PDA

View Full Version : Perceptions of 4E



Thinker
2008-05-22, 10:22 AM
Another 4E thread.

DnD 4th Edition does not begin with the same premise as 3rd Edition. The internal consistency and paradigm of verisimilitude has shifted from one where the players are playing normal people in a High Fantasy world where everyone and everything plays by the same rules to one where everyone is playing with one set of rules and the players are using another. This may seem bad for internal consistency, but it is not.

The premise of 4E is that the PCs are extraordinary individuals; why else would they have better abilities and different rules from the NPCs? They are not normal people in a normal world. They are the Beowulf, Achilles, Jason, Samson, Gilgamesh, Cuchulain, etc. of their world. This is heroic fantasy, rather than high fantasy. If you want gritty real-world approximations, look elsewhere; that has never been what DnD is about.

Heroic fantasy usually has the PCs and a handful of NPCs using character classes and getting these amazing abilities. Why don't the town guard handle the harpies over the harbor? Because they can't. What stops the PCs from taking over the town once they've freed it from the harpy threat? Nothing except staying in character and the threat of perhaps greater heroes or a rebellion.

Why do the PCs get to be better just because they're played by real people? They aren't. They are played by real people because they're better. These are the people with somewhat interesting, often cliched backgrounds: son of a god and a mortal, blessed by the gods at birth, reached a point in training where transcended normal limits. This isn't your regular DnD game, it is something new. Until you change your perspective on where the point of view of DnD 4E is coming from you will be unhappy.

Trog
2008-05-22, 10:34 AM
I'll start this off by saying I really, really like 4e. :smallsmile:

Yes it is not realistic. No I do not care. :smallannoyed:

Also I really dislike saying that the PCs are like so-and-so the great hero because, well, they aren't. They are their own heroes and the way they measure up is tested within the confines of the game. Period. Not the equivalent of some reputable person who exists outside of the game. None of those people are statted. And even if a DnD 4e approximation of the character was made it would STILL not equal the person as portrayed in history/legend/fiction as they are bound to have something that they have done/exist in a setting that lies outside the rules. Any comparison made like this is just doomed to failure as a result.

For once let's start comparing the PCs to other in-game things. It's the only way you are going to get a true measure of how PCs stack up. [/rant]

warmachine
2008-05-22, 10:41 AM
Unconvinced. The PCs and NPC guards should follow the same rules but the PCs succeed where the guards fail because they're higher level than the guards. Beowulf can be legendary by being 15th level or whatever and beating the hell out of 10 HD monsters or whatever. 1st and 2nd level NPCs are wimps already without changing the rules. To me, using separate sets of rules is a recipe for confusion and incompatibility. The rule design can already handle power differences: level differences. Such power differences can be judged at a glance. Easy. Apparantly, WotC have messed up something this simple. Seems pointless to me.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-22, 10:41 AM
Unconvinced. The PCs and NPC guards should follow the same rules but the PCs succeed where the guards fail because they're higher level than the guards. Beowulf can be legendary by being 15th level or whatever and beating the hell out of 10 HD monsters or whatever. 1st and 2nd level NPCs are wimps already without changing the rules. To me, using separate sets of rules is a recipe for confusion and incompatibility. The rule design can already handle power differences: level differences. Such power differences can be judged at a glance. Easy. Apparantly, WotC have messed up something this simple. Seems pointless to me.

Take everything he just said and reverse it.

That's how I feel.

Hooray 4e.

Starsinger
2008-05-22, 10:45 AM
Thinker, that's very articulate and very true. In 3.5 you're a shmuck off of the streets who decided to kill goblins one day and after like, a week of that you hit level 10. Which leaves the versim- color breaking question "Why doesn't everyone go slay some goblins and better themselves?" I mean hell, even an expert would be better off slaying goblins, then they could get better at making pie.

In 4E the answer to "Why doesn't everyone go slay goblins" is because not everyone can. You're set up to be a hero in 4e. In 3.5 heroes are made. In 4e heroes are born.

warmachine
2008-05-22, 10:52 AM
The reverse of consistent and coherent rules where power is roughly measured by numeric level is: inconsistent and incoherent rules where power cannot be roughly measured by numeric level? Not sure how that helps.

What the OP wants has already been achieved with 3e: PCs are extraordinary people. They're higher level and have better stats. 3e has many faults but doing heroic fantasy is not one of them.

RTGoodman
2008-05-22, 10:57 AM
In 3.5 heroes are made. In 4e heroes are born.

If I sigged quotes from people, that'd be it right there.

Like most everyone else so far, I like 4E a lot. Not that it's perfect, but I like the philosophies behind it and from what I've seen the mechanics work just as well if not better than 3.x. My favorite part of 4E is just this idea - that PCs really are special, that they have charisma in the original sense of the word (as a "divine gift" or whatnot). Everyone else, indeed, doesn't even get a heroic class - most of the NPCs, as far as I know, are just "non-heroic" and that's that.

Oslecamo
2008-05-22, 10:58 AM
Thinker, that's very articulate and very true. In 3.5 you're a shmuck off of the streets who decided to kill goblins one day and after like, a week of that you hit level 10. Which leaves the versim- color breaking question "Why doesn't everyone go slay some goblins and better themselves?" I mean hell, even an expert would be better off slaying goblins, then they could get better at making pie.


Because the mortality rate among low lv characters in 3.X is very scary.
Those who suceed lv up, but most of them end up dying in the way.

And like said before, heros have better stats, either by birth or training. A normal human has a 10 or 11 in all scores. Good luck being a wizard or cleric with that.


In 4E the answer to "Why doesn't everyone go slay goblins" is because not everyone can. You're set up to be a hero in 4e. In 3.5 heroes are made. In 4e heroes are born.


Power Source: Martial. You have become an expert in tactics through endless hours of training and practice, personal determination, and your own sheer physical toughness.

And even then, in 4e there is no "everyone". There are heros(you) and monsters waiting to be killed(everybody else).

warmachine
2008-05-22, 10:59 AM
Thinker, that's very articulate and very true. In 3.5 you're a shmuck off of the streets who decided to kill goblins one day and after like, a week of that you hit level 10. Which leaves the versim- color breaking question "Why doesn't everyone go slay some goblins and better themselves?" I mean hell, even an expert would be better off slaying goblins, then they could get better at making pie.
If one doesn't like being a shmuck off the streets, don't play level 1. The reason not everyone goes and slay some goblins to better themselves is, first, some people aren't killers, seconds PCs have plot protection. PCs fight level appropriate encounters and don't meet a Rakshasa who slaughters the lot of them. Versimilitude has already been thrown out the window. The trouble is, inconsistent rule sets get in the way of the mechanics.

Douglas
2008-05-22, 11:06 AM
As far as I know, there's nothing in the rules of 4E to stop you from using PC rules for however many NPCs you like. I am currently planning to use PC rules for a fairly large portion of the world non-monster population if and when I run a 4E game, it's just that most of them will be pretty low level and not interested in the extreme risk of the adventuring lifestyle. "Schmuck-NPC" rules will be used only for the masses of professional commoners unless they're rather different from what I expect.

Ealstan
2008-05-22, 11:07 AM
What the OP wants has already been achieved with 3e: PCs are extraordinary people. They're higher level and have better stats.

I agree with you completely, warmachine. 3e does handle that aspect of the game adequately. 4e simply handles the disparity between Heroics and commoners in a different way. In 3e any commoner could walk off his field, kill some woodland creatures, and start multi-classing into fighter. In 4e the makers of the game are just building into the game a fundamental difference between heroic characters and non-. There will still be power approximations from level, but that's now just restricted to people that matter in the game (Heroics).

skywalker
2008-05-22, 11:23 AM
And even then, in 4e there is no "everyone". There are heros(you) and monsters waiting to be killed(everybody else).
My primary gripe with 4th edition. Something that is semi-fluff, but honestly has gotten to the point where it colors the rules a little too much for my taste. "Even a metallic dragon can be evil!" Well how about that. Who're you supposed to trust?

I could go into a rant about how "4e heroes are born" and "not everyone can kill goblins" is stupid and classist and the sort of thing we got away from in the west when we abolished the feudal system and absolute monarchies. But that would honestly be really, really stupid. Suffice to say what I just said.

Why do the PCs get to be better just because they're played by real people? They aren't. They are played by real people because they're better. These are the people with somewhat interesting, often cliched backgrounds: son of a god and a mortal, blessed by the gods at birth, reached a point in training where transcended normal limits. This isn't your regular DnD game, it is something new. Until you change your perspective on where the point of view of DnD 4E is coming from you will be unhappy. You speak as though this is something we all need to as soon as possible :smallconfused:

I think it was just as easy to create Beowulf, Achilles(guys who've never seen level 1) type people in 3.5. I think the difference is, in 3.5 it was an option. You could play the born hero, or you could play Shandril Shessair(main character of Spellfire, the book in which the realms began) a former tavern wench bumbling her way through learning to be a thief. I'm not entirely sure you're still allowed to do that in 4e. The system seems to dictate that the heroes are heroes, even from level 1.

That's my perception.

warmachine
2008-05-22, 11:34 AM
As far as I know, there's nothing in the rules of 4E to stop you from using PC rules for however many NPCs you like. I am currently planning to use PC rules for a fairly large portion of the world non-monster population if and when I run a 4E game, it's just that most of them will be pretty low level and not interested in the extreme risk of the adventuring lifestyle. "Schmuck-NPC" rules will be used only for the masses of professional commoners unless they're rather different from what I expect.
This is what I'm hoping is the case. If monster can be built with quick, dirty and throwaway, or full PC rules, 4e improves over 3e by offering the same as 3e but another option. If the DM wants throw away monsters, 4e is faster and incompatibility doesn't matter. If the DM wants memorable, recurring monsters, even having them change sides and letting players play them, building using full PC rules allows that. The DM can choose the complexity he wants. Or at least, I hope that's what 4e offers.

Indon
2008-05-22, 11:48 AM
DnD 4th Edition does not begin with the same premise as 3rd Edition. The internal consistency and paradigm of verisimilitude has shifted from one where the players are playing normal people in a High Fantasy world where everyone and everything plays by the same rules to one where everyone is playing with one set of rules and the players are using another. This may seem bad for internal consistency, but it is not.

I disagree. You even point out that 4'th edition's paradigm is shifting away from internal consistency.

What I do agree with, however, is that this isn't necessarily bad.


They are played by real people because they're better.
Is that what the player thinks? Or does the player look at the categorizations of PC, and NPC, and clearly see that the PC category is fundamentally superior?

Now, you can distinguish PC' and NPCs without damaging internal consistency. 3.x, for instance, offered "NPC levels" very similar to the monster-type levels found in 4'th edition, and monster-specific NPC levels called "Racial levels". Both were mechanically inferior to PC-class levels. Why didn't it damage internal consistency? Because it was possible for PCs to have racial or NPC levels. It was possible for NPCs to have PC class levels.

In fact, I think there's still a chance 4'th edition will pull this off. If you haven't noticed, every monster is listed with levels in what is essentially an NPC class. This, combined with the new type of racial progression, potentially leads to a more consistent system between PCs and NPCs - All characters have both racial progression, and class progression; NPCs just use NPC class progression because it's easier to track and NPC class as an NPC.

But if 4'th edition doesn't pull it off, it'll make the game's mechanics more obvious to the players, potentially damaging immersion. Now, the associated benefits may outweigh this: In this case, being convenience and cinematic potential. But let's not forget what we're (possibly) sacrificing to get these things.

Tough_Tonka
2008-05-22, 12:13 PM
Its not like the rules for for NPC development and PC are really the same.

How do commoners and NPC experts level up?

3.0 & 3.5's answer: There is no answer to this question. The 3e rules for XP rewards go along the line of you getting rewards for overcoming challenges with dire consequences (such as getting killed, staying trapped in prison, someone else getting killed).

So how do experts improve there skills as blacksmiths? Do they have to go out and test there weapons themselves, or take jobs were the penalty for not finishing the kings horse shoes in time is a swift and painful death?

What about NPC spellcasters? How on earth do they level up? Are they all retired adventures? I think not. In this case I might say they are overpower compared to PCs, since all they have to do is study for a few years to level up. I know a few munchkins that jump at the opertunity to just say, "Okay I;m going to study for like 50 years then get to level 10 and the int bonus for aging"

I'm not even going to touch what splat-book the NPC Spellcaster's use to with the XP loss form creating magic items.


So quit pretending like 3.5 NPC were really all that compatible with PCs. The only difference in 4e, in this regard, is that 4e doesn't pretend to be GURPS.

Don Beegles
2008-05-22, 12:19 PM
I haven't heard much about 4e, and I probably won't be able to afford the first three books until about a month after they come out, but I think I'll like it. If it really is making a shift towards more cinematic role-playing, I think it'll be fun, and one of my friends who is going to the same college as me always complains about how long combat takes. If it can be sped up, I think he will be very happy with it and I won't mind either. I never have been one for gritty versimiliude; I prefer the somewhat more realistic action and intrigue.

