PDA

View Full Version : Making the Switch-4e.



TempusCCK
2008-05-16, 11:37 PM
This is not a thread to flame on 4e or any of the things about it, this is a simple explanation of fact and my opinion that I hope will inspire some meaningful discussion on the issue /end disclaimer.

I am not making the switch to 4e, for many reason, however, the foremost of them being that which I choose to discuss today. 4e is not designed for me. It's a simple fact that Wizard's is trying to make as much money off of D&D as possible, which is understandable. However, today I made an almost complete redo of the Bard class to make it fit more of what I wanted, and while I was doing that, I realized something...

Wizards would rather have me buy gazillions of splatbooks to make the Bard class into what I wanted it to be. I'm the type of person who will sit down with a pencil and a piece of paper and come up with a brand new class to fit the system, rather than looking to the system to design my class. I represent a zero-profit demographic for them. They'd much rather market to the player who will search through twenty books in search of the perfect combination of character stuff, because he has spent more money to do it. Me, on the other hand, I'll just make up something to fit what I need.

They are going to design the system to fit what is going to make them the most money, that includes people who are going to search religiously for exact rule, and are going to look deep into the system for character options. I'll have flexibility and versimilitude thank you very much. Not option that work on one enemy and not the other because it'll kill them too quickly and others it won't. Mechanics for mechanics sake is NOT my D&D.

Jayngfet
2008-05-16, 11:40 PM
Though I wholeheartedly agree, take this over to general RPG.

Rutee
2008-05-16, 11:43 PM
I wish I had the wherewithal to make a thread about why I personally will switch, rather then feeling it sufficient to say so in a thread on the topic in general. I also wish I didn't know 3e enough to claim 4e could possibly be /more/ splatbook based.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-16, 11:43 PM
...except, of course, that they're designing 4e to be less about character building and searching through splatbooks for chracter options, and more easy to whip up a class or alternatives for. If I wanted to make an INT-heavy rogue variant, the Cunning Trickster, say, all I have to do is invent another option for the Rogue Tactics class feature, and then write a power or two of each level that fits the Trickster (and some of which work better if you're a trickster, like letting you get 1+INT where non-Cunning Tricksters just get 1).

I should think it'd be obvious that if they want to make money, they'll design a system that's fun to play, rather than catering to some specific subset of D&D gamers (those who like searching through splatbooks).

Crow
2008-05-16, 11:43 PM
Good for you, dude. :smallwink:

My group is going to give 4e a try. I'm not really a fan of what I've seen so far, but it isn't so bad either, and it's not like 3.5 really supports the kind of play I like anyways. My group would like to try it, so that is good enough for me, even though I don't particularly care to. The only condition on my part is that I'm not going to fall into the splatbook trap. If my players want to buy a couple, they are well and fine. But me? Core three and no more.

Rutee
2008-05-16, 11:45 PM
Good for you, dude. :smallwink:

My group is going to give 4e a try. I'm not really a fan of what I've seen so far, but it isn't so bad either, and it's not like 3.5 really supports the kind of play I like anyways. My group would like to try it, so that is good enough for me, even though I don't particularly care to. The only condition on my part is that I'm not going to fall into the splatbook trap. If my players want to buy a couple, they are well and fine. But me? Core three and no more.

Aye, that's sensible. Particularly the "No Splats" rule.

Plus it's economic for you as a GM :smallbiggrin:

Skyserpent
2008-05-17, 12:29 AM
I can respect this.

I'll be giving 4e a whirl as well, though I guess it IS designed a little more for me.

I do hope that you'd be willing to at least try the system eventually before just abandoning it because the stuff they've shown hasn't met your standards...

I like to think this way with Movie Trailers... A bad trailer can still have a good film, and a Fantastic Trailer will, quite often be tied to a rather underwhelming cinematic adventure...

Good luck though, It IS nice to have a consolidated 3.5 system.

EvilElitest
2008-05-17, 12:32 AM
I"m getting the book to check it out, but i doubt there will be anything to actully warrant a switch
from
EE

Neo
2008-05-17, 12:40 AM
Well from reports from friends who have tried the 4e taster adventures so far, things seem to be positive for people who didn't like D&D previously. If you're a 3/3.5 fanboy you'll probably not like it, but i'm gonna still get it, as they seem to have taken on board some of the streamlining and ideas from SWSE and reworked the D&D model so far.

As for Wizards being out to make money, well that's a shocker...

EvilElitest
2008-05-17, 12:43 AM
Well from reports from friends who have tried the 4e taster adventures so far, things seem to be positive for people who didn't like D&D previously. If you're a 3/3.5 fanboy you'll probably not like it, but i'm gonna still get it, as they seem to have taken on board some of the streamlining and ideas from SWSE and reworked the D&D model so far.

As for Wizards being out to make money, well that's a shocker...

sad thing is i don't like 3E, just i don't like 4E ether
from
EE

Jayngfet
2008-05-17, 12:45 AM
sad thing is i don't like 3E, just i don't like 4E ether
from
EE

Then why not play something else, not like there's a game or system shortage.

EvilElitest
2008-05-17, 12:47 AM
Then why not play something else, not like there's a gamr or system shortage.

no because D&D has wonderful potential, more than any other system i've seen. Just nobody has been able to handle it well.
from
EE

Swordguy
2008-05-17, 01:10 AM
Then why not play something else, not like there's a game or system shortage.

...because unless you advertise you're playing "D&D", you can't find people to play with?

(that's how it is around here, at any rate... :smallfrown: )

Behold_the_Void
2008-05-17, 03:10 AM
From what I can tell, 4e looks like it'll support making your bard moreso than 3e, the streamlining of class functions makes it a lot easier to balance and I'm actually looking forward to taking a crack at homebrewing for it.

