which would mean that since 4e's healing is limited whereas in theory in 3rd ed it's unlimited based only on how much spare cash you have, 4e is in theory more difficult.

Starbuck_II

2008-08-29, 03:44 PM

Now, I dislike healing surges in the game, because they make the adventure as a whole much easier. Lets take an example. I have a party of 3ed characters. We have a tricked out healing cleric with healing domain and high wis. Lets say he has 4 cure lights. That seems pretty reasonable. Now those 4 cure lights have to keep the whole party alive through an adventure.

In 4ed. EVERYONE has lots of healing surges. Yes, the wizard does have less. But instead of a total of 4 spells FOR THE WHOLE PARTY you now have at least a half a dozen PER CHARACTER. This is a massive difference. And it changes strategic play totally. Does it have a huge affect on each individual battle? Not quite as much, though there is still some affect. (you don't have to retreat back to the cleric to get out of danger and get cured. You can just do it yourself at least once.)

A good Cleric has more than 4 CLWs at level 1. He also has CMWs. Did you forget 0 level spells?

They may not mean much to Mr. Fighter, but Mr. Wiz has terrible hps anyway. Afte combat, you should use those on him.
In combat is a terrible time to heal except in emergencies.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 03:56 PM

arguskos

2008-08-29, 04:00 PM

Okay, for my own sake: where are all these people getting wands of CLW at first level? Or use non-cleric healing in 1e? Did you guys start off with a satchel of potions or what?

It's been bugging me for awhile, to be honest
Actually... yeah. I'll be the first to agree that healing stops being the cleric's main gig around, iunno, level 3-5 in 3.5, but until then, what else is he gonna be doing? The rest of the party needs the cleric for healing, and in fact, if the party has mostly high-HP characters, one day's allotment of CLW's might not be enough to fix up everyone.

Wands != Level 1 wealth. Just sayin'.

-argus

dentrag2

2008-08-29, 04:07 PM

You know, i think it would be cheaper to buy the WoW RPG and just ignore this. The books for that are only 30$ a peice compared to 50. Healing surges are great In Theory, but then again, many things are, like say the monk. Hes great in a typical situation but very underpowered in a non-typical situation (Which most people avoid because they don't want to be typical) and so are healing surges, except of being weak they are ridiculously strong. Also, people have too many hitpoints. Explain to me other than fortitude, what is the point of having a constitution bonus?

Starsinger

2008-08-29, 04:20 PM

You know, i think it would be cheaper to buy the WoW RPG and just ignore this. The books for that are only 30$ a peice compared to 50.

Heh.. I see what you did there. You do know that the WoW RPG is based off of third edition, right? So therefore it's obviously 3e that is like WoW.

Cainen

2008-08-29, 04:20 PM

You know, as much as I dislike 4E(and don't get me wrong, I STILL like 4E more than 3.X), the WoW complaints are just mindboggling.

Gavin Sage

2008-08-29, 04:28 PM

You know, as much as I dislike 4E(and don't get me wrong, I STILL like 4E more than 3.X), the WoW complaints are just mindboggling.

Hey give it a while and it will be Diablo III complaints instead....

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 04:31 PM

Hey give it a while and it will be Diablo III complaints instead....

Hey, until you see a sourcebook that says "all treasure carried by a monster spews out of their head like a geyser when they are reduced to 0 HP" I'd keep that comparison to yourself :smalltongue:

AKA_Bait

2008-08-29, 04:36 PM

Hey, until you see a sourcebook that says "all treasure carried by a monster spews out of their head like a geyser when they are reduced to 0 HP" I'd keep that comparison to yourself :smalltongue:

I see you got a galley of the DMG2 also... :smallwink:

Starsinger

2008-08-29, 04:40 PM

Hey, until you see a sourcebook that says "all treasure carried by a monster spews out of their head like a geyser when they are reduced to 0 HP" I'd keep that comparison to yourself :smalltongue:

Because I don't take D&D as SRS as everyone else, I always said when DMing that the enemy dropped gift wrapped presents like in Earthbound :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 04:45 PM

Because I don't take D&D as SRS as everyone else, I always said when DMing that the enemy dropped gift wrapped presents like in Earthbound :smalltongue:

I certainly hope you also told your PCs that they "tamed" those Dire Wolves and "turned back to normal" any humanoid NPCs.