Draz74
2008-05-22, 12:20 PM
In 4E the answer to "Why doesn't everyone go slay goblins" is because not everyone can. You're set up to be a hero in 4e. In 3.5 heroes are made. In 4e heroes are born.

That makes good sense. There's just one problem with it.

Sometimes, I like playing a Made Hero rather than a Born Hero. Some character concepts are just more powerful if they represent a schmuck who had to learn to be not-ordinary.

Is 4e going to give me a way to do that?

Rutee
2008-05-22, 12:24 PM
Mechanically, or storywise? Because there's nothing stopping you from saying your character was like that, and has earned his way up the ropes.. but we don't know of mechanics for it to /start/ there.

Also why did a thread on one person's opinion on 4e need to get a specific thread? ._.

Yakk
2008-05-22, 12:42 PM
The system of levels for mooks/normal/elite/solo monsters exists for mathematical reasons. "swing and miss except on a 20" causes problems with the game play, as does "swing and hit except on a 1".

A solo level 5 monster is a monster designed to be a challenge for a group of level 5 characters all by itself. That is player-centric design -- that is what levels mean in 4e. They are a measure of player advancement, which can be projected onto the difficulty of the challenges the players should face.

The rules for building monsters are, once again, player-centric. It takes far less time to build a monster using 4e rules, and it's abilities are balanced around being in a single fight rather than a sequence of fights.

This reduces the workload of the DM significantly.

PC rules can still be used, but that requires harder balancing. The per-day abilities of a PC class used in a "full burn" of a single fight causes balance to be off a bit. And PC-based balance doesn't have the large HP that a solo monster would have, so have the fight last the right amount of time, and neither does it have the action budget that a solo monster should have.

D&D 4e attempts to solve the problem of "an interesting encounter", or make it easier for the DM. It considers the "world simulation" portion to be best delt with by a DM making common sense decisions.

Draz74
2008-05-22, 12:52 PM
Mechanically, or storywise? Because there's nothing stopping you from saying your character was like that, and has earned his way up the ropes.. but we don't know of mechanics for it to /start/ there.

Exactly. I want a mechanical way to simulate my character when he's still just barely learning to be a hero.

When I DM 3e, if I want the PCs to start as heroes, I'll start them at Level 3 or so. But I like the option of having them start at Level 1 as almost-normal-power-level types. (Actually, even in 3e, some classes seem a bit too heroic at Level 1 to me.)

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 12:57 PM
Exactly. I want a mechanical way to simulate my character when he's still just barely learning to be a hero.

When I DM 3e, if I want the PCs to start as heroes, I'll start them at Level 3 or so. But I like the option of having them start at Level 1 as almost-normal-power-level types. (Actually, even in 3e, some classes seem a bit too heroic at Level 1 to me.)

Never heard of level 0, right? Or fluff?

Jack Zander
2008-05-22, 01:06 PM
Never heard of level 0, right? Or fluff?


Exactly. I want a mechanical way to simulate my character when he's still just barely learning to be a hero.

When I DM 3e, if I want the PCs to start as heroes, I'll start them at Level 3 or so. But I like the option of having them start at Level 1 as almost-normal-power-level types. (Actually, even in 3e, some classes seem a bit too heroic at Level 1 to me.)

Emphasis mine.

Having a back story doesn't help there.

Starsinger
2008-05-22, 01:07 PM
Never heard of level 0, right? Or fluff?

In the words of someone more red than I am
:smallfurious:

YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT! D&D IS TURNING INTO MOREPIG! *Dodges uncomfortable issue* :smallwink:

Tough_Tonka
2008-05-22, 01:09 PM
That makes good sense. There's just one problem with it.

Sometimes, I like playing a Made Hero rather than a Born Hero. Some character concepts are just more powerful if they represent a schmuck who had to learn to be not-ordinary.

Is 4e going to give me a way to do that?

Yes, there this. You see there's this feature called a back story and with your DM's permission you can start out as a schmuck who had to learn to be not-ordinary in the roughest of streets, or woods, or desserts, or sea instead of being the son of a god and tavern wench.

Duke of URL
2008-05-22, 01:10 PM
Yes, there this. You see there's this feature called a back story and with your DM's permission you can start out as a schmuck who had to learn to be not-ordinary in the roughest of streets, or woods, or desserts, or sea instead of being the son of a god and tavern wench.

You're missing the point. Sure, anyone can say that as backstory, but the OP wants the mechanical ability to play that in the game.

Starsinger
2008-05-22, 01:12 PM
You're missing the point. Sure, anyone can say that as backstory, but the OP wants the mechanical ability to play that in the game.

So do something like level 0?

SamTheCleric
2008-05-22, 01:12 PM
Easy house rule... you dont have any powers, just basic melee and basic ranged attacks. Go.

Jack Zander
2008-05-22, 01:13 PM
So do something like level 0?

Please explain this level 0 to me.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 01:14 PM
Emphasis mine.

Having a back story doesn't help there.

Ya ever heard of "Player autogimping"?

Should work out fine.

Also, Starsinger: You can have a cookie, a planescape torment, or a "You win epically" card.

PS: Child friendly version for RO,L's benefit. :smallamused:


Edit: Level 0 is a blanket term for player autogimping, such as "I don't use my powers", "I roll to hit with 0 BAB and half STR". Got it? It's not necessarily, bad, so forgive me if I sound cynical.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-22, 01:15 PM
I imagine that level 0 in 4e will be like I described... take away all the class features, you're left with Racial features and basic attacks. If it takes 1000 xp to go to level 2... make it 250-300 xp to make it to level 1.

Duke of URL
2008-05-22, 01:15 PM
Please explain this level 0 to me.

Something imaginary that people pretend actually exists in the rules so they can ignore legitimate concerns about the flaws in those rules, apparently.

If you have to homebrew a solution, then the rules are presenting a problem.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 01:17 PM
I imagine that level 0 in 4e will be like I described... take away all the class features, you're left with Racial features and basic attacks. If it takes 1000 xp to go to level 2... make it 250-300 xp to make it to level 1.

Beaten you to the punch, ol' pal. Or, as my ancestors would say, "YAAAAR, Pirated, you slimy ninja!"

Jack Zander
2008-05-22, 01:17 PM
Something imaginary that people pretend actually exists in the rules so they can ignore legitimate concerns about the flaws in those rules, apparently.

If you have to homebrew a solution, then the rules are presenting a problem.

Isn't that a fallacy somewhere? If not it should be. It keeps coming up lately.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-22, 01:17 PM
Something imaginary that people pretend actually exists in the rules so they can ignore legitimate concerns about the flaws in those rules, apparently.

If you have to homebrew a solution, then the rules are presenting a problem.

I disagree with you thinking its a flaw in the rules. It may be an aspect of the game that you do not like but 4e is not intended to be played as "common folk". The idea of the game is different than "i'm joe farmer. Oh no, Orcs! Now I shall be a paladin!". The game is "I'm a paladin. Suck it orcs."

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 01:21 PM
Davies Jr., Cleric Fallacy: WE KNOW the rules have flaws. Pointing it out is not a good way of upping your post count.

Named in honour of a comrade.

Duke of URL
2008-05-22, 01:25 PM
I disagree with you thinking its a flaw in the rules. It may be an aspect of the game that you do not like but 4e is not intended to be played as "common folk". The idea of the game is different than "i'm joe farmer. Oh no, Orcs! Now I shall be a paladin!". The game is "I'm a paladin. Suck it orcs."

I'm just pointing out the logical flaws here, not taking sides. A legitimate concern along the lines of "the rules, indeed the design even, of 4e doesn't allow for this style of play" isn't adequately addressed by telling the player to change the rules. It doesn't solve the issue that the game wasn't designed to be played that way. Whether you agree with that design or not is irrelevant. A more honest answer is simply saying, "no, the game wasn't designed to allow for that," instead of pretending that there's a standardized workaround.

And, if you're going to be consistent with the 4e design, "level 0" players would be mooks minions, ergo, no HP, just killed (outright) by the first successful attack made against them. Worse than a commoner being killed by a housecat.

Ne0
2008-05-22, 01:27 PM
I disagree with you thinking its a flaw in the rules. It may be an aspect of the game that you do not like but 4e is not intended to be played as "common folk". The idea of the game is different than "i'm joe farmer. Oh no, Orcs! Now I shall be a paladin!". The game is "I'm a paladin. Suck it orcs."

Not always. What if you want to start out as Joe Farmer? Think about the Goblins comic: (Warning: Minor spoiler)

At first, the main characters are ordinary goblins. After their entire village is slaughtered, they seem to take on class levels. And believe me or not, it sucks to have an NPC class as first level. Having to pay mechanics-wise because you want to roleplay isn't fair.
So in this case Rule 0 is a pretty good option. It's still homebrewing though.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-22, 01:29 PM
I'm just pointing out the logical flaws here, not taking sides. A legitimate concern along the lines of "the rules, indeed the design even, of 4e doesn't allow for this style of play" isn't adequately addressed by telling the player to change the rules. It doesn't solve the issue that the game wasn't designed to be played that way. Whether you agree with that design or not is irrelevant. A more honest answer is simply saying, "no, the game wasn't designed to allow for that," instead of pretending that there's a standardized workaround.

And, if you're going to be consistent with the 4e design, "level 0" players would be mooks minions, ergo, no HP, just killed (outright) by the first successful attack made against them. Worse than a commoner being killed by a housecat.

I understand that... I just think that if people want to go out of the "intended rules" for the game system... they need to make the rules up themselves until the rules are presented to them in an official format.

Personally, I don't understand the need to play "regular folk" in a fantasy game... Most regular folk are tending crops or running a store... there's no time for adventuring! Adventurers, on the other hand, aren't "regular folk"... they are heroes... the stuff of legends...

Jack Zander
2008-05-22, 01:31 PM
Not always. What if you want to start out as Joe Farmer? Think about the Goblins comic: (Warning: Minor spoiler)

At first, the main characters are ordinary goblins. After their entire village is slaughtered, they seem to take on class levels. And believe me or not, it sucks to have an NPC class as first level. Having to pay mechanics-wise because you want to roleplay isn't fair.
So in this case Rule 0 is a pretty good option. It's still homebrewing though.

I always figured they retrained their first level of warrior rather than becoming level 2.

Except for Senior Vorpal Kickass'O who must be using some sort of bastardized version of 3.0's multiclass level 1 characters.

Jack Zander
2008-05-22, 01:33 PM
I understand that... I just think that if people want to go out of the "intended rules" for the game system... they need to make the rules up themselves until the rules are presented to them in an official format.

Personally, I don't understand the need to play "regular folk" in a fantasy game... Most regular folk are tending crops or running a store... there's no time for adventuring! Adventurers, on the other hand, aren't "regular folk"... they are heroes... the stuff of legends...

But most all of these heroes are made from ordinary folk, and many people enjoying playing from the very start of a hero's beginning (when running in a burning building to save your sister from a lone kobold is a dangerous task).

Duke of URL
2008-05-22, 01:34 PM
I understand that... I just think that if people want to go out of the "intended rules" for the game system... they need to make the rules up themselves until the rules are presented to them in an official format.

Personally, I don't understand the need to play "regular folk" in a fantasy game... Most regular folk are tending crops or running a store... there's no time for adventuring! Adventurers, on the other hand, aren't "regular folk"... they are heroes... the stuff of legends...

True, but unless you subscribe the the concept that heroes are simply born that way, they gotta come from somewhere. Maybe "farmer Joe" had no ideas about being an adventurer, but bandits slaughtered his family, raped his livestock, and torched his fields. With nothing left but a desire for revenge, "farmer Joe" starts on his journey...

Now, in 4th edition, we have to skip ahead from this point to the the point where he's already become "heroic". In all previous editions, you could start play at the point above, but that's impossible in 4e because the game design assumes you are already "heroic" at the very beginning.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-22, 01:36 PM
How different is it from AD&D and 3x, with the PC and NPC classes, and stats rolling?

SamTheCleric
2008-05-22, 01:36 PM
The three teirs of levels are Heroic, Paragon and Epic, right?

Maybe they will have a pre-heroic tier... maybe not at launch, but in the next PHB or something. *shrug*

Draz74
2008-05-22, 01:41 PM
I'm just pointing out the logical flaws here, not taking sides. A legitimate concern along the lines of "the rules, indeed the design even, of 4e doesn't allow for this style of play" isn't adequately addressed by telling the player to change the rules. It doesn't solve the issue that the game wasn't designed to be played that way. Whether you agree with that design or not is irrelevant. A more honest answer is simply saying, "no, the game wasn't designed to allow for that," instead of pretending that there's a standardized workaround.

Exactly. Unlike usual, my post wasn't saying, "Here's an obvious problem! Let's fix it!" It was, rather, just me complaining, "This is something I don't like about 4e. It's internally consistent, but it doesn't support the style of play that I occasionally like to visit." Which is one reason why, although I might play 4e casually and I think it will be fun, I will continue to concentrate on 3e as far as serious campaigns or homebrewing efforts go.