The way you describe your style though seems to suggest to me that D&D really isn't a system for you. You might have more luck with point-based systems.

horseboy
2008-05-17, 03:50 AM
...because unless you advertise you're playing "D&D", you can't find people to play with?

(that's how it is around here, at any rate... :smallfrown: )You've got to trojan your way in. Sit through half a campaign, then one day when the DM is tired or just really busy, offer to run a game.... :smallbiggrin:

KIDS
2008-05-17, 04:39 AM
Your opinion is respected but we could argue for hours that half of the reasons "mechanics for mechanics sake or such" were a result of misinterpration or just exaggerated. As long as you don't spit on it too much, it's your choice though...

As a person who doesn't invest hours into rewriting stuff to make it work (I want to pay them for it, which is why I will be pis**d off if 4E doesn't), I don't think it will be any more open or closed to that option.
And I can easily see myself representing all (20 or so) of currently played characters built by using a dozen 3E sourcebooks, being represented just as well and even more detailed in 4E's single core book - that is, ten times less space. Of course they could screw it up but hey, that's what I want and I'm fairly satisfied with what it gives so far.

Jerthanis
2008-05-17, 05:54 AM
You've got to trojan your way in. Sit through half a campaign, then one day when the DM is tired or just really busy, offer to run a game.... :smallbiggrin:

What I've seen work well is claiming to be interested in playing/running D&D or X where X is the system you really want to play/run, and then when you meet other people who play games, just push really really hard for X.

I'm going to switch, but I'm the sort who doesn't really care for D&D all that much when all is said and done, and I'm not predicting 4th edition will become my very favorite system, I just think so far it sounds like an infinite improvement to a game I'll probably always sort of like.

I'm also going to have to switch back and forth a lot... some of us really want to upgrade, some of us really don't... but we're all willing to play in whatever game is available.

warmachine
2008-05-17, 06:15 AM
It seems you want to play GURPS or Hero.

Gamerlord
2008-05-17, 06:42 AM
What's so bad about source books?
I see them as a fun and simple way to get brand new items, classes and stuff, like a expansion pack to a video game.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 07:06 AM
They cost money. Time I can forgive, but money, less so. More importantly then either, however, they glut the system, without being anywhere near discrete. I can forgive GURPS's, because they're not really meant to operate together. DnD's sourcebooks are. It makes the game enormous. I've also noticed that a lot of DnD conversations on these boards lose me because, hey, I have no idea where most of the crap they're talking about is found, Nightsticks being the most egregious examples (Given how commonly they're mentioned).

Incidentally, on the points based systems notes, I'll also point out MnM 2e, since it operates on d20 rules so it'll be easy to pick up for the OP and his friends (Making it easy to get D20 players to try it)

Theodoxus
2008-05-17, 07:35 AM
I'm with you Rutee - between the anacronyms that take me a bit to puzzle out (Mutants and Masterminds for the win!) and not stating source material when talking about things like odd items (nightsticks) or PrCs (Fist of pasta fazule) - reading the forums ends up being half research.

Yay for browser tabs and the genuises behind google, wiki, et al.


Back on topic, I will be making the switch to 4E. Thanks to Amazon's wicked deal and a very generous vendor at work who gave me a $50 gift card, my three core books are gonna cost me less than $15. For that kind of pocket change in this kind of economic climate, I simply can't pass up the oportunity to run a few games. Unfortunately, my current LGG - oops, Local Gaming Group has been quite stodgy about wanting to shake things up, so I might have to recruit a new subset of friends... but that's what makes introverts like me get adrenaline rushes... yay lack of risk of dying from base jumping.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-17, 08:00 AM
I'll check it out, but D&D 3E was, frankly, bad enough; the settings are fun, and it's the most D&D game there is (as someone who grew up on the Gold Box AD&D CRPGs, that counts for a lot), but it's still inferior as a system. I'll stick with any of a dozen better games I have, and the various d20 games that ironically beat the stuffing out of D&D itself.

Maxymiuk
2008-05-17, 08:07 AM
I'm in the same boat as Tempus - I'm a tinkerer, not a splatbook trawler. And the only reason I run D&D at all is, same as Swordguy, because I can't find anyone interested in playing another system. My response is to mod the hell out of what I have to work with - each campaign I run I try different variants, different homebrew rules - I restrict some classes, change others. I'm slowly working my way towards reshaping D&D into a system I can honestly say I enjoy.

So, for now, I won't be making a switch to 4e. I might buy the books and give them a look, but from what I've seen from the preview material so far, the system is moving in a different direction than I want to take it. Not worse, not necessarily better - simply incongruent with my taste and style.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 08:07 AM
I'm with you Rutee - between the anacronyms that take me a bit to puzzle out (Mutants and Masterminds for the win!) and not stating source material when talking about things like odd items (nightsticks) or PrCs (Fist of pasta fazule) - reading the forums ends up being half research.

Oh, duh, it would have been wise to actually expand the acronym while discussing that, wouldn't it?

Learnedguy
2008-05-17, 08:25 AM
This is not a thread to flame on 4e or any of the things about it, this is a simple explanation of fact and my opinion that I hope will inspire some meaningful discussion on the issue /end disclaimer.

I am not making the switch to 4e, for many reason, however, the foremost of them being that which I choose to discuss today. 4e is not designed for me. It's a simple fact that Wizard's is trying to make as much money off of D&D as possible, which is understandable. However, today I made an almost complete redo of the Bard class to make it fit more of what I wanted, and while I was doing that, I realized something...

Wizards would rather have me buy gazillions of splatbooks to make the Bard class into what I wanted it to be. I'm the type of person who will sit down with a pencil and a piece of paper and come up with a brand new class to fit the system, rather than looking to the system to design my class. I represent a zero-profit demographic for them. They'd much rather market to the player who will search through twenty books in search of the perfect combination of character stuff, because he has spent more money to do it. Me, on the other hand, I'll just make up something to fit what I need.