Also, that you said "SmAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsh" whenever they crit'd. :smallbiggrin:

The New Bruceski

2008-08-29, 04:50 PM

Shadowtraveler

2008-08-29, 04:55 PM

Of course, discussing healing surges also brings us to another area where the designers demonstrated incompetency: They promised to get rid of the 15-minute adventuring day and, instead, made it worse. There's a longer explanation on my website (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/playtesting-4th.html#nova-cycle), but the short version is: The nova cycle is more prevalent in 4th Edition because there's a greater incentive for PCs to blow their most powerful abilities and then rest. And healing surges create a hard-cap limit which force the party to stop and rest (in a way that, beyond extremely low levels, simply didn't exist in 3rd Edition).I'm kinda confused on this. You can't take another extended rest until 12 hours after your last, so Nova-ing shouldn't work. Of course, you can sit around and wait til you can rest again, but that sorta defeats the point.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 04:58 PM

I'm kinda confused on this. You can't take another extended rest until 12 hours after your last, so Nova-ing shouldn't work. Of course, you can sit around and wait til you can rest again, but that sorta defeats the point.

Really? Where's that written?

Matthew

2008-08-29, 05:02 PM

4e PHB, p. 263:

Once per Day: After you finish an extended rest, you have to wait 12 hours before you can begin another one.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 05:07 PM

4e PHB, p. 263:

Huh. Learn something new every day :smallbiggrin:

Matthew

2008-08-29, 05:19 PM

Indeed. It is quite a good little rule, and probably worth transplanting into a 3e game for Wizards and Sorcerers, etcetera.

Jayabalard

2008-08-29, 06:21 PM

Rockphed

2008-08-29, 06:59 PM

One is powered by divine magic, the other is powered by awesome, so they're not interchangeable.

Divine Magic is powered by awesome. We are just cutting out a step.

Knaight

2008-08-29, 07:00 PM

So, out of curiosity, and because it's fun to poke a fire* with a stick, how do you rationalize the fact that any idiot who takes the feat can use magic to open a lock or raise the dead or spy on people, but it takes specialized training and a superior intellect to blow things up?

*meaning this thread, not any individual

Because with everything else you can just read a book, and do what it says, assuming you understand the basics. That and you have hours and special materials to do it with. As opposed to being in an incredibly stressful situation, trying to get the magic to work now while not being able to focus on it entirely out of the necessity of not getting shot, or stabbed, or snuck up on. Its like test anxiety, when your in school with a pile of books and lots of time, you can do advanced math. Once you see the test, and the panic button hits, and you can't think clearly, and the clock is ticking even simpler stuff is harder to do properly. Also kind of like stage fright, you can read out of a book easily, but once you have to memorize your lines and stand on a stage, your not going to be able to improvise quality stuff well(for things with improvisation involved).

Edea

2008-08-29, 07:01 PM

So we are on page 50 now (at least the way my user cp is configured to view posts). Lord have mercy.

Jayabalard

2008-08-29, 07:02 PM

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 07:07 PM

I'm not sure if you're intentionally being dense to be funny or if you're actually serious.

Divine magic is powered by a divine being; the "awesome" that powers healing surges for martial characters is powered by a normal mortal being.

Unless it's powered by the inner "awesome" of the character, like a monk's Ki? Or is that not allowed? :smallwink:

Knaight

2008-08-29, 07:12 PM

mostlyharmful

2008-08-29, 07:14 PM

Unless it's powered by the inner "awesome" of the character, like a monk's Ki? Or is that not allowed? :smallwink:

The monks Ki that they train themselves for over years at a time? the same one that turns them into more and more of a supernatural entity rather than a normal mortal human adventurer? Whereas healing surges are just joe Hardass being tough..... Ok, no sepration there.