Starsinger
2008-05-22, 01:42 PM
Something imaginary that people pretend actually exists in the rules so they can ignore legitimate concerns about the flaws in those rules, apparently.

If you have to homebrew a solution, then the rules are presenting a problem.

It half existed in 3.0, it was part of an option for people who wanted to dual class and start at level one. Instead of being going from Fighter 1 to Fighter 1/ Wizard one, it allowed you to go from Fighter 0/Wizard 0 to Fighter 1/Wizard 1. Or something like that.

Jack Zander
2008-05-22, 01:43 PM
How different is it from AD&D and 3x, with the PC and NPC classes, and stats rolling?

Rolling your stats? I believe all three are the same (with slight variations).

The designers of 4e claimed that there are no NPC classes, but from some of the stats blocks we've seen, it looks like they do. Unconfirmed thus far.

In general: AD&D was very rules loose, better for role playing than tactical combat, 3.x was rules heavy, better for tactical combat but still consistent, and 4e looks to be just as rules heavy, but simplified some and focusing the stats on PCs rather than world-wide consistency.

Starsinger
2008-05-22, 01:45 PM
Isn't that a fallacy somewhere? If not it should be. It keeps coming up lately.

Ooh! If you'd actually named a fallacy (whether or not you were "correct") you could have become one of the "cool kids". But no, I don't think this qualifies as the fallacy you have in mind. "It doesn't do what I want!" Is not exactly a problem in the rules as long as it does what it set out to do. So saying that you can house rule it does not count qualify as "a rule saying you can change the rules does not make up for a problem in the rules" or whatever the wording is. Still, nice attempt.

Jack Zander
2008-05-22, 01:46 PM
It half existed in 3.0, it was part of an option for people who wanted to dual class and start at level one. Instead of being going from Fighter 1 to Fighter 1/ Wizard one, it allowed you to go from Fighter 0/Wizard 0 to Fighter 1/Wizard 1. Or something like that.

Ah, so then it is made up.

That would be level 1 multiclass characters. Not level 0 characters. Big difference (you have to take 2 classes at level 1 which still makes you a level 1 character, and just as powerful as anyone else your level).

Tough_Tonka
2008-05-22, 01:47 PM
3e Lv 1 PC were quite a cut above NPC themselves. I mean the average lv 1 fighter had at least twice as many hit points as the first level warrior with 4 to 5 hp and easily more than four times that of a lv 1 commoner. Even a lv wizard should start will the same amount or more hp than most of the things a lv 1 3.5e party will come across (goblins, kobolds, hobgoblins). Only low level boss monsters encountered by themselves tended to have hp more than the party fighter.

I admit that the 4e heroes have bigger numbers on there character sheets, but in most castes so do the 4e enemies.

I'll have you know a lv 1 human bandit, the kind you match one for one with the PCs to get a regular fight has 30 hp, an AC of 16, +4 atk bonus, and has a per encounter power that dazes the PCs that only requires him hitting them. Even a level one kobold skirmisher has 27 hp.

It doesn't seem to me that lv 1 4e characters are more powerful than there's just an inflation of certain stats like hp, and they can use the features more often. I Know they don't dye as randomly (from one lucky damage roll) as they used to, but I'm not so certain that's a bad thing. I kind of like not having to make new characters.

I guess in 3e you could start at level one with npc class, but who really did that oftenly?

SamTheCleric
2008-05-22, 01:47 PM
Level 0 actually exists in Spycraft d20. It's the level "before you become a spy"... and the basic rules have you build your character at level 1. If you want to play level 0 you can... but that's optional.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 01:48 PM
Ooh! If you'd actually named a fallacy (whether or not you were "correct") you could have become one of the "cool kids". But no, I don't think this qualifies as the fallacy you have in mind. "It doesn't do what I want!" Is not exactly a problem in the rules as long as it does what it set out to do. So saying that you can house rule it does not count qualify as "a rule saying you can change the rules does not make up for a problem in the rules" or whatever the wording is. Still, nice attempt.

You're next. yooouu...........ARE....neeeeeeeeexttttt.

*insert zombie smiley here*.

Jack Zander
2008-05-22, 01:48 PM
Ooh! If you'd actually named a fallacy (whether or not you were "correct") you could have become one of the "cool kids". But no, I don't think this qualifies as the fallacy you have in mind. "It doesn't do what I want!" Is not exactly a problem in the rules as long as it does what it set out to do. So saying that you can house rule it does not count qualify as "a rule saying you can change the rules does not make up for a problem in the rules" or whatever the wording is. Still, nice attempt.

Yes, that is the fallacy I was thinking of! I agree it probably doesn't apply here, but I have seen it apply lately elsewhere on the boards.

You don't know the name either I'm assuming?

Starsinger
2008-05-22, 01:49 PM
Ah, so then it is made up.

That would be level 1 multiclass characters. Not level 0 characters. Big difference (you have to take 2 classes at level 1 which still makes you a level 1 character, and just as powerful as anyone else your level).

Yeah, it's made up. In the same way that taking the tomato off of a BLT makes the resulting Bacon and Lettuce sandwhich made up.


Yes, that is the fallacy I was thinking of! I agree it probably doesn't apply here, but I have seen it apply lately elsewhere on the boards.

You don't know the name either I'm assuming?
I think it's Oberoni fallacy, but I don't know. I don't really follow the fallacies trend.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 01:50 PM
It's not Oberoni, stormwind, or AK/paladin, for sure.

Jack Zander
2008-05-22, 01:53 PM
Yeah, it's made up. In the same way that taking the tomato off of a BLT makes the resulting Bacon and Lettuce sandwhich made up.

I don't believe that is a proper analogy.

I'm not removing anything from the 1st level mulitclass rules to get to the 0 level rules, because you can't. If you tried to do that you'd have only half of a character (namely hp, and 1 ability/spell with no skill points or something bizarre).

Also, a bacon and lettuce sandwich is made up. Go to a restaurant and find one on the menu for me. Sure I can make one, but that doesn't mean it formally exists.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-22, 02:02 PM
Every time I see "Oberoni" I think... Old Bologne... and in my head, an Old Bologne fallacy is one that... no matter the evidence presented... your idea is bad.

:smalltongue:

Starsinger
2008-05-22, 02:03 PM
I don't believe that is a proper analogy.

I'm not removing anything from the 1st level mulitclass rules to get to the 0 level rules, because you can't. If you tried to do that you'd have only half of a character (namely hp, and 1 ability/spell with no skill points or something bizarre).

Also, a bacon and lettuce sandwich is made up. Go to a restaurant and find one on the menu for me. Sure I can make one, but that doesn't mean it formally exists.

It may not be proper but it works.

Uhh... the point of level 0 is that you're not a whole level 1 character. Y'know 0 < 1. So yes, half a character would be what we're after.

"I'd like a BLT without Tomato." As for it not formally existing, do you need WotC to hold your hand and say it's acceptable for you to do something with D&D? You want something which does not formally exist, so you take something which does exist and is close to what you want and you change it.


Every time I see "Oberoni" I think... Old Bologne... and in my head, an Old Bologne fallacy is one that... no matter the evidence presented... your idea is bad.

:smalltongue:

Me too, Sam. Me too.

Duke of URL
2008-05-22, 02:03 PM
"It doesn't do what I want!" Is not exactly a problem in the rules as long as it does what it set out to do.

Perhaps not, but "it doesn't allow you to do what all previous versions of the same game do" is a problem in the rules if you're seeking to retain your player base.

Justin_Bacon
2008-05-22, 02:16 PM
DnD 4th Edition does not begin with the same premise as 3rd Edition. The internal consistency and paradigm of verisimilitude has shifted from one where the players are playing normal people in a High Fantasy world where everyone and everything plays by the same rules to one where everyone is playing with one set of rules and the players are using another. This may seem bad for internal consistency, but it is not.

The premise of 4E is that the PCs are extraordinary individuals; why else would they have better abilities and different rules from the NPCs? They are not normal people in a normal world. They are the Beowulf, Achilles, Jason, Samson, Gilgamesh, Cuchulain, etc. of their world. This is heroic fantasy, rather than high fantasy. If you want gritty real-world approximations, look elsewhere; that has never been what DnD is about.

Hang on a second, let's track your thesis here:

(1) The premise of 4th Edition is different than the premise of 3rd Edition.
(2) D&D has always been about the premise of 4th Edition.

... have you spotted the glaring hole in your logic, yet?

The reality is that the PCs in a D&D game have always been a cut above the rest of society. They start slightly better than the average commoner at 1st level and then rapidly become heroes before transitioning into full-blown demigods.

So the thesis that the dissociated mechanics of 4th Edition (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05.html#20080514b) are required to make the PCs special rings a little hollow in my ears.

Besides which, I've never heard anyone say, "Man, I hate 4th Edition because it lets the PCs be more powerful than the average guy on the street."

So this entire thread would seem to be dedicated towards beating the crap out of a strawman.

Thinker
2008-05-22, 02:52 PM
Mechanically, or storywise? Because there's nothing stopping you from saying your character was like that, and has earned his way up the ropes.. but we don't know of mechanics for it to /start/ there.

Also why did a thread on one person's opinion on 4e need to get a specific thread? ._.

Sorry, I didn't think my random ramblings fit in another ongoing 4e thread.


Hang on a second, let's track your thesis here:

(1) The premise of 4th Edition is different than the premise of 3rd Edition.
(2) D&D has always been about the premise of 4th Edition.

... have you spotted the glaring hole in your logic, yet?

I have generally respected your point of view on things and I appreciate your reply. (1) The premise of 4th Edition is different from the premise of 3rd edition. (2) Neither 3rd Edition, nor 4th Edition (or any other edition) are intended to simulate gritty reality. They are similar in that they both portray a type of fantasy, simply not the same type.



The reality is that the PCs in a D&D game have always been a cut above the rest of society. They start slightly better than the average commoner at 1st level and then rapidly become heroes before transitioning into full-blown demigods.
They have been a cut above in previous editions, but only a marginal cut above. Here they are a cut above by a significant margin to begin with (based on the mechanics I've seen). The biggest difference is that in 3e the plot revolves around these people, which makes them special and in 4e the plot revolves around these people because they already are special.

No one will confuse Barbarian Joe with another savage of his tribe. He is just plain better than them without having to do anything.



So the thesis that the dissociated mechanics of 4th Edition (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05.html#20080514b) are required to make the PCs special rings a little hollow in my ears.

Besides which, I've never heard anyone say, "Man, I hate 4th Edition because it lets the PCs be more powerful than the average guy on the street."

So this entire thread would seem to be dedicated towards beating the crap out of a strawman.
The mechanics alter the way a world would work. I simply feel that 4e lends itself better to heroic fantasy, rather than high fantasy. I could have said this at the beginning, but that's hardly room for a thread. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy my tangents and am glad you found another place to plug your website.

Edea
2008-05-22, 03:25 PM
All I know, is that Fly is now a Level 16 Utility power (even more importantly, a 1/day utility power) that lasts for a grand total of five minutes (and eats up all of your minor actions), and Greater Invisibility (also level 16) really isn't even "Greater" anymore (it is, literally, more like the normal Invisibility spell from 3.5).

The rest of this is a foaming rant, and not an argument at all (as in, I'm being -very- opinionated and ungrounded in what may or may not be actual fact; I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me), so I'll spoiler it :P.


Wizards in 4E might as well be called Warmages. They got raped, and I'm not the least bit happy about it. The solution is obviously "then don't play 4.0," but see, WotC recently did a little legal muscle display called "either get rid of your OGL rights and convert to 4.0, or keep them and stay the hell away from D&D in 4.0 or any future incarnation" for all the other gaming companies in this particular niche (e.g. Paizo, etc.). So no, I believe you're not going to be able to continue getting 3.5 goodies/support, from anybody with any backing in the matter whatsoever. I also don't think it's as simple as "don't play it" anymore. Hasbro is closing the doors...forcefully.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's bad game design; in fact, 4E probably does wonders for "The Balance," and most see this as a -good- thing. Not everybody takes death very well when it isn't a TPK (we did, but we /= everybody). But for me, personally, the way powers are handled (especially wizard spells, and yes I love wizards) is a major turn-off.

What about Magic Jar? Disintegrate? Maze? Power Word, Kill? Wish? Geas? Hell, even Charm spells are merely flavored Evocations now; they do some psychic-elemental damage, and a one-turn change in battle condition. Or what about things like Fabricate, Animate Dead, Gaseous Form, Rope Trick; Jesus, even Prestidigitation? I LIKED variable spell durations, dammit >:/. And I liked the fact that a house cat could kill you at 1st level! I laughed my ass off when that actually happened to me as a sorc (and they were my cats, incidentally XD).