They are going to design the system to fit what is going to make them the most money, that includes people who are going to search religiously for exact rule, and are going to look deep into the system for character options. I'll have flexibility and versimilitude thank you very much. Not option that work on one enemy and not the other because it'll kill them too quickly and others it won't. Mechanics for mechanics sake is NOT my D&D.

If that is the case, I wonder if you won't find Fourth ed quite enjoyable? There seems to be a lot of promising stuff in it that would make homebrewing feel fun and creative. Creating your own fighter attacks and stuff like that.

Anyway, it's good that you can make up your mind and stand for your opinions:smallbiggrin:

EvilElitest
2008-05-17, 09:58 AM
They cost money. Time I can forgive, but money, less so. More importantly then either, however, they glut the system, without being anywhere near discrete. I can forgive GURPS's, because they're not really meant to operate together. DnD's sourcebooks are. It makes the game enormous. I've also noticed that a lot of DnD conversations on these boards lose me because, hey, I have no idea where most of the crap they're talking about is found, Nightsticks being the most egregious examples (Given how commonly they're mentioned).

Incidentally, on the points based systems notes, I'll also point out MnM 2e, since it operates on d20 rules so it'll be easy to pick up for the OP and his friends (Making it easy to get D20 players to try it)
Splat books at their core aren't actually that bad. Really, i mean look at BoVD, BoED, Lords of Madness, races of Farun, FR champaign setting, hero of Horror, ToB, ToM, ect. I mean, just because WotC screwed things up with the Complete series and the book of undead and other such books which are all crunch and lack any real spirit, doesn't mean the idea itself is bad

Also WotC's biggest problems is their lack of being able to organize there mass of splat books

Also we all know that 4E will eventually have a mass of splat books as well, i mean this is WotC, they need regular income
from
EE

TempusCCK
2008-05-17, 10:41 AM
The Mechanics for mechanics sake thing I was speaking of was a Fighter manuever that allows you to deal damage on a mss attack because your attack was so vicious that it gave them bruises/cuts/scratches/etc. However, it is not allowed to work on certain 1 HP enemies because if the fighter used that attack on them it would kill them even on a miss.

Breaks versimilitude and is just mechanics for mechanics sake, because this power would be too useful in situation X, we negate the power in Situation X. That's it, no explanation, no nothing, just a rule out of nowhere to make the situation "balanced".

That simply is taking D&D where I don't believe it should go.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 10:45 AM
The Mechanics for mechanics sake thing I was speaking of was a Fighter manuever that allows you to deal damage on a mss attack because your attack was so vicious that it gave them bruises/cuts/scratches/etc. However, it is not allowed to work on certain 1 HP enemies because if the fighter used that attack on them it would kill them even on a miss.

Oh. This is only correct in a universe where characters can see HP, and can see the damage they deal.

What the characters know about a minion: He'll go down to a solid swing, and isn't very strong.
What the characters know about what happened on a miss: They didn't get a good solid swing in. That's why they missed.

Lord Tataraus
2008-05-17, 10:57 AM
Personally, I don't care for what I'm seeing in 4e. I can't really point out specifics, but just general things that bug me. The biggest one being the lose of all penalties, that to me is just stupid and the biggest turn off of all. I like penalties and sure you can argue all day that it is the same in most cases, but it is also psychological, my guy has flaws and isn't Mr. Uberpwnzors or Mrs. Perfect. The other side, is I really hate just throwing out all my old 3.5 library, I'm the main librarian of the group when it comes to splats and my group as a whole has almost every 3.5 non-setting specific book. So, we are instead converting to Pathfinder RPG, we get to keep all the 3.5 books with minor conversion and I really like how it is shaping up and there is also the coolness factor of me actually participating in making the product and seeing the results of my feedback implemented in the system. I doubt it'll be perfect, everyone argues about something, but it will be near perfect for me and I can live with minor conversions.

EvilElitest
2008-05-17, 11:00 AM
Oh. This is only correct in a universe where characters can see HP, and can see the damage they deal.

What the characters know about a minion: He'll go down to a solid swing, and isn't very strong.
What the characters know about what happened on a miss: They didn't get a good solid swing in. That's why they missed.


1) Your assumption seems to be that the players are morons or have no curiosity.
2) Why would the characters know that? A minion can be strong, weak, or medium. Now when the rules become inconsistent just for the mechinics stake, it is very bad form
from
EE

Starbuck_II
2008-05-17, 11:17 AM
Personally, I don't care for what I'm seeing in 4e. I can't really point out specifics, but just general things that bug me. The biggest one being the lose of all penalties, that to me is just stupid and the biggest turn off of all. I like penalties and sure you can argue all day that it is the same in most cases, but it is also psychological, my guy has flaws and isn't Mr. Uberpwnzors or Mrs. Perfect. The other side, is I really hate just throwing out all my old 3.5 library, I'm the main librarian of the group when it comes to splats and my group as a whole has almost every 3.5 non-setting specific book. So, we are instead converting to Pathfinder RPG, we get to keep all the 3.5 books with minor conversion and I really like how it is shaping up and there is also the coolness factor of me actually participating in making the product and seeing the results of my feedback implemented in the system. I doubt it'll be perfect, everyone argues about something, but it will be near perfect for me and I can live with minor conversions.

Wow. All I can say is wow.

You like penalties? Hmm, there is a new penalty: you have to send me 100 bucks a week. (Waits to rack in the dough).

You can still use the old edition books: for ideas for researching new spells or attacks or feats. They just won't work without work. Flavor can also be incorporated from the old books.

You can always just point buy (the default I think in 4th) and give him penalties. All that means is your character won't have below 8 and no hgher than 20 in a score.
Instead of the previous range of 6 to 20 in point buy (since 8-2=6).