So Cleric A channels the might of the most powerful interdimensional being that has ever been conceived, Monk B has ascended to a higher state of conciousness enabling them to access powers inconceivable to lesser minded beings, Joe McSlash'en'Stab 4.C just breathes in and out for a minute. Hmmm...:smallconfused:

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 07:17 PM

The monks Ki that they train themselves for over years at a time? the same one that turns them into more and more of a supernatural entity rather than a normal mortal human adventurer? Whereas healing surges are just joe Hardass being tough..... Ok, no sepration there.

So Cleric A channels the might of the most powerful interdimensional being that has ever been conceived, Monk B has ascended to a higher state of conciousness enabling them to access powers inconceivable to lesser minded beings, Joe McSlash'en'Stab 4.C just breathes in and out for a minute. Hmmm...:smallconfused:

Okay, but where does that ki come from? As far as I can tell, it all comes from inner strength, not some external source. Does that internal source of energy exist or not?

Jayabalard

2008-08-29, 07:17 PM

Unless it's powered by the inner "awesome" of the character, like a monk's Ki magic? Or is that not allowed? :smallwink:Sure, monks can use magic to heal themselves just like wizards can use their own magic to heal themselves.

Okay, but where does that ki come from? As far as I can tell, it all comes from inner strength, not some external source. Does that internal source of energy exist or not?it's just another word for magic.

Tsotha-lanti

2008-08-29, 07:22 PM

See, in my opinion taken away from us was a ridiculous statement, simply because the other editions are still there, and thus nothing is taken away. That doesn't mean I like fourth edition, and that doesn't mean that most of what I play and GM is fourth edition. I'm not even willing to GM it.

Are you serious? Am I the only person whose 3.X books spontaneously combusted when 4E came out, just like by AD&D books were stolen by WotC's flying monkey minions when 3.0 came out?

Anyways, to a different post. Healing surges represent stamina and determination to get back up after taking relatively minor wounds, since D&D doesn't handle major wounds well(1 hit point and no penalty whatsoever to combat. I'm not seeing major wounds here).

I can't believe anyone has the stamina (hur hur) to argue against this anymore. How many times has it been covered now? Healing surges are your "second wind" - like the name of the action you take to use them.

it's just another word for magic.

But it's not. Faerûn's monks aren't using the Weave, or getting power from a deity that's using the Weave. (Well, not by definition, anyway.) It's "magic" in the sense that any supernatural ability is, but it's not magic in the sense that divine and arcane magic are.

mostlyharmful

2008-08-29, 07:22 PM

Okay, but where does that ki come from? As far as I can tell, it all comes from inner strength, not some external source. Does that internal source of energy exist or not?

I've seen a guy break boards with his face. I've seen a guy stab himself in the hand to make a point and not wince. I've seen a little sixty year old guy with no body mass armwrestle a twenty year old weight lifter. My point was that if you want healing surges in a game you damn well better come up with more of a fluff justification for them than 4th has, years of training, divine interdiction, weird genetics... whatever... Not available to all classes under all situations without any outside involvement.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-08-29, 07:22 PM

it's just another word for magic.

OK. So why not Vital Sparks? I know you've seen my fluff before, and I think you said it was "too superhero" for you. Why draw the line there, and not at monks who get "magic" by training their bodies really hard?

EDIT:
In case people haven't seen it before
Every adventurer has some sort of vital spark that they can use to do extraordinary deeds - normal people may have this spark to some degree, but never as strongly as adventurers. People with a greater-than-normal spark are drawn by destiny to shape the world around them; typically, this is through adventuring, though some others become great kings or scholars instead.

Arcane Power Source uses this Spark to reach out to weird forces in the universe. Some channel the Cosmic All through wizardry, while others reach out to powerful entities and form Pacts. Divine Power Source users reach out to the Gods themselves, and form a powerful bond that grants them great power. Martial Power Source users, finally, reach out to nothing, but reach inwards instead. By mustering this internal fortitude they can achieve dazzling feats of swordplay, twist the forces of chance itself, and renew and inspire the Spark in others.

However, the Spark is not limitless. While it can grow as the adventurers develop in skills and advance their destinies, it is the fuel upon which their exploits are run. Aside from the obvious powers, it also is what keeps people alive, and if the Spark grows too dim, it may snuff out, and leave the body, perhaps for good. Fortunately, rest is often enough to rekindle this Spark, should it remain in the body.