Keep in mind that by level 20, no matter what class you are, you only have [P, 17, 13, 7][P, 19, 15, 9][P, 16, 10, 6, 2], or 4/4/5 = 13 non-at will powers (barring racial bull****, and even then that's only going to be one more power). That's about as bad as a Warlock 20 from 3.5 (treating his eldritch blast as, surprise!, the at-will power equivalent) where we got CONSTANT complaints that they weren't very versatile (I ain't gonna link to 'em, I already said I was raving, here). To top that off, the Magic Item section ain't fit to impress as far as giving more abilities are concerned, unlike in 3.5 (frankly, I like being saturated with magic items to the point where I'm a walking djinni bazaar, but that's just me).

Now, nine of those powers in 4.0 are only once per day. NOT once per day---but lasts all day; more like once per day---and lasts...well, see the above fly spell comment, and actually fly is pretty long-lasting for a daily power.

OK, Mr. 3.5 Warlock 20? He can use all 12 of his powers whenever he damn well pleases. No wonder a freakin' flying carpet is now virtually an epic magic item :/. A flying carpet! Its price went from ~20,000 to ~600,000! That's crazy. But hey, at least now you're in the air for longer than five minutes. -That's- my epic destiny, man! CARPET WIZARD!

Is anything remotely akin to "you'd better save, and save the first time, or you're ****ed" going to be cut out? Even SLEEP is once per day. Good Lord. And don't even get me started on 'healing surges.' "I have a deep axe wound in my skull, so I'm going to use my standard action this round to masturbate, and make it vanish!" I can do that more than once per encounter even without a Cleric helping me (ewww :D). At least in 3.5 you can blame magic use for gross inconsistencies between healing and wound severity. Oh, and Clerics! NO balls, whatsoever. I pity anybody who has to play that wretched thing the way they have it written in the preview. Healbitch express, all aboard!

Y'know something, I bet 4.0 is ready-made to literally be coded into an MMO or computer game by someone who simply takes the rules as printed, and writes them into the program without any alterations at all; I'm deathly serious about that. You can't do that with 1st, AD&D, or 3E. They tried! I've played Baldur's Gate, I KNOW they've tried, but oy-VEY was it awful, and yes the emotional scars from the experience have healed over now. I feel like WotC is helping me suck my own thumb and getting paid to do it. I feel violated.

Did anyone notice a distinct loss of humor in the way the game's presented? Every one of the pictures in the PPH reeks of emo/serious. What's with all the raised cheekbones? Did Steven Segal suddenly go elf or something?

Also, anyone thinking you don't need a grid for 4.0 is LOONEY TUNES! Did you SEE all of the powers in the PPH that basically say "Damage and move this many squares?" Like, every other power listed! Without a grid, that'd be a freakin' bookkeeping nightmare, especially with umpteen bazillion kobold minions running around like wild animals.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-22, 03:48 PM
All I know, is that Fly is now a Level 16 Utility power (even more importantly, a 1/day utility power) that lasts for a grand total of five minutes (and eats up all of your minor actions), and Greater Invisibility (also level 16) really isn't even "Greater" anymore (it is, literally, more like the normal Invisibility spell from 3.5).
You mean, wizards can't negate virtually all environmental hazards and 80% enemies* as a threat from level 5 on, anymore? OH NOES. HOWEVER WILL WE LIVE.
*Percentage decreases steadily as you go up in level.


Wizards in 4E might as well be called Warmages. They got raped, and I'm not the least bit happy about it.
Except even at level 1, the daily power we've seen is Sleep, not Explode, and at least one of their at-wills controls the enemy (we haven't seen the other 2). Yes, wizards have lost the ability to do anything and everything with spells. Sorry, but 3E wizards had it way too good.


What about Magic Jar? Disintegrate? Maze? Power Word, Kill? Wish? Geas? Hell, even Charm spells are merely flavored Evocations now; they do some psychic-elemental damage, and a one-turn change in battle condition. Or what about things like Fabricate, Animate Dead, Gaseous Form, Rope Trick; Jesus, even Prestidigitation? I LIKED variable spell durations, dammit >:/.
The DDXP sample wizard had Light, Mage Hand, and Ghost Sound at will; Prestidigitation may also be an option, or it might not.

But Magic Jar? Who plays with that? The spell is fundamentally broken.
What even Happens when you Chain it?

Disintegrate could still be in. Fundamentally, it just does a buttload of damage with some utility. Keep the utility function and have it do damage in line with other powers of the level. Easy. Maze? Well, there's no more "no-save win" spells, so, no.
Power Word Kill: either your enemy dies, no save, or it does nothing. Wooooooooo? If it's still around, it'll probably just KO them for a while (save ends?) which is still really valuable. It's just not, you know, a one-spell win.

Things like Fabricate, Animate Dead (out, I think), Rope Trick, etc. are rituals.

Keep in mind we know very little about what high-level powers look like, too.


Keep in mind that by level 20, no matter what class you are, you only have [P, 17, 13, 7][P, 19, 15, 9][P, 16, 10, 6, 2], or 4/4/5 = 13 non-at will powers (barring racial bull****, and even then that's only going to be one more power). That's about as bad as a Warlock 20 from 3.5 (treating his eldritch blast as, surprise!, the at-will power equivalent) where we got CONSTANT complaints that they weren't very versatile (I ain't gonna link to 'em, I already said I was raving, here). To top that off, the Magic Item section ain't fit to impress as far as giving more abilities are concerned, unlike in 3.5 (frankly, I like being saturated with magic items to the point where I'm a walking djinni bazaar, but that's just me).
On the upside, the Fighter now has as many options, instead of being limited to "hit it" and "trip it". One set of classes getting 90% of the options was never a very good idea.

Sorry if you liked the Christmas Tree Effect, but the fact that magic items made such a huge difference in character abilities--they added whole new sets of capabilities to non-spellcasting characters--was one of the least liked things about 3E in general. Items now let your character do what they do better, by and large, rather than letting them do whole new things. Their abilities are what gets them by, not the Boots of Win and the Hat of Hax.

Now, nine of those powers in 4.0 are only once per day. NOT once per day---but lasts all day; more like once per day---and lasts...well, see the above fly spell comment, and actually fly is pretty long-lasting for a daily power.


Is anything remotely akin to "you'd better save, and save the first time, or you're ****ed" going to be cut out? Even SLEEP is once per day. Good Lord.
Yes. Absolutely everything with "fail a save and you're dead/effectively dead" is out... because it's a really bad mechanic.

Look, here's the thing: 3E wizards need toning down. They are Way Too Good. Killing a monster on a failed save--a save it's gonna fail like 40-50% of the time--is really pretty damn unreasonable for something you can do many times a day.


And don't even get me started on 'healing surges.' "I have a deep axe wound in my skull, so I'm going to use my standard action this round to masturbate, and make it vanish!" I can do that more than once per encounter even without a Cleric helping me (ewww :D).
If you have a deep axe wound in your skull, you're dead, not "down some HP". HP does not mean skull wounds.
You can use a healing surge on your own once/encounter.


At least in 3.5 you can blame magic use for gross inconsistencies between healing and wound severity. Oh, and Clerics! NO balls, whatsoever. I pity anybody who has to play that wretched thing the way they have it written in the preview. Healbitch express, all aboard!
Healing, buffing *while hurting the enemy*.... what did your level 1 clerics do in 3E? Oh, that's right, cast Bless. Then swing at the enemy a bit. Or better yet not cast bless, since their Cure Light was so much more valuable than everything else.
Also, we haven't seen the clerics other power options yet. Paladins already have "Charisma vs." powers, so I bet the clerics have a "Strength vs AC" set of powers.


Y'know something, I bet 4.0 is ready-made to literally be coded into an MMO or computer game by someone who simply takes the rules as printed, and writes them into the program without any alterations at all; I'm deathly serious about that. You can't do that with 1st, AD&D, or 3E. They tried!
Ahh, yes. "Zomg, it's a morepig!" Next.


I've played Baldur's Gate, I KNOW they've tried, but oy-VEY was it awful, and yes the emotional scars from the experience have healed over now. I feel like WotC is helping me suck my own thumb and getting paid to do it. I feel violated.
Whaaaat? Baldur's Gate was great. If you didn't like it, you're in a serious minority.


Also, anyone thinking you don't need a grid for 4.0 is LOONEY TUNES! Did you SEE all of the powers in the PPH that basically say "Damage and move this many squares?" Like, every other power listed! Without a grid, that'd be a freakin' bookkeeping nightmare, especially with umpteen bazillion kobold minions running around like wild animals.

It's about the same as running a mage throwing AoEs and a fighter with reach + AoOs in 3E. That is to say, yes, you should have a grid--but that's how the game's been.


Look, wizards had it way too good in 3E. It's thoroughly unreasonable to have the wizard be able to do anything he wants and the melee guys just hit and trip things. Playing a wizard might be a little less fun, comparatively speaking, if you can't deal with not having 3E style ultimate power (somehow, I think I'll manage)... but on the other hand, playing almos anything else is going to be better.

Edea
2008-05-22, 03:55 PM
Aww, no way! Baldur's Gate BLEW :O. It was basically pick Ysuran, cast Haste, thwack things to death.

The once/encounter thing with healing surges was a joke. Otherwise, yeah, I must be suffering from wizard withdrawal :(. I really do hope a full PHB release has more stuff in it for some of these guys.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 04:04 PM
...You're in total minority. Take that back before my Kensai smacks you with the powered up Celestial Fury and Judgement Day, the modded-in Infinity +6 Sword of Doom.


Especially if you speak of BGII, which was roxx0rz on toast.

Edea
2008-05-22, 04:09 PM
Nay, my frosty acid-spewing +Graham's Number quarterstaff of vampiric destruction refuses to acknowledge the praises heaped upon this game!

I DO remember liking the frost weapons a lot, though, to be honest. One thing I LOVE about 4.0 is fixed experience points; I despised the CR system.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 04:12 PM
Nay, my frosty acid-spewing +Graham's Number quarterstaff of vampiric destruction refuses to acknowledge the praises heaped upon this game!

I DO remember liking the frost weapons a lot, though, to be honest. One thing I LOVE about 4.0 is fixed experience points; I despised the CR system.

But WHAT could you possibly don't like? That they couldn't make a carbon copy of the 2ed mechanics? Because the story was truly awesome. And the banter incredible, particularly if you go for the eyes.

ShadowSiege
2008-05-22, 04:19 PM
All I know, is that Fly is now a Level 16 Utility power (even more importantly, a 1/day utility power) that lasts for a grand total of five minutes (and eats up all of your minor actions), and Greater Invisibility (also level 16) really isn't even "Greater" anymore (it is, literally, more like the normal Invisibility spell from 3.5).

All in the name of balance. Sorry you can't go flying around while invisible indirectly blasting the crap out of everyone at 7th level anymore.


The rest of this is a foaming rant, and not an argument at all (as in, I'm being -very- opinionated and ungrounded in what may or may not be actual fact; I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me), so I'll spoiler it :P.

I'm still at liberty to dissect it, regardless, which I'll do presently.


Wizards in 4E might as well be called Warmages. They got raped, and I'm not the least bit happy about it.

They got toned down from the I WIN class, that if played in a certain way would negate the need for a party. I'll be covering this more later.


The solution is obviously "then don't play 4.0," but see, WotC recently did a little legal muscle display called "either get rid of your OGL rights and convert to 4.0, or keep them and stay the hell away from D&D in 4.0 or any future incarnation" for all the other gaming companies in this particular niche (e.g. Paizo, etc.). So no, I believe you're not going to be able to continue getting 3.5 goodies/support, from anybody with any backing in the matter whatsoever. I also don't think it's as simple as "don't play it" anymore. Hasbro is closing the doors...forcefully.

Actually, no. They clarified this. You can still publish both 3.x and 4e products, but you can't publish information for both systems in the same book. Example: You can publish a book of new classes for 3.x, and you can publish a book of new classes for 4e, but you can't publish a book containing new classes for both 3.x and 4e. I seem to recall that being the gist of it, but am too admittedly lazy to fact check this as I know someone will do it for me.


Anyway, I'm not saying it's bad game design; in fact, 4E probably does wonders for "The Balance," and most see this as a -good- thing. Not everybody takes death very well when it isn't a TPK (we did, but we /= everybody). But for me, personally, the way powers are handled (especially wizard spells, and yes I love wizards) is a major turn-off.

Well, that's your opinion. You liked wizards to be I WIN, lots of people didn't, and others think the change is for the best.


What about Magic Jar? Disintegrate? Maze? Power Word, Kill? Wish? Geas? Hell, even Charm spells are merely flavored Evocations now; they do some psychic-elemental damage, and a one-turn change in battle condition. Or what about things like Fabricate, Animate Dead, Gaseous Form, Rope Trick; Jesus, even Prestidigitation? I LIKED variable spell durations, dammit >:/. And I liked the fact that a house cat could kill you at 1st level! I laughed my ass off when that actually happened to me as a sorc (and they were my cats, incidentally XD).