Muyten
2008-05-17, 11:27 AM
1) Your assumption seems to be that the players are morons or have no curiosity.
2) Why would the characters know that? A minion can be strong, weak, or medium. Now when the rules become inconsistent just for the mechinics stake, it is very bad form
from
EE

Not talking about the players but about the characters. There is no way for the characters to figure out how many hp an NPC has because hp are an abstract representation. Also since hp is not a representation of physical damage I would rather say that a miss does not indicate physical damage to the target but the attack is so violent that the target falters a bit. Noone dies from faltering.

ahammer
2008-05-17, 11:41 AM
Not talking about the players but about the characters. There is no way for the characters to figure out how many hp an NPC has because hp are an abstract representation. Also since hp is not a representation of physical damage I would rather say that a miss does not indicate physical damage to the target but the attack is so violent that the target falters a bit. Noone dies from faltering.


maybe not die but you get hit hard on the head even a glaning blow can kock you out for some time(could die but would not be fast like a hit..brain bleeding).. there is also fatige you can pass out if you push your body too hard I would think like in combat.

i see no reson why you can not take that last hp. at the same point I could also see them saying that you can not take that last hp. it all depends on what it says hitpoints make up in the PHB.

TempusCCK
2008-05-17, 11:45 AM
Oh. This is only correct in a universe where characters can see HP, and can see the damage they deal.

What the characters know about a minion: He'll go down to a solid swing, and isn't very strong.
What the characters know about what happened on a miss: They didn't get a good solid swing in. That's why they missed.

Except, you're underestimating what a character knows.

A character can see that an opponent is going to react- If I swing so viciously that I make them bleed even when I hit armor. (I.E- damage on a miss)

Except, this one enemy who doesn't seem very powerful, in fact, when he solidly nailed his buddy, he went down pretty quick.- Even though I'm swinging as powerfully as I did against that other guy and I'm missing, I'm still not making him bleed through his armor...(I.E- No damage on a miss because it would kill a low level enemy, breaking versimilitude and creating a rule that can't easily be explained in game terms.)

It's inconsistent.

Edit- I see people are using the HP as other than bodily damage argument.

Which I can accept, except that just makes your HP inconsistant instead of the power. You can drop this abstract by being really mean looking/sounding/whatever, except for when it will kill them, then you can't do anything to said abstract. Still inconsistant, just in different ways. Or maybe it's just a cop-out.

Morty
2008-05-17, 11:52 AM
I won't switch to 4ed entirely, but I'm going to give it a try. While some things there are hopelessly dumb -lack of racial penalties, all classes operating on the same mechanics, those goddamn dragonborn, minions, and shift towards "cinematic":smallyuk: playstyle- there's a lot of decent stuff out there, and good deal of my bad reactions towards 4ed comes from WoTC commentaries to changes in rules.

Vortling
2008-05-17, 12:55 PM
Overall I'm trying to keep an open mind about 4e, but it's hard as there's several mechanical bits I'm not liking.

I don't like the unified class progression. I didn't like it in d20 Modern, I didn't like it in Star Wars Saga, and nothing in 4e has sold me on it yet. It just feels too much like it mashes classed and classless systems together in a way that provides the strengths of neither and the disadvantages of both.

The skill system and skill challenges seem to render the skill monkey role much less useful.

I dislike how they're implementing action points. They feel too restrictive and arbitrary. They also seem create 'once every other encounter' powers if the paragon path and warlord powers are any indication.

I'm stuck wondering how the devs are going to strike a balance between their goal for there to be no bad power choices and the goal to have meaningful character choices.

Despite all this I'm going to give the game a try as a player. Perhaps playing the game will sell me on it. Perhaps it will unsell me on it. Either way I'll have a play informed opinion of the system.

Indon
2008-05-17, 02:10 PM
You like penalties? Hmm, there is a new penalty: you have to send me 100 bucks a week. (Waits to rack in the dough).

Generally, penalties can be used to help immersion, because sometimes, people have flaws.

Personally, I have a campaign concept which should work well with 4'th edition: It's a modern-ish campaign with magical elements, and the generic power system and strong emphasis on tactics (read: Fire team combat) is potentially very good for the setting.

But no other campaign I've run or contemplated would be particularly facilitated by the system.

ShadowSiege
2008-05-17, 03:07 PM
They didn't remove ability penalties. Take a look at the D&DExperience characters, they have negative ability modifiers (paladin has a -1 int mod). Yes, characters have flaws. Yes, the +1 to all stats from leveling would help reduce/negate those flaws. But then after 10+ levels of adventuring, you would most likely be stronger, faster, hardier, smarter, wiser, and more charismatic as you have presumably been through a lot and have bettered yourself from your experiences.

As for HP, yes, it is inconsistent and it is abstract. You either handwave it or use a different system (wounds, for example). The Reaving strike wouldn't take out a minion on a miss as it is a glancing blow. Minions require a solid hit to go down. Minions are meant to be a monster capable of hitting the PCs, but the threat from them is significantly diminished if every time someone glanced at them (cleave, reaving strike, etc), they fell over dead. It's makes for a more interesting combat than throwing a bunch of CR - 8 monsters at the party that are only there to make the combat last a round or two longer.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-17, 03:10 PM
Generally, penalties can be used to help immersion, because sometimes, people have flaws.


Wait, what edition of D&D did you play?
I'm pretty sure none of them had them. I assume Humans are people.
At least I think humans are people.
I'm pretty sure even without penalties I can easily immerse myself into a human. I just look to my right or left at the players who are human.

Only Demi and non-humaniods had penalties in every edition of D&D. Example Halfings had strength penalty. I still relsted easier to humans who were without penalties.

Indon
2008-05-17, 03:26 PM
They didn't remove ability penalties.