The first group you mentioned reduced combat to a single casting and save. Hardly interesting. Save-or-Die spells are mostly gone because they can trivialize entire encounters. Fabricate, animate dead, etc might be rituals. We haven't seen... well, like any of those. House cats killing adventurers are absurd. It's a symptom of the ultra-lethality at first level in 3.x. You may like that, many don't like having to roll up a new character because that orc got a lucky crit with its greataxe.


... To top that off, the Magic Item section ain't fit to impress as far as giving more abilities are concerned, unlike in 3.5 (frankly, I like being saturated with magic items to the point where I'm a walking djinni bazaar, but that's just me).

3.x had the issue of your magic items being more important than your class. Class should be what defines you, not how much you spent at the magic bazaar or how lucky you got while slaying dragons and taking their stuff.


Is anything remotely akin to "you'd better save, and save the first time, or you're ****ed" going to be cut out? Even SLEEP is once per day.

Save or dies are uninteresting. They're not fun when you get killed immediately because you failed on one of the beholders 10 eye rays of doom, and it's no fun for a wizard to trivialize the encounter, denying everyone else a chance at a moment in the spotlight. They're additionally frustrating to a DM who may have spent a good long time creating that NPC that you just vaporized/soul sucked/dimensionally trapped


Good Lord. And don't even get me started on 'healing surges.' "I have a deep axe wound in my skull, so I'm going to use my standard action this round to masturbate, and make it vanish!" I can do that more than once per encounter even without a Cleric helping me (ewww :D). At least in 3.5 you can blame magic use for gross inconsistencies between healing and wound severity. Oh, and Clerics! NO balls, whatsoever. I pity anybody who has to play that wretched thing the way they have it written in the preview. Healbitch express, all aboard!

Maybe you shouldn't be describing every wound as one that is supremely lethal. HP is terribly abstract, as has been covered countless times before. As for clerics, some have said that playing a cleric is awesome, others have said contrary, and the first group says that the second group was playing them wrong. And they can hardly be considered pure healers anymore.


Y'know something, I bet 4.0 is ready-made to literally be coded into an MMO or computer game by someone who simply takes the rules as printed, and writes them into the program without any alterations at all; I'm deathly serious about that. You can't do that with 1st, AD&D, or 3E. They tried! I've played Baldur's Gate, I KNOW they've tried, but oy-VEY was it awful, and yes the emotional scars from the experience have healed over now. I feel like WotC is helping me suck my own thumb and getting paid to do it. I feel violated.

You lose for making the 4e = MOREPIG comparison. It's pretty much become a Godwin's Law thing, except comparing 4e to a MOREPIG instead of comparing someone to a nazi. And Baldur's Gate is loved by many. Then again, your taste in games is called into question when you are named after a bad character from a bad game in now-generally-bad series.


Did anyone notice a distinct loss of humor in the way the game's presented? Every one of the pictures in the PPH reeks of emo/serious. What's with all the raised cheekbones? Did Steven Segal suddenly go elf or something?

Predictably, the previews are more about generating hype, so they'll be primarily based around "CHECK OUT HOW AWESOME THIS IS!" than tongue-in-cheek humor.


Also, anyone thinking you don't need a grid for 4.0 is LOONEY TUNES! Did you SEE all of the powers in the PPH that basically say "Damage and move this many squares?" Like, every other power listed! Without a grid, that'd be a freakin' bookkeeping nightmare, especially with umpteen bazillion kobold minions running around like wild animals.


Many people already use grids. And squares is easily converted to 5' per square. Or ~1.5m if you're using the metric system. Combat is meant to be among more numerous combatants in 4e as single opponents often wind up getting surrounded and ganked to hell. Many people also find more opponents = more fun as long as it isn't a TPK.

In closing, I'd just like to curse Reel for ninja'ing my response in almost the exact same manner.

Edea
2008-05-22, 04:21 PM
Actually, I think it was mostly my getting pissed off at some of the bosses.


That green dragon in the barbarian's special quest? Yeah, **** that! The mind flayer was made of awesome, though.


I do own the game, maybe I'll give it another spin and see if I like it any more this time. As for 4e, again I'd bet this is probably mostly not knowing enough yet; watch the actual PHB come out with lots of scary combat options that are nowhere near "You hit for 2[W] + Wisdom modifier and knock the foe back three squares."

And Reel On did a MUCH better job at replying than ShadowSeige :/. The game preference comment was entirely unnecessary.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 04:24 PM
All in the name of balance. Sorry you can't go flying around while invisible indirectly blasting the crap out of everyone at 7th level anymore.



I'm still at liberty to dissect it, regardless, which I'll do presently.



They got toned down from the I WIN class, that if played in a certain way would negate the need for a party. I'll be covering this more later.



Actually, no. They clarified this. You can still publish both 3.x and 4e products, but you can't publish information for both systems in the same book. Example: You can publish a book of new classes for 3.x, and you can publish a book of new classes for 4e, but you can't publish a book containing new classes for both 3.x and 4e. I seem to recall that being the gist of it, but am too admittedly lazy to fact check this as I know someone will do it for me.



Well, that's your opinion. You liked wizards to be I WIN, lots of people didn't, and others think the change is for the best.



The first group you mentioned reduced combat to a single casting and save. Hardly interesting. Save-or-Die spells are mostly gone because they can trivialize entire encounters. Fabricate, animate dead, etc might be rituals. We haven't seen... well, like any of those. House cats killing adventurers are absurd. It's a symptom of the ultra-lethality at first level in 3.x. You may like that, many don't like having to roll up a new character because that orc got a lucky crit with its greataxe.



3.x had the issue of your magic items being more important than your class. Class should be what defines you, not how much you spent at the magic bazaar or how lucky you got while slaying dragons and taking their stuff.



Save or dies are uninteresting. They're not fun when you get killed immediately because you failed on one of the beholders 10 eye rays of doom, and it's no fun for a wizard to trivialize the encounter, denying everyone else a chance at a moment in the spotlight. They're additionally frustrating to a DM who may have spent a good long time creating that NPC that you just vaporized/soul sucked/dimensionally trapped



Maybe you shouldn't be describing every wound as one that is supremely lethal. HP is terribly abstract, as has been covered countless times before. As for clerics, some have said that playing a cleric is awesome, others have said contrary, and the first group says that the second group was playing them wrong. And they can hardly be considered pure healers anymore.



You lose for making the 4e = MOREPIG comparison. It's pretty much become a Godwin's Law thing, except comparing 4e to a MOREPIG instead of comparing someone to a nazi. And Baldur's Gate is loved by many. Then again, your taste in games is called into question when you are named after a bad character from a bad game in now-generally-bad series.



Predictably, the previews are more about generating hype, so they'll be primarily based around "CHECK OUT HOW AWESOME THIS IS!" than tongue-in-cheek humor.



Many people already use grids. And squares is easily converted to 5' per square. Or ~1.5m if you're using the metric system. Combat is meant to be among more numerous combatants in 4e as single opponents often wind up getting surrounded and ganked to hell. Many people also find more opponents = more fun as long as it isn't a TPK.

In closing, I'd just like to curse Reel for ninja'ing my response in almost the exact same manner.

+1'ed on most things, but take that back on FF. 8 Was the best installment in the franchise, and the series was excellent until the arrival of fetishpheres.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-22, 04:27 PM
I do own the game, maybe I'll give it another spin and see if I like it any more this time. As for 4e, again I'd bet this is probably mostly not knowing enough yet; watch the actual PHB come out with lots of scary combat options that are nowhere near "You hit for 2[W] + Wisdom modifier and knock the foe back three squares."
I suspect the PHB will include the rest of the level 1 powers and all of the non-level-1 powers, yeah.

I mean, what do you want level 1 powers to do, anyway?

I'm pretty damn sure "Attack vs. will, hit: they die" is not going to be included, though. And that's good.

Edea
2008-05-22, 04:30 PM
What, not even at epic destiny level? :(

Animefunkmaster
2008-05-22, 04:31 PM
In 3.5 you're a shmuck off of the streets who decided to kill goblins one day and after like, a week of that you hit level 10.

This largely depends on your dm. Don't get me wrong, PCs and NPCs have generally had different rules even in 3.5. But to say that one is better than the other by virtue of your past 3.5 campaign experience and speculation of what future 4e experience is flawed.

I feel it is a reasonable opinion that many dms from 3.5 will be dming for 4e.

ShadowSiege
2008-05-22, 04:49 PM
+1'ed on most things, but take that back on FF. 8 Was the best installment in the franchise, and the series was excellent until the arrival of fetishpheres.

10 was definitely the ultimate fail, especially the ending that made me hate the game completely and utterly. (HIGH FIVE! *deletes save game*). 9 was supposedly good but I never played it. As for 8, we'll just have to disagree. Games prior to 8 were indeed excellent though.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 04:51 PM
Meh, personally, I think 8 was like a refined 7, in that it didn't have bishies, the protagonist was like Cloud but more badass and didn't go emo, and the Lionheart sword and limit break one upped the Ultimate Weapon and Ominslash. Not to mention Eden is cooler than Knights of the Round, and the junction system was very creative.

Starsinger
2008-05-22, 04:53 PM
"I have a deep axe wound in my skull, so I'm going to use my standard action this round to masturbate, and make it vanish!"

Obligatory lay on hands joke.

Ifni
2008-05-22, 04:53 PM
Except even at level 1, the daily power we've seen is Sleep, not Explode, and at least one of their at-wills controls the enemy (we haven't seen the other 2).

The wizard dailies I've seen are Sleep (slow the target, 50% chance to fall asleep if you beat their Will defence) and Acid Arrow (ongoing damage). The encounter power I've seen is Force Orb (area damage). The at-will powers I've seen are Magic Missile (single-target damage), Scorching Burst (area damage), and Ray of Frost (single-target slow + damage). There's a little bit of save-or-take-penalties in there, but most of it is just damage-dealing, and there's nothing remotely like 3.5 battlefield control.


Yes, wizards have lost the ability to do anything and everything with spells. Sorry, but 3E wizards had it way too good.

It does mean that me and my friends whose favorite 3.5 characters were arcanists probably aren't going to switch to 4e, though. We may just keep doing what we're doing at the moment, playing our wizards/sorcerers in a group, and bringing in other characters (most of us also have high-level melee types or archers, I have a cleric as well - all played starting from L1 and currently L14-16) when we just want to roll dice and kill things, or when we want a change from arcane magic.


Things like Fabricate, Animate Dead (out, I think), Rope Trick, etc. are rituals.

Which means they cost money. That's one of the things I'm unhappy about: it seems it'll be very hard to make a character like my current 3.5 sorcerer who uses magic in a hundred different ways in her daily life.


Keep in mind we know very little about what high-level powers look like, too.

We have seen a two-page spread of wizard L13-16 powers, and the utility powers in there were pretty severely powered down (as Edea mentioned).


On the upside, the Fighter now has as many options, instead of being limited to "hit it" and "trip it". One set of classes getting 90% of the options was never a very good idea.

I'm not so sure that's true. Different players seem to like different amounts of complexity/versatility in their characters, it's not always "more is better". 3.5 can cater to someone who wants to have 50 different options for their standard action every round, and 50 more for their swift action, and the ability to change those options around on a day-to-day basis; it can also cater to someone who just wants to roll dice and watch the monsters fall down. In my experience of 3.5 (mostly RPGA play), the former tend to play spellcasters, and the latter tend to play archers or melee types - and both groups have fun with it. In fact, in most of the Living Greyhawk games I've played, it's much harder to find high-level spellcasters of any stripe than it is to find melee bruisers: a lot of people seem to like playing bashers. While I hope 4e will cater to both ends of the spectrum, it's hard to see how.

I tend to enjoy the more tactically complex characters (my favorite 3.5 character is a metamagic-focused sorcerer with more tactical versatility than any of her wizard friends), but I also have a L14 dervish who's great to play when I'm tired or just don't feel like playing "the battlefield is my chessboard" - the right thing for him to do in 99% of combats is "I dervish dance, click my boots of speed, full attack", so I don't need to spend time trying to figure out the best tactical combination. He gets to dance around the battlefield as a whirlwind of death, leaping and tumbling past his foes, and doing 300+ damage/round, and the only decisions I need to make are how much to power attack for and where he ends his move.

I have a friend who played a sorcerer at one point, but she didn't really seem to enjoy it: her other characters are all melee types, and her favorite seems to be Grog the half-orc barbarian/fighter, who does roughly as much damage as the aforementioned dervish and has a lot more hit points. He's the raging colossus who charges recklessly into the fray, laying about with his spiked chain and smashing foes down in a welter of blood and gore. I don't think she wants a greater diversity of options for that character.

Starsinger
2008-05-22, 04:55 PM
8 Was the best installment in the franchise,

I... what? :smallconfused:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 04:55 PM
Obligatory lay on hands joke.