You're talking about not putting any points into your point buy. I'm talking about there being penalties for character build choices. As in, you select a choice, you gain a benefit, but there's also a downside. Yes, heavily investing your point buy and dumping a stat is kind of like that, but it's a very simplistic version.


Wait, what edition of D&D did you play?
I'm pretty sure none of them had them. I assume Humans are people.
At least I think humans are people.
I'm pretty sure even without penalties I can easily immerse myself into a human. I just look to my right or left at the players who are human.

Only Demi and non-humaniods had penalties in every edition of D&D. Example Halfings had strength penalty. I still relsted easier to humans who were without penalties.

Halflings are people too.

ShadowSiege
2008-05-17, 03:59 PM
I'm talking about there being penalties for character build choices. As in, you select a choice, you gain a benefit, but there's also a downside.

Why should choices be penalized? Why not select between the benefits you want? Penalties are unnecessary. It doesn't make the character more believable to have a penalty to a stat simply because they got a bonus in another. The drawback of selecting a given race is that you are that race and you don't have the ability modifiers and traits that another race would give you. It's like going to get ice cream: you get to choose from a lot of tasty flavors, but you can only get one flavor (for the sake of this analogy). The economic term for this is eluding me right now (burden of choice?).

Indon
2008-05-17, 04:08 PM
It doesn't make the character more believable to have a penalty to a stat simply because they got a bonus in another.
It's not a matter of 'simply because they got a bonus'. It's a matter of penalties reflecting aspects of the character choice, exactly like bonuses reflect aspects of character choices.

Elves are classically considered to be haughty and proud to a fault. How does it not improve their believability to, say, give them a penalty in certain social interactions?

Why settle for only 50% of the possible immersing features of a choice?

ShadowSiege
2008-05-17, 04:53 PM
It's not a matter of 'simply because they got a bonus'. It's a matter of penalties reflecting aspects of the character choice, exactly like bonuses reflect aspects of character choices.

Elves are classically considered to be haughty and proud to a fault. How does it not improve their believability to, say, give them a penalty in certain social interactions?

Why settle for only 50% of the possible immersing features of a choice?

Why penalize the player for choosing an elf when they're not going to be playing a haughty jerk? If they're going to be haughty and proud and generally poor at social interaction, then the player will make it a point to have CHA as the dump stat and ignore social skills. If a character is going to be flawed, it should be at the player's choice, not hoisted upon them because of a generalization of the race he picks.

Irreverent Fool
2008-05-17, 05:03 PM
To toss my pennies into the fountain:

I plan to play 4e, but I'm not making any 'switch'. Part of the enjoyment of the game for me is the system. I still play AD&D, Basic set, Cyberpunk2020 2e, etc. 4e is another system to invest in. It's vastly different from the D&D I'm familiar with and I can recognize certain things about it that are borrowed from other popular games.

I'm all for the 'it was better in the old days' mentality. But that's not going to stop me from trying out the new-fangled gizmos all the kids are playing with these days.

Still, I probably won't shell out as much for 4e material as I did for 3.5

Scintillatus
2008-05-17, 05:38 PM
I like to view class and race choice as a choice between pie. The only downside to having apple pie should be that you can't also have lemon meringue, or pumpkin. Of course, you could multipie, but we all know that you'd just be better off playing the Cheesecake from Tome of Puddings.

Alright, I kind of stretched that metaphor a bit.

Indon
2008-05-17, 05:40 PM
Why penalize the player for choosing an elf when they're not going to be playing a haughty jerk?

Because without the penalty, you get the Drow Problem: Where you have a race of supposedly evil individuals but all the ones you ever run into are chaotic good. So we have a race of elves that are supposedly proud to a fault... except that none of them actually are. So now you're getting into immersion-breaking.

Scintillatus
2008-05-17, 05:56 PM
So in one thread you're saying that gaming should never ever have rules and in this one you're saying that you should enforce roleplaying with mechanics instead of just encouraging by way of backstory/carrots for being true to it.

A+.

Indon
2008-05-17, 06:15 PM
So in one thread you're saying that gaming should never ever have rules and in this one you're saying that you should enforce roleplaying with mechanics instead of just encouraging by way of backstory/carrots for being true to it.

A+.

I'm sorry, are you speaking to me? Surely you can't, because my actual words in the other thread I'm posting to are:


...while rules often facilitate the experience, they are not mandatory (Well, aside from, "What the storyteller says, goes" - aka the GM is God).

And in this thread I'm saying:


Why settle for only 50% of the possible immersing features of a choice?

Where it certainly seems like I'm arguing about increasing the ability of a rule to facilitate the roleplaying experience.

But more on that actual rule: Aside from the silliness of not having penalties (Pixies: Not actually any less strong than humans. Who'd have thunk it!), they function almost identically to bonuses, meaning almost any argument against penalties can also be applied towards bonuses.

Example: If a player wants to play a physically weak orc, why should they be railroaded into having extra strength? Why shouldn't all players just get two more stat points that they can put wherever they like and the players who want strong orcs, or fast elves, or whatever, can have it, and the players can have even more freedom?

The answer, of course, is that that would make race even more negligable - and it's really obvious how bad of an idea that would be now that WotC's rhetoric has been stripped from it, now isn't it? Player choices should have meaning - what good possibly comes from reducing that meaning?

Scintillatus
2008-05-17, 06:23 PM
Point conceded, I'm hyperactive and prone to mockery.

You're still wrong about homogeny and the choice between positives, but I just made a major social faux-pas and probably ended up making an upset person even more upset, so I'm going to retire from arguing for the evening.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 07:00 PM
Except, this one enemy who doesn't seem very powerful, in fact, when he solidly nailed his buddy, he went down pretty quick.- Even though I'm swinging as powerfully as I did against that other guy and I'm missing, I'm still not making him bleed through his armor...(I.E- No damage on a miss because it would kill a low level enemy, breaking versimilitude and creating a rule that can't easily be explained in game terms.)