Oneupmanship:

Monk: "Hey guys, I finally found a job!" *Does a flurry of blows.*

Edea
2008-05-22, 04:58 PM
LOL, just no Lucubration jokes please :(

Starsinger
2008-05-22, 05:00 PM
LOL, just no Lucubration jokes please :(

That wizard spell that let you cast another low level spell.. I seriously thought it was called Mordenkainen's Lubrication.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 05:01 PM
Do we get Grease jokes (Including one with "You're the one that I want") and fun with Simulacrum?

Or the immortal Nolzur's magnificent pigment animated Succubus monk used as a bargaining chip to convince DM's to go your way?

Edea
2008-05-22, 05:04 PM
Y'know, the Archmage paragon path for wizards DOES get a Lucubration-ish ability to recall spells o_O. PERVERSION!

Really though, I want a Carpet Wizard epic destiny, too awesome :D.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-22, 05:05 PM
The wizard dailies I've seen are Sleep (slow the target, 50% chance to fall asleep if you beat their Will defence) and Acid Arrow (ongoing damage). The encounter power I've seen is Force Orb (area damage). The at-will powers I've seen are Magic Missile (single-target damage), Scorching Burst (area damage), and Ray of Frost (single-target slow + damage). There's a little bit of save-or-take-penalties in there, but most of it is just damage-dealing, and there's nothing remotely like 3.5 battlefield control.
There are two other at-wills, presumably some other. Area damage is more important now thanks to more multi-monster encounters, which is probably why the sample ones have force-orb; we haven't seen any other encounters.

But Sleep makes them fall asleep if you beat their Will defense. They make the save at the end of their round, at which point they have a 50% chance to wake up. And your party members can move up and eviscerate them as they sleep (presumably unconscious targets get autocritted). That's serious business.


It does mean that me and my friends whose favorite 3.5 characters were wizards probably aren't going to switch to 4e, though. We may just keep doing what we're doing at the moment, playing our wizards in a group, and bringing in other characters (most of us also have high-level melee types or archers, I have a cleric as well - all played starting from L1 and currently L14-16) when we just want to roll dice and kill things, or when we want a change from arcane magic.
I like playing spellcasters, too, but I don't like playing only spellcasters. Tome of battle made melee interesting again. 4e's continuing the trend. Just because your character doesn't have the options of the wizard's huge and super-powered spell list doesn't mean he doesn't still have plenty of tactical options.


Which means they cost money. That's one of the things I'm unhappy about: it seems it'll be very hard to make a character like my current 3.5 sorcerer who uses magic in a hundred different ways in her daily life.
Rituals costing money isn't my favorite thing about the game, but I can't really think of a better way to do it. Besides, low-level rituals are cheap. This just gives your sorcerer a cause to adventure--to fund her ritual-heavy lifestyle.


We have seen a two-page spread of wizard L13-16 powers, and the utility powers in there were pretty severely powered down (as Edea mentioned).
Yes, because utility powers were way too good before. The wizard hits level 9 and learns Overland Flight. That alone pretty much negates how many potential threats?

Someone who wants to keep it simple will play something like a fighter and pick the powers that straight-up smash things, and unload them all whenever possible. Someone who wants to play tactically will pick synergistic powers, worry about tactically moving enemies into position, etc.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 05:08 PM
Y'know, the Archmage paragon path for wizards DOES get a Lucubration-ish ability to recall spells o_O. PERVERSION!

Really though, I want a Carpet Wizard epic destiny, too awesome :D.

Carpet Bombing
Daily
You throw 20 carpets at one foe of your choice. The foe dies instantly.

ShadowSiege
2008-05-22, 05:10 PM
Carpet Bombing
Daily
You throw 20 carpets at one foe of your choice. The foe dies instantly.

I just had a flashback to Worms Armageddon.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 05:12 PM
I just had a flashback to Worms Armageddon.

Oh, god...one of the druid's epic destinies MUST have the Super Banana Bomb and Mad Cows. And possibly the post office strike.

Inyssius Tor
2008-05-22, 05:14 PM
Which means they cost money. That's one of the things I'm unhappy about: it seems it'll be very hard to make a character like my current 3.5 sorcerer who uses magic in a hundred different ways in her daily life.

Erm, fabricate and animate dead cost (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fabricate.htm) money (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) in 3.5. A whole bunch of the now-probably-a-ritual spells did.

kc0bbq
2008-05-22, 05:18 PM
But Sleep makes them fall asleep if you beat their Will defense. They make the save at the end of their round, at which point they have a 50% chance to wake up. And your party members can move up and eviscerate them as they sleep (presumably unconscious targets get autocritted). That's serious business.Slight correction:

Sleep makes the target slowed. If you had hit they fall asleep if they fail their first save. On a miss they are still slowed until they save, they just don't pass out. It's a bit of a delayed effect.

Edea
2008-05-22, 05:22 PM
In fact, the Paragon Path and Epic Destiny system seems a lot like Seiken Densetsu 3's class change system. That's probably going to be a big homebrew topic: new PPs/EDs.

Also, when did the "morepig" substitute for MMORPG come in? I've only started seeing that recently.

illathid
2008-05-22, 05:23 PM
Actually, I think it was mostly my getting pissed off at some of the bosses.

That green dragon in the barbarian's special quest? Yeah, **** that! The mind flayer was made of awesome, though.



Wait... What?!?!?!

I don't remember any of that happening in Baldur's Gate 1 or 2.

*does some research*

Oh! Your talking about Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur%27s_Gate:_Dark_Alliance), which was released for the Playstation and other consoles (AKA not actually Baldur's Gate). I'm fairly sure everyone here is talking about the Baldur's Gate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur's_Gate) that was released for the PC.

You many now resume your regularly scheduled thread.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-22, 05:25 PM
In 3.5 heroes are made. In 4e heroes are born.

Yep. True. That's part of the reason I don't particularly like the direction the game is taking. I want my heroes made, not born. It's looking more and more like 4e isn't even giving me a mechanic for playing that kind of game. At least in 3.5, if I wanted someone to be born awesome, I could slap a few templates on them or give them lots of stat boosts. An ugly option I grant you, but better than no option.



seconds PCs have plot protection. PCs fight level appropriate encounters and don't meet a Rakshasa who slaughters the lot of them. Versimilitude has already been thrown out the window.

That's a not a consequence of the system, it's a consequence of a DM style. I throw horribly level inappropriate encouters at my PC's sometimes. I expect them to flee, which they usually do, and award them xp for not getting killed.


3.0 & 3.5's answer: There is no answer to this question. The 3e rules for XP rewards go along the line of you getting rewards for overcoming challenges with dire consequences (such as getting killed, staying trapped in prison, someone else getting killed).


As I recall, the potential of a signifigant loss of wealth is a dire challenge in 3.x and the challenges scale with level. The town blacksmith, for example, should get xp when he makes his 'masters peice'. He should get xp anytime he is making something for someone such that if he does a bad job, he will lose business or fall into the lords disfavor. A dire challenge for a level 2 NPC is not the same kind or difficulty of challenge as for a PC.


Never heard of level 0, right? Or fluff?

Easy house rule... you dont have any powers, just basic melee and basic ranged attacks. Go.

Level 0... fluff... you mean houserules that aren't part of the games mechanics as published right? I feel like I'm singing the same refrain... Fixable by a houserule, even an easy one, does not a good mechanic make. It means the mechanic does not do what it was designed to do, or what the player wants it to do, at the start.


Something imaginary that people pretend actually exists in the rules so they can ignore legitimate concerns about the flaws in those rules, apparently.

If you have to homebrew a solution, then the rules are presenting a problem.

I knew there was a reason I worked with you. :smallwink:


I understand that... I just think that if people want to go out of the "intended rules" for the game system... they need to make the rules up themselves until the rules are presented to them in an official format.

Well, the critisim is that the system does not accomidate a large enough range of playstyles to make both you and Draz happy. That's a legitimate objection.


Personally, I don't understand the need to play "regular folk" in a fantasy game... Most regular folk are tending crops or running a store... there's no time for adventuring! Adventurers, on the other hand, aren't "regular folk"... they are heroes... the stuff of legends...

And that's just fine. 4e might be a very good system for your style of play. However, that it is doesn't mean that it accomidates a large enough range of play styles to make both you and Draz happy without resorting to changing the rules of the system or making them up from whole cloth. At which point, I must ask, why spend the $90?



Besides which, I've never heard anyone say, "Man, I hate 4th Edition because it lets the PCs be more powerful than the average guy on the street."


Well, there are folks, like me, who will say "I think I will probably dislike 4e when I see the mechanics because the default power differential bettween the average guy on the street and PC's is too great at lower levels."

Doesn't really have the same ring to it though...

Edea
2008-05-22, 05:25 PM
Ahhh, alrighty. Rephrase: Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II blew, imo. I have never played the original Baldur's Gate on the PC, but it sounds like I should :D.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 05:27 PM
Ahhh, alrighty. Rephrase: Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II blew, imo. I have never played the original Baldur's Gate on the PC, but it sounds like I should :D.

Indeed, they're made of Win and PWN. Really, just...get Minsc as a party member in BGII, and listen to the classic line of "Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!".

Draz74
2008-05-22, 05:32 PM
Thanks for +1-ing my opinions, AKA Bait ... although I repeat, I don't mind the "born heroes" flavor for more casual games.


Oh, god...one of the druid's epic destinies MUST have the Super Banana Bomb and Mad Cows. And possibly the post office strike.

You're forgetting the greatest weapon of all ...
CONCRETE DONKEY!

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 05:34 PM
Thanks for +1-ing my opinions, AKA Bait ... although I repeat, I don't mind the "born heroes" flavor for more casual games.



You're forgetting the greatest weapon of all ...
CONCRETE DONKEY!

PURGE THE HERETIC! WITH BANANABOMBS!

Or the prod into water!

Edea
2008-05-22, 05:42 PM
OK, NOW I'm looking forward to 4.0 somewhat. As long I get to make up some homebrew powers, PPs and EDs, I think I'll be happier about it. Not sure I'll actually buy the books, but I might at least give the gameplay a try in a group.

Heehee, I should make little 16-bit sprites for each of the classes and their different paths.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 05:49 PM
OK, NOW I'm looking forward to 4.0 somewhat. As long I get to make up some homebrew powers, PPs and EDs, I think I'll be happier about it. Not sure I'll actually buy the books, but I might at least give the gameplay a try in a group.

Heehee, I should make little 16-bit sprites for each of the classes and their different paths.

But it doesn't count if you don't use THE victory theme. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c2Vb7CqTdc)

Inyssius Tor
2008-05-22, 05:55 PM
Oh my god. Did someone just change their opinion? On the internet? I feel like I'm present at a full solar eclipse, or maybe the redemption of the Lightbringer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Wizardry)...

Also, that with the 16-bit sprites: awesome. I've been thinking that about the Tome of Battle for some time now.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-22, 05:56 PM
OK, NOW I'm looking forward to 4.0 somewhat. As long I get to make up some homebrew powers, PPs and EDs, I think I'll be happier about it. Not sure I'll actually buy the books, but I might at least give the gameplay a try in a group.


Homebrewing individual powers should be pretty easy. Each individual power can't be too hard to make, you've just gotta make enough of them.

Homebrew enough individual powers and a class feature, and you've just given a class a new "path". For example, I could make a "Rogue Tactics(Cunning Scoundrel)" option for the Rogue Tactics ability... let's say, it lets you do INT damage when you're attacked by a foe that you have combat advantage against... then make a power for each level (two for some) that fits the flavor--some of them will key off of you having Rogue Tactics(Cunning Scoundrel) and mesh with it by using your INT somehow.

Indon
2008-05-22, 05:57 PM
The wizard dailies I've seen are Sleep (slow the target, 50% chance to fall asleep if you beat their Will defence) and Acid Arrow (ongoing damage). The encounter power I've seen is Force Orb (area damage). The at-will powers I've seen are Magic Missile (single-target damage), Scorching Burst (area damage), and Ray of Frost (single-target slow + damage). There's a little bit of save-or-take-penalties in there, but most of it is just damage-dealing, and there's nothing remotely like 3.5 battlefield control.

Yeah, my view of the controller role is that it's not going to be all that interesting. Basically, it'll be damage with mild associated debuffing (kinda like Leader will be damage with mild associated buffing, and Defender is damage with mild associated tanking, and Striker is damage with extra associated damage).

I don't intend on using 4E in any game that I want class variety though, so it's all good.

Edea
2008-05-22, 07:09 PM
For controller effects, I would actually have them cause less, if -any-, damage, but then make the actual -control- aspect more significant. I will be AMAZED they don't release a version of Transmute Ground to Mud, or Web, or other things similar to those, because they scream controller.

Something like this?
============================
Obscuring Mist
Wizard Attack 13
You cause a slivery blue mist to descend upon the battlefield.
Encounter Power
Arcane, Conjuration, Implement
Standard Action
Range Varies (see Effect)
-------------
Effect (Zone (thanks, Starbuck :D)):
Fills up to 16 squares with mist. All squares must touch each other on
at least one side, and at least one square must be where the caster
is standing.
-------------
Special (Fortitude):
Attackers outside of the mist cannot see into (and do not have line of sight to) any of the covered squares. They also do not have line of sight to any square directly beyond a covered square, unless the attacker has a way to look over the mist (which has a height of 15 feet). Units on a covered square are considered blinded (save ends). The caster is immune to this effect. The mist is easy to walk through and does not directly convey any move penalty. (EDIT: When should the vapors dissipate?)