It's inconsistent.

Or you are making him bleed, but it's not enough to drop him. In point of fact, you know that just making an enemy bleed through their armor won't drop them from a single hit, because /it never has/. It's only ever dropped people who've been weakened.

horseboy
2008-05-17, 07:17 PM
Or you could, you know, just not use minions. I know I wouldn't.

As for me, well, I just bought Blaster Law and it's going to take a few months for me to wrap my brain around that. Was that a Blast Through crit or a Raking crit? Gah! Why don't they put that sort of thing on the charts? :smallannoyed:

ShadowSiege
2008-05-17, 07:24 PM
Because without the penalty, you get the Drow Problem: Where you have a race of supposedly evil individuals but all the ones you ever run into are chaotic good. So we have a race of elves that are supposedly proud to a fault... except that none of them actually are. So now you're getting into immersion-breaking.

So because one person doesn't fit the template exactly, the template is now useless? Because a single player doesn't play his elf like a haughty jerk, suddenly every single elf in the world is modest? That's a false dichotomy.


But more on that actual rule: Aside from the silliness of not having penalties (Pixies: Not actually any less strong than humans. Who'd have thunk it!), they function almost identically to bonuses, meaning almost any argument against penalties can also be applied towards bonuses.

We haven't seen pixies. This argument is based around what we've seen of the PHB races. Logically, the pixie won't be as strong as a human, how Wizards is going to tackle this. But seeing as size already limits carrying capacity in 3e and 4e, we can make the assumption that a 10 in strength is average strength for that size group. And no, any argument against penalties can't be applied to bonuses, as they are quite different. A penalty is a payment you have to make, whereas a bonus is something you can take advantage of as you choose.


Example: If a player wants to play a physically weak orc, why should they be railroaded into having extra strength? Why shouldn't all players just get two more stat points that they can put wherever they like and the players who want strong orcs, or fast elves, or whatever, can have it, and the players can have even more freedom?

The answer, of course, is that that would make race even more negligable - and it's really obvious how bad of an idea that would be now that WotC's rhetoric has been stripped from it, now isn't it? Player choices should have meaning - what good possibly comes from reducing that meaning?

Then the player can assign strength as a dump stat and play a physically weak orc. If he wants the two points elsewhere, he can reallocate those points from his strength score, which being an orc makes up for. I'm arguing that players shouldn't be penalized for which race they choose.

The ice cream analogy still stands. You can't mix and match vanilla, mint chip, rainbow sherbet, and rum raisin. You can however have one of those flavors without poo-flavored sprinkles added on top

You are arguing that you can only get one flavor, but if it isn't vanilla (human), you have to have poo-flavored sprinkles (penalties) on top of your tasty mint chip, rainbow sherbet, or rum raisin (the demihumans), which then reduces the enjoyment of those alternatives.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 07:34 PM
Or you could, you know, just not use minions. I know I wouldn't.
THat's silly. What's an epic without Red Shirts? :smallbiggrin:

Sir_Dr_D
2008-05-17, 07:37 PM
The answer, of course, is that that would make race even more negligable - and it's really obvious how bad of an idea that would be now that WotC's rhetoric has been stripped from it, now isn't it? Player choices should have meaning - what good possibly comes from reducing that meaning?

I would say that never has a previous edition of d&d made race selection more meaningfull then 4th edition. In 3rd eiditon the only race that seemed worth taking at any sort of tactical level was a human. In 2nd the only reason to take non human races was for the multi-classing system. In 4th edition every race has such cool and distinct powers. It makes me want to try each one. In the 4thed they changed the way race mechanics work, but the choices are more meaningfull.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 07:38 PM
THat's silly. What's an epic without Red Shirts? :smallbiggrin:

Possibly a classic Shonen series. :smalltongue:

Every battle is The Showdown of Ultimate Destiny...'cept not.

horseboy
2008-05-17, 08:01 PM
THat's silly. What's an epic without Red Shirts? :smallbiggrin:Out Crushing your enemies, driving them to the 4 winds and holding their wives and daughters to your bosom, rather than picking on Kindergarteners. :smallwink:

Rutee
2008-05-17, 08:40 PM
Who are you driving to the 4 winds, if there are no red shirts? :P

horseboy
2008-05-17, 10:26 PM
Either non-combatants who run from the mere mention of my name, or worthy foes that I vanquished because I'm that awesome. Mook fights really gall my warrior sense of honour. It's a hollow victory if my opponent never stood a chance.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 11:11 PM
I don't think a fight should be all mooks. I reserve that for when I'm testing a system out for the first time. But I'm cool with there being mooks in addition to actual enemies.

horseboy
2008-05-17, 11:18 PM
Goofy example, but remember that scene in Goldmember where Austin's dad was "jumped" by mooks and he just looked at him and asked "Do you even have a name? You don't do you. Do you know how many nameless minions I've killed just today? Why don't you just do us all a favor and just lay down and we'll pretend I killed you. Go on, lay down." That's the closest to a mook fight I like to come.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 11:21 PM
Meh, that's more a problem of creativity than of mookdom. You've got to think it: there are two types of mooks. Imperial Guard mooks, which suck ass and are there to be killed for the lulz, and Space Marine mooks, which are truly dangerous and, while not pushing you to the verge of death, require actual tactics and expenditure of powerful abilities to defeat.

horseboy
2008-05-17, 11:28 PM
I'm more Alatoc myself. Mooks are removed before we even start our move. :smallamused:

Rutee
2008-05-17, 11:30 PM
THat's cool too, really. I'm just saying, red shirts have a definite use, and don't need to just be discarded, all the time.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-17, 11:31 PM
Personally, I'm a fan of ditching normal mooks. If it isn't a Giant Mook or an Elite Mook, it's not worth it.

Indon
2008-05-17, 11:35 PM
So because one person doesn't fit the template exactly, the template is now useless? Because a single player doesn't play his elf like a haughty jerk, suddenly every single elf in the world is modest? That's a false dichotomy.

Nobody plays evil drow, dude. Because there's nothing obliging people to play evil characters. The descriptor of the Drow race, "Usually (Chaotic, I think) Evil", really doesn't mean much.


And no, any argument against penalties can't be applied to bonuses, as they are quite different. A penalty is a payment you have to make, whereas a bonus is something you can take advantage of as you choose.

A racial penalty is something you are forced to take for choosing your race. A racial bonus is something you are forced to take for choosing your race. Both restrict your character options by providing you with strengths or weaknesses as a result of your choice of race.


Then the player can assign strength as a dump stat and play a physically weak orc.
Actually, if 4'th edition functions on the same point buy system that 3.5 had in wide use, you could not play a physically weak orc. Note that none of the characters we've seen has even a dump stat of less than 8 - and in 3.5, the base score is 8. Meaning your orc has a minimum strength of 10. Meaning no, you can't. Even as a dump stat, you can't have a meaningful weakness if your race forbids it.


I'm arguing that players shouldn't be penalized for which race they choose.

And I'm saying your argument is half-assed. Either you should have appropriate consequences for character options, where crunch is in keeping with fluff, or you should instead give players freedom, in which case their options don't need to mean anything and they can do what they like fluff-wise. The way it's done now leaves players with neither freedom (as their race still dictates their stats), nor immersion (every elf will be hardy, every orc will be sharp, every pixie - if they ever get made - will be equally likely to beat a human in a direct contest of strength).

The only thing the system provides is the illusion of freedom - you look at a system that has penalties and bonuses and you think that because they're getting rid of the penalties, that that means something. It doesn't.

There will still be better choices for some classes than others, and there will still be stigma attached to less-effective race-class combinations. You will be equally restricted in your selections but now they will be less interesting, because they are less complex.

But, don't take my word for it (since I doubt you have any interest in doing so anyway). Buy the 4'th edition books and play with the system. See what sprinkles you taste after you play and post about it on these boards for a while.


I would say that never has a previous edition of d&d made race selection more meaningfull then 4th edition. In 3rd eiditon the only race that seemed worth taking at any sort of tactical level was a human. In 2nd the only reason to take non human races was for the multi-classing system. In 4th edition every race has such cool and distinct powers. It makes me want to try each one. In the 4thed they changed the way race mechanics work, but the choices are more meaningfull.

That's not making the choices meaningful - that's making them mechanically balanced. Maybe. We haven't seen the powers yet; if one race has clearly superior racial powers, then race selection will be a no-brainer and less significant at the same time.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 11:44 PM
I think I might ditch mooks in DnD too, on closer examination. The only mook system I really really like is the one in WotG, since it doesn't treat mooks as individuals. It treats mooks as a unit. The difference here is that mooks are kinda bulky. If you have 40 mooks, they each make seperate attack rolls, f'rex, rather then one attack roll and getting a bonus on it and damage.

ShadowSiege
2008-05-18, 12:50 AM
Nobody plays evil drow, dude. Because there's nothing obliging people to play evil characters. The descriptor of the Drow race, "Usually (Chaotic, I think) Evil", really doesn't mean much.

No, there's nothing obliging people to play evil characters. There's also nothing obliging them to play good characters. Your generalization that "nobody plays evil drow" is crap, as it is far too sweeping, anecdotal, and a preconception resulting from some people playing good drow in an asinine attempt to emulate Drizzt.


A racial penalty is something you are forced to take for choosing your race. A racial bonus is something you are forced to take for choosing your race. Both restrict your character options by providing you with strengths or weaknesses as a result of your choice of race.

Yes, you're forced to take both. But a penalty is far more restrictive than a bonus. A racial bonus may not be optimal for your class choice, but a penalty is far more restrictive and leading to each race having a single hat so to speak.


Actually, if 4'th edition functions on the same point buy system that 3.5 had in wide use, you could not play a physically weak orc. Note that none of the characters we've seen has even a dump stat of less than 8 - and in 3.5, the base score is 8. Meaning your orc has a minimum strength of 10. Meaning no, you can't. Even as a dump stat, you can't have a meaningful weakness if your race forbids it.

The orc would be weak for an orc. It wouldn't be weak for a human, but it would certainly be weak for an orc. Alternatively, you could house rule that you can point sell a certain amount of points.


And I'm saying your argument is half-assed. Either you should have appropriate consequences for character options, where crunch is in keeping with fluff, or you should instead give players freedom, in which case their options don't need to mean anything and they can do what they like fluff-wise. The way it's done now leaves players with neither freedom (as their race still dictates their stats), nor immersion (every elf will be hardy, every orc will be sharp, every pixie - if they ever get made - will be equally likely to beat a human in a direct contest of strength).

Appropriate consequences for character options shouldn't be punishing the player because they want to play a specific race. Also, did you consider they adjusted the fluff to compensate for the fluff? A typical elf in 3e would have the constitution of a old man. You want to argue immersion and sense, how the hell does a race as a whole survive when their susceptibility to disease and injury is that of old people, the age group that is most vulnerable to disease and can die to the common influenza virus? Additionally, I doubt a pixie will be beating a human in a direct strength of contest, unless the human is an infirm two year old.


But, don't take my word for it (since I doubt you have any interest in doing so anyway). Buy the 4'th edition books and play with the system. See what sprinkles you taste after you play and post about it on these boards for a while.

I've bought 4th edition. I look forward to reading it, and it being a better game than 3rd. If anything, the sprinkles will taste of Exalted, and to me, that's a good thing.