Starbuck_II
2008-05-22, 07:16 PM
Ahhh, alrighty. Rephrase: Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II blew, imo. I have never played the original Baldur's Gate on the PC, but it sounds like I should :D.

I wish I had Buldar's Gate 1 on PC too, but Buldar's Gate 2 Shadow of Amn + (expansion) PC is awesome.

I like that you can add Mods: so many tubular side quests.
It is cool.

I guess I could find the original on Amazon...

Edea: You should make it a Zone. That way Dispel magic can dispel it.

Yahzi
2008-05-22, 10:00 PM
The premise of 4E is that the PCs are extraordinary individuals; why else would they have better abilities and different rules from the NPCs?
What I've been saying all along.

The gulf between PCs - who have class levels and powers and personal relationships with the gods - and NPCs - who are indistinguishable from scenery - is now a core part of the rules.

It's always been implied in the setting. Only a "few" had what it took to rise out of obscurity to greatness. But now you don't even rise - you start out special. So special no ordinary person can ever hope to match you, no matter how hard they try.

:smallfurious:

Reel On, Love
2008-05-22, 10:05 PM
What I've been saying all along.

The gulf between PCs - who have class levels and powers and personal relationships with the gods - and NPCs - who are indistinguishable from scenery - is now a core part of the rules.
Hasn't it always been?

Why do you think the PCs roll 4d6 drop lowest, or use 32-point-buy, or etc, while NPCs use the elite array? Why do you think PCs gain levels so quickly? Why do you think the PCs have greater wealth-by-level?

Also, statements like "NPCs are now indistinguishable from scenery" make it really hard to take you seriously, because they're so obviously ridiculous.


It's always been implied in the setting. Only a "few" had what it took to rise out of obscurity to greatness. But now you don't even rise - you start out special. So special no ordinary person can ever hope to match you, no matter how hard they try.

:smallfurious:
Unless they have, I don't know... class levels or something.

(The lord of a town in Keep on the Shadowfell is a Warlord 3, for goodness' sake.)

Yahzi
2008-05-22, 10:24 PM
Also, statements like
Leaving aside all particulars: surely you agree that 4e is more, rather than less, PC-centric.

While 4e does appear to make creating encounters easier, I think it's making creating worlds harder. And it was already hard enough.

I think this is why people feel like it's becoming a computer game.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-22, 10:45 PM
Leaving aside all particulars: surely you agree that 4e is more, rather than less, PC-centric.
Not... really? Not very significantly, at any rate.


While 4e does appear to make creating encounters easier, I think it's making creating worlds harder. And it was already hard enough.
It was?
It does?

That's funny, I haven't noticed any problems. How does 4E make it harder for you to make a world?

If your "NPCS are indistinguishable from scenery", you have no one to blame but yourself. Blame your DMing skills, not the system.


I think this is why people feel like it's becoming a computer game.
And I think those people are just looking for a way to lash out. As long as there's a DM at the wheel, it's not a Vidya Game. SRSLY.

ShadowSiege
2008-05-22, 10:48 PM
*snip*

Rather than chance Reel responding first as I typed, I forewent my response and waited for him (it happens quite often and we wind up hitting the same points). I concur with Reel.

In his defense, at least Yahzi didn't go with the 4e = MOREPIG talking point, though he skirted the line with the computer game remark.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-22, 10:49 PM
Rather than chance Reel responding first as I typed, I forewent my response and waited for him (it happens quite often and we wind up hitting the same points). I concur with Reel.

In his defense, at least Yahzi didn't go with the 4e = MOREPIG talking point, though he skirted the line with the computer game remark.

I'm delighted to see "morepig" taking off.

Cuddly
2008-05-23, 12:50 AM
The rule design can already handle power differences: level differences. Such power differences can be judged at a glance.

You should check out a charop board sometime. Some people used to think weapon focus and fireball were good. Then it turned out the best sort of casters didn't evocate, and the best warriors took penalties to hit with power attack.

Levels don't mean a whole lot when it comes to disparities in class differences.

Oslecamo
2008-05-23, 03:02 AM
You should check out a charop board sometime. Some people used to think weapon focus and fireball were good. Then it turned out the best sort of casters didn't evocate, and the best warriors took penalties to hit with power attack.

Levels don't mean a whole lot when it comes to disparities in class differences.

Go read the Charop again. Most of the great mages throw enchantment, necromancy or ilusion out of the window and keep evocation, because unlike evocation, those schools are completely useless against higher level enemies(constructs, undeads, beings with permanent deathward and circle of protection against X, see invisibility, ect, ect). Evocation at least will always deal some damage.

And the best fighters don't take penalty to attack. They grab shock trooper and take penalty to AC. That dragon isn't going down if you have -20 to hit it.

Dhavaer
2008-05-23, 04:16 AM
I'm delighted to see "morepig" taking off.

I cackle madly every time I see it.

Jerthanis
2008-05-23, 07:06 AM
I know this may be extremely late, but I just wanted to throw in a response to this.



I think it was just as easy to create Beowulf, Achilles(guys who've never seen level 1) type people in 3.5. I think the difference is, in 3.5 it was an option. You could play the born hero, or you could play Shandril Shessair(main character of Spellfire, the book in which the realms began) a former tavern wench bumbling her way through learning to be a thief. I'm not entirely sure you're still allowed to do that in 4e. The system seems to dictate that the heroes are heroes, even from level 1.

That's my perception.

This is totally the case with 4th edition, and I can see why you wouldn't like this about it. As someone who likes playing "Fish out of water"/"The Mundane, in over their head" style characters from time to time, I struggled for a while to figure out why this didn't bother me about 4th edition making this change.

Then I realized that the reason I didn't care about 4th edition being unable to portray the mundane heroes, and those who are not exceptional and exceptionally skilled is because 3rd edition isn't very good at it either. If I wanted to play a mundane hero, I'd use a system in which the only options for building a character weren't between the different ways you can be supernatural. To me, using D&D to run rookie heroes is like using BESM to run Film Noir. It works if you let it, but it certainly doesn't help you along.

Of course, maybe this stems from me not finding the idea of advancement on D&D's scale to be appealing, and the reward of starting a rookie hero, the benefit of seeing them grow and develop from rookie to supreme badass is lost on me because of this. My group recently ended a campaign where the characters grew from level 1 to level 9. The degree to which we were more powerful than when we began was astronomical. When we started, we said to ourselves, "Why are we being hired to do these missions? Our patron could probably take us all at once." (later on, he did...) and by the end we mowed down the most elite military unit in the country. The events connecting level 1 to level 9 for us took place over the course of about two and a half months in-game. I can't help but feel it would've been more satisfying to start at level 6 and advance to 8 by the end, or just start at 7 or 8 and not advance at all.

One of the things I always say that the best games have is a sense of scale. However, contrary to what it seems, I feel that a focus on advancement works directly against this sense of scale. The reason I say this is that you can't tell how big something is unless an object of a known size is compared to it. It's sort of like this: When you're watching Late Night with Conan O'Brien (and I know you all do...) during the monologue, Conan doesn't look particularly tall or short, he's just a dude. However, during his interviews you can definitely tell he's 6'4", because he's sitting at a desk and you can compare how tall he is with his guests and with the objects around him. Similarly, if a character grows from level 1 fighting goblins to level 12 fighting Beholders, and has to expend roughly the same effort doing both each time, there's no sense of scale, because each side is just running on a treadmill trying to keep up with one another.

I think I managed to get far enough off topic for now, I'd better cut myself off here.

Oslecamo
2008-05-23, 07:28 AM
There are plenty of stories where some people start as rookies but after some weeks of hard training and adventuring they become incredibly stronger.

For example:

In LOTR, we start with a bunch of aristrocat halflings, but by the end we have three skilled warriors that take trolls, spectres and giant monstruous spiders head on and manage to sneack into the most well guarded fortress in existence.

Even Gandalf grows from a simple wizard to the ultimate magic pwrnz in all of Middle Earth.

In Star wars, we begin with a simple youth farmer who barely knows anything, and we end with a master laser sword user who also can pilot fighters to destroy colossal machines of doom.

Both those cases happen in a time space of just some months.

Everybody likes the story of the simple rookie who by hard training becomes able to face the biggest dangers of the world.

Jayabalard
2008-05-23, 07:29 AM
In 3.5 heroes are made. In 4e heroes are born.That does seem to be the fundamental shift in the game; thre are more than a few people who think that's not a good change.


Mechanically, or storywise? Because there's nothing stopping you from saying your character was like that, and has earned his way up the ropes.. but we don't know of mechanics for it to /start/ there.Mechanics obviously: he's talking about playing that part of the character development.

Duke of URL
2008-05-23, 08:05 AM
What it really boils down to is something I've been trying to stress lately -- the game design, from a mechanical sense, should be completely separate from "fluff". A setting that uses that game design then takes those mechanics and fits them into the setting using the setting fluff.

Let me give you two 3.5 examples that I'm working on as part of Victorious Press projects (shameless self-promotion, I know, but illustrative).


The first is a rewrite of the Arcane Archer in the upcoming Variants Handbook; in addition to the mechanical changes made to make it actually playable, I removed the racial requirement from the prerequisites. Why? Because it's purely a "fluff" consideration. In the default D&D setting, maybe it is something only the elves can do, but what about settings where maybe it is open to anyone, or maybe just those of draconic heritage? The rules should not presuppose the setting; the setting should instead adapt the rules to make them fit the setting's internal consistency.

The second is entire re-do of invocation based magic (working title: Invocation Magic). The basic concept of invocations as a replacement for Vancian spellcasting is a good idea, but the execution depended too much on the specific idea of fiendish or fey power sources (and why they mixed the two together, I'll never know). So my starting point was to remove the fluff considerations entirely and come up with a mechanical concept that represented what a generic "invoker" should be, how it should be implemented, and what types of invocations would be possible because of that. That is the essence of the book, providing that structure and template. From there, it become possible, and even relatively easy, to define a wide variety of invoker classes based on different power sources (infernal, abyssal, fey/nature, celestial, draconic, elemental, etc.), several of which will be used as example base classes. By separating the fluff from the mechanics, I can make a much cleaner, more flexible game system that is easily adaptable to specific fluff.

From what I'm seeing so far, 4e fails this because it incorporates assumptions from the default setting into the inherent game design. The setting assumes PC are "born heroes", and they designed the underlying mechanic to match the default setting, rather than designing a more flexible mechanic, and then provide setting-specific rules and fluff to apply it. (This isn't to say that 3rd edition doesn't have the same problems, but why repeat, and possibly even intensify those mistakes in a new edition?)

Simply put, they want you to play the game a particular way. But they're trying to maintain their position as the #1 selling RPG in the world. They can hope to maintain their position based on the name "Dungeons and Dragons", but by designing the system to limit the ways that payers can use it doesn't seem smart to me.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-23, 08:44 AM
What it really boils down to is something I've been trying to stress lately -- the game design, from a mechanical sense, should be completely separate from "fluff". A setting that uses that game design then takes those mechanics and fits them into the setting using the setting fluff.

Let me give you two 3.5 examples that I'm working on as part of Victorious Press projects (shameless self-promotion, I know, but illustrative).


The first is a rewrite of the Arcane Archer in the upcoming Variants Handbook; in addition to the mechanical changes made to make it actually playable, I removed the racial requirement from the prerequisites. Why? Because it's purely a "fluff" consideration. In the default D&D setting, maybe it is something only the elves can do, but what about settings where maybe it is open to anyone, or maybe just those of draconic heritage? The rules should not presuppose the setting; the setting should instead adapt the rules to make them fit the setting's internal consistency.

The second is entire re-do of invocation based magic (working title: Invocation Magic). The basic concept of invocations as a replacement for Vancian spellcasting is a good idea, but the execution depended too much on the specific idea of fiendish or fey power sources (and why they mixed the two together, I'll never know). So my starting point was to remove the fluff considerations entirely and come up with a mechanical concept that represented what a generic "invoker" should be, how it should be implemented, and what types of invocations would be possible because of that. That is the essence of the book, providing that structure and template. From there, it become possible, and even relatively easy, to define a wide variety of invoker classes based on different power sources (infernal, abyssal, fey/nature, celestial, draconic, elemental, etc.), several of which will be used as example base classes. By separating the fluff from the mechanics, I can make a much cleaner, more flexible game system that is easily adaptable to specific fluff.

From what I'm seeing so far, 4e fails this because it incorporates assumptions from the default setting into the inherent game design. The setting assumes PC are "born heroes", and they designed the underlying mechanic to match the default setting, rather than designing a more flexible mechanic, and then provide setting-specific rules and fluff to apply it. (This isn't to say that 3rd edition doesn't have the same problems, but why repeat, and possibly even intensify those mistakes in a new edition?)