That's not making the choices meaningful - that's making them mechanically balanced. Maybe. We haven't seen the powers yet; if one race has clearly superior racial powers, then race selection will be a no-brainer and less significant at the same time.

We have seen the powers. None are "clearly superior" as yet. They each distinguish a given race from another.

Regarding the mooks: The mooks aren't intended to be the entirety of the enemy force, they're meant to replace individual monsters 4-to-1 to allow large numbers of potentially dangerous enemies to be on the battlefield at once, but are less effective without support.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-05-18, 12:53 AM
I will reserve judgement on Mooks until the formal rules are out. The rules people are describing now don't sound right, which tells me they may be imcomplete. But if they are as they sound, I would not use mooks in any of my campaigns.

Indon
I agree with you. I like racial ability pentalties , and don't understand why they are removed. I think they wanted to limit charactrs having negative stats. I myself prefer charcters that are strong in some stats and lower in others. It makes for more intersting characters.
But I think you are making a big deal aboutsomething that is so small. Racial ability pentalties are something that is so easy to house rule in. In general the racial powers In 4th edition make race selection better and more distinct then previous versions. Sure they won't be 100% balanced, but they will each be so distinctly different they will be fun to play. Also keep in mind that the races have changed. Halfings are taller for instance, making a lack of a stength penaltly more justified.


[edit: after reading Shadow Sieges post I will revise my opinion some what. I think not having ability penalties on races is a good thing. It allows for more role playing options. Early editions D&D had some ridiculous rules do to the game deisgners concept of realism, with the expense of fun. Therefore there was restirctions like level limits for non human characters. For the same reason level limist shouldn't be there, neither should ability penalties. If I rolled up a 4ed halfing though I still would not give it a high strength score, (because it doesn't make much sense), and if I was DM any halfing NPC'S definatly would not have points added to their strength ability scores. If player wanted a halfing with high strength, I would expect the player to justify that score. So you can still have characters have ability scores that make sense for their race, without being restricted by game mechanics.]

Morty
2008-05-18, 08:53 AM
Good to know I'm not the only one who despises the concept of a "minion". It's stupid enough when in a book or movie heroes wade through supposedly proffesional soldiers killing everyone in one hit, but in a game it'd be insufferable.

Snooder
2008-05-18, 10:02 AM
Good to know I'm not the only one who despises the concept of a "minion". It's stupid enough when in a book or movie heroes wade through supposedly proffesional soldiers killing everyone in one hit, but in a game it'd be insufferable.

Unfortunately, it is necessary to a certain degree. If The Hero is only as powerful as an ordinary person, then he wouldn't be The Hero. If no ordinary foes exist, and all foes are supervillains then the world is highly unrealistic.

The mook/minion/redshirt exists to showcase how powerful/smart/deadly the hero and his antagonist are. If the Hulk gets taken down by a lucky grunt with a pistol, he's not the Hulk anymore, is he? If Goliath was only as strong as any other warrior, David wouldn't be as cool. Stop treating mooks as characters, they are plot pieces or set dressing, they exist solely as backdrop to the main characters, whether hero or villain.

Morty
2008-05-18, 10:10 AM
Unfortunately, it is necessary to a certain degree. If The Hero is only as powerful as an ordinary person, then he wouldn't be The Hero. If no ordinary foes exist, and all foes are supervillains then the world is highly unrealistic.

The mook/minion/redshirt exists to showcase how powerful/smart/deadly the hero and his antagonist are. If the Hulk gets taken down by a lucky grunt with a pistol, he's not the Hulk anymore, is he? If Goliath was only as strong as any other warrior, David wouldn't be as cool. Stop treating mooks as characters, they are plot pieces or set dressing, they exist solely as backdrop to the main characters, whether hero or villain.

First, there's a difference between "mook" and "enemy", you know. Non-minion enemies in 4ed aren't as powerful as PCs, yet they aren't mooks that die in one hit and can be actually dangerous. Second, why should I care about any stories, wheter written or directed, when playing RPGs? I don't play them to emulate books and movies.

Yahzi
2008-05-18, 12:07 PM
But me? Core three and no more.
I'm running a game, and the world I designed is based solely on the core classes. I originally told my players they would have to restrict themselves to these classes.

However, once the game got going, I discovered I didn't actually care. They came to me with all sorts of crazy prestige classes and class feature variants and new spells and stuff. They warned me that they might be creating game-breaking characters, but they wanted to do it anyway.

I looked over all of their stuff and realized that none of them was playing a druid. So I said, "Meh. Whatever."

:smallbiggrin:

As for switching to 4e... I'm still playing 3.0.

And this concept of minions? Some here may remember a long thread in which I complained about D&D precisely because it had the notion of "disposable NPC who exists solely to provide scenery." And that was in 2e.

Now they go and formalize the concept as part of the rules. :smallfurious:

TempusCCK
2008-05-18, 10:29 PM
I like mooks, I like mooks quite a bit actually.

I think, as a hero, it's ton's of fun just mindlessly slaughtering hordes of weaker foes. My character might balk about the time taken that could be fighting the main threat, or he might complain about how shallow the victory is, but that's the character, me, as a player, I'm having a blast nailing them.

it's like having a level 99 Barbarian in D2 spec'd for Whirlwind, watching as hordes of demons scream in bloody agony at my whirling fury just makes me happy.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-05-18, 11:15 PM
Which is liekly why mooks are in the rules. They will suite some players, in some compaigns. It is a handy tool to have available. Those of us, like me, who prefer not to use them, don't have to.

I htink it is an interesting mechanic to have in there. It could be great for comedy sometimes. :smalltongue:

Farmer42
2008-05-18, 11:20 PM
You know you need to build a squad now with all but one of them being mooks, and the one who wasn't is the only one who knows they're mooks. His name will be Percy, and he will spend the rest of the comic game worrying about his death.

I read too much Transformers...