Simply put, they want you to play the game a particular way. But they're trying to maintain their position as the #1 selling RPG in the world. They can hope to maintain their position based on the name "Dungeons and Dragons", but by designing the system to limit the ways that payers can use it doesn't seem smart to me.


There went a perfectly good post. Since I don't like your good posts going to waste, Duke, I'll spare it and do a mercy kill.


:smallfurious:

YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT! D&D IS TURNING INTO MOREPIG! *Dodges uncomfortable issue*

Basically, separation of fluff usually doesn't work. Just check out wizards and fighters, who because of the "wizard should warp reality" idea got extremely strong, and when they attempted to fix it, the unpleasable fanbase cried foul. D&D is too nichey in concept to work out without many fluff assumptions.

That said, you have a good example and I'd like to know if V.P. needs playtesters for any project. :smallwink:

Jerthanis
2008-05-23, 08:56 AM
Everybody likes the story of the simple rookie who by hard training becomes able to face the biggest dangers of the world.

Not everybody. I obviously don't care for it.

You can call Luke an unskilled rookie, but he outshoots, outflies, and outdoes everyone in that movie. He's a badass, and never wasn't one. Sure, he got better over the course of the movies, but not quadratically. You see, it was a setting that assumed the main characters were awesome, and made them that way from the start. It wasn't like D&D 3rd edition where they start out taking mortal wounds from crossbows only to later shrug off ballista bolts.

If you're going to make the decision to model heroes, I figure you shouldn't even bother trying to also model strict realism in the same rule structure, because you are going to run into problems. Advancement is just one of these problems, and the decision of what level of heroism and power level you're dealing with is something I feel should be established at the beginning of the game and (for the most part) stuck with.

Last_resort_33
2008-05-23, 10:08 AM
In 3.5 you're a shmuck off of the streets who decided to kill goblins one day

Not according to the PHB my friend, which describes a level 1 fighter as a seasoned warrior, but hey that's just me nit picking....

So far I love what I've seen of 4e, apart from that which I have already made clear in another thread. I can't wait to play it.

RukiTanuki
2008-05-23, 04:59 PM
Level 0... fluff... you mean houserules that aren't part of the games mechanics as published right? I feel like I'm singing the same refrain... Fixable by a houserule, even an easy one, does not a good mechanic make. It means the mechanic does not do what it was designed to do, or what the player wants it to do, at the start.

In turn, one's dislike of a game mechanic does not inherently make it flawed. A game mechanic not suited to one's preferences (in play style or balance) is not flawed. Flawed mechanics come into play when they don't deliver on the designer's intentions.

If 4th Edition's design intent is that level 1 PCs are already advanced/trained/skillful to a level of power such that there exist level 1 encounters that are usually lethal for the average commoner, but not for said PC, then delivering on that intent (i.e. level 1 PCs can survive level 1 encounters easily) is not inherently flawed.

If one prefers a style of play where the PCs are not that advanced, that does not make 4e's design flawed. It does, however, make 4e ill suited to that form of play, as written. The discussion regarding whether adding rules to support that form of play can work effectively is a bit disjointed from the discussion regarding whether such a design intent fit 4e's overall goals in the first place.


Well, the critisim is that the system does not accomidate a large enough range of playstyles to make both you and Draz happy. That's a legitimate objection.
[...]
And that's just fine. 4e might be a very good system for your style of play. However, that it is doesn't mean that it accomidates a large enough range of play styles to make both you and Draz happy without resorting to changing the rules of the system or making them up from whole cloth. At which point, I must ask, why spend the $90?

While the game might not support two disparate styles of play, again, that doesn't inherently make it flawed. (Nor unflawed, for that matter.) Few games can be all things to all people, after all. The real questions, to me, are: Can you make the system work, can you find people to play the game as you use it, and is it worth that time and effort to you?


Well, there are folks, like me, who will say "I think I will probably dislike 4e when I see the mechanics because the default power differential bettween the average guy on the street and PC's is too great at lower levels."

Doesn't really have the same ring to it though...

The truth of opinions rarely boils down to a catchy soundbite. :)

Oslecamo
2008-05-23, 06:00 PM
Not everybody. I obviously don't care for it.

You can call Luke an unskilled rookie, but he outshoots, outflies, and outdoes everyone in that movie. He's a badass, and never wasn't one. Sure, he got better over the course of the movies, but not quadratically. You see, it was a setting that assumed the main characters were awesome, and made them that way from the start. It wasn't like D&D 3rd edition where they start out taking mortal wounds from crossbows only to later shrug off ballista bolts.


It's been quite some time since I saw the first movie, but Luke was just a farmer, who couldn't even handle a couple stormtroopers at first, and got babysited by the DMNPC(Obi Wan). He also had trouble parrying the blasts from the training droid. He ran away from the BBEG(Darth Vader). It's only after overcoming smaller challenges(exp) that he finally starts to be badass and outperforming other people.




If you're going to make the decision to model heroes, I figure you shouldn't even bother trying to also model strict realism in the same rule structure, because you are going to run into problems. Advancement is just one of these problems, and the decision of what level of heroism and power level you're dealing with is something I feel should be established at the beginning of the game and (for the most part) stuck with.

Realism? What realism? Didn't you notice the guy shooting missiles from his fingers? Or the guy who can activate magic items just because he knows how to speack well and is pretty?

Anyway, just to make things clear, do you really think that only people who are lucky enough to be born with super capacities deserve to be heros?

Starbuck_II
2008-05-23, 06:03 PM
Even Gandalf grows from a simple wizard to the ultimate magic pwrnz in all of Middle Earth.
Everybody likes the story of the simple rookie who by hard training becomes able to face the biggest dangers of the world.

You brung Gandalf into this? Aw, nah, you for reals?

I'll break it down for ya:

He was a Maiar. He was a God-like being. He was there at the beggining. He was before most of the Middle Earthers. He had more power in his pinky than a level 30 3.5 Wizard even using the broken Epic magic rules.

The only reason he didn't go Nova before was that would have alerted the other maiar out there who wanted the One Ring: Sauron.

Yes, he was that strong. He lost his memory after fight with Balrog so he was able to be more powerful (because he didn't remember why he should hold back).

Please, don't bring a Solar to the discussion. He was not a Wizard. He was a Outsider who was Epic. He just held back.

Rutee
2008-05-23, 06:04 PM
That does seem to be the fundamental shift in the game; thre are more than a few people who think that's not a good change.

Until 4e had info released, I've never heard anyone defend starting as OHKO bait in heroic fantasy. Ever. Not even in threads that debated 3rd ed's flaws..

Oslecamo
2008-05-23, 06:29 PM
Yes, he was that strong. He lost his memory after fight with Balrog so he was able to be more powerful (because he didn't remember why he should hold back).

Please, don't bring a Solar to the discussion. He was not a Wizard. He was a Outsider who was Epic. He just held back.

Sauruman was of the same kind of Gandalf. Sauruman pwned Gandalf in the 1st book, stoping him from reaching the hobits in time. Later Gandalf comes back and pwns Sauruman. In the 3rd book Sauruman's killed by an middle level aristrocat. So much for Exalted comparison.

All because Sauruman decided to spend all his time in the tower, spending his exp crafting stuff, while Gandalf was out there gaining exp left and right. When eventually they face again, Sauruman hasn't gained a single level, while Gandalf is quite stronger, allowing him to easily defeat the pyromaniac.

Triaxx
2008-05-23, 07:32 PM
It seems to me the smart thing to do would be to concurrently support both 3.xe, and 4e. Since 4e is such a huge departure from traditional D&D.

Cuddly
2008-05-23, 09:36 PM
Go read the Charop again. Most of the great mages throw enchantment, necromancy or ilusion out of the window and keep evocation, because unlike evocation, those schools are completely useless against higher level enemies(constructs, undeads, beings with permanent deathward and circle of protection against X, see invisibility, ect, ect). Evocation at least will always deal some damage.

And the best fighters don't take penalty to attack. They grab shock trooper and take penalty to AC. That dragon isn't going down if you have -20 to hit it.

Conjuration, not evocation. Evocation allows a save for half and SR. Conjuration has neither. The only reason evocation is ever kept is for contingency or containment force spells (wall, forcecage, etc)

Cuddly
2008-05-23, 09:50 PM
You brung Gandalf into this? Aw, nah, you for reals?

I'll break it down for ya:

He was a Maiar. He was a God-like being. He was there at the beggining. He was before most of the Middle Earthers. He had more power in his pinky than a level 30 3.5 Wizard even using the broken Epic magic rules.

The only reason he didn't go Nova before was that would have alerted the other maiar out there who wanted the One Ring: Sauron.

Yes, he was that strong. He lost his memory after fight with Balrog so he was able to be more powerful (because he didn't remember why he should hold back).

Please, don't bring a Solar to the discussion. He was not a Wizard. He was a Outsider who was Epic. He just held back.

That's nice fluff, but really, *ahem* not how the mechanics would handle modeling it. Sorry.

Jerthanis
2008-05-24, 12:45 AM
It's been quite some time since I saw the first movie, but Luke was just a farmer, who couldn't even handle a couple stormtroopers at first, and got babysited by the DMNPC(Obi Wan). He also had trouble parrying the blasts from the training droid. He ran away from the BBEG(Darth Vader). It's only after overcoming smaller challenges(exp) that he finally starts to be badass and outperforming other people.


Now, it's been sort of a while since I saw the first Star Wars Movie, but the first time Luke is face-to-face with a Stormtrooper is when they're talking their way past one in Mos Eisley, and Obi-Wan does take care of that "Encounter". After that, he's on the Death Star, and when the blaster bolts start flying, he wastes them like nothing, swings across a gap, and runs around like an invincible hero, and makes an impossible shot flying a ship he's unfamiliar with. He was a farmer with little training, but he was also a Hero with a capital H. That doesn't sound like he gained experience and training and levelled up, unless he started at level 1, and gained 50,000 experience points for talking with Han Solo.



Realism? What realism? Didn't you notice the guy shooting missiles from his fingers? Or the guy who can activate magic items just because he knows how to speack well and is pretty?

Anyway, just to make things clear, do you really think that only people who are lucky enough to be born with super capacities deserve to be heros?

Well... that's what I'm talking about. If you want a system that models heroes who are just starting out, and are unexceptional, D&D probably isn't the right system for you.

And no, I don't believe that people who are born heroes are the only ones who deserve to be heroes. But I wouldn't use a system designed to portray clearly exceptional "Heroes with a capital H" to portray those mundane, starting heroes.

Erloas
2008-05-24, 10:02 AM
Well I read the first couple pages and skipped to the end...

I don't see what the big deal is about exactly how your character starts out. Sure a good backstory is important and you can write that backstory however you want, but I don't see why the game needs to be changed to accommodate every type of backstory someone can come up with.

Even a "start as a humble farmer" backstory is only mechanically relivent for a single level anyway. They start as a simple farmer and for whatever reason they decide to be come an adventurer, mechancially the only time being a farmer is important to the story is first level. After that you have class levels and are more powerful then most people you run into. You might still occasionally bring up your farmer background and it changes how you roleplay but it doesn't change the mechanics anymore. First level though lasts for a relatively short period of time.
Many games start out past first level anyway, and the ones that do start out from level 1 usually only stay level 1 for one, maybe two, play sessions.
In movie terms or computer RPG terms this is basically the openning credits and you are often past the "humble beginnings" of the character before the second scene.

In a game designed to be played for hours and hours I don't see how it can be claimed that the whole thing is ruined because the first hour of gameplay is changed from how you would like that first hour to be.

Oslecamo
2008-05-24, 02:10 PM
Conjuration, not evocation. Evocation allows a save for half and SR. Conjuration has neither. The only reason evocation is ever kept is for contingency or containment force spells (wall, forcecage, etc)

And orbs demand that you actually hit the target.

Keldon's fire bolt, altough demanding a roll, can easilyscale up to deal some sick damage(empower, arcane thesis), wich you just can't replicate with conjuration.

Magic missile is a rare force attack(read:nothing is resistant to it, plus hurting ethereal stuff) and always hits, plus with empower, maximize and thesis it can also deal some really good damage.



Altough I'll admit, with splatbooks, conjuration alone can do almost everything.

chiasaur11
2008-05-24, 03:42 PM
Now, it's been sort of a while since I saw the first Star Wars Movie, but the first time Luke is face-to-face with a Stormtrooper is when they're talking their way past one in Mos Eisley, and Obi-Wan does take care of that "Encounter". After that, he's on the Death Star, and when the blaster bolts start flying, he wastes them like nothing, swings across a gap, and runs around like an invincible hero, and makes an impossible shot flying a ship he's unfamiliar with. He was a farmer with little training, but he was also a Hero with a capital H. That doesn't sound like he gained experience and training and levelled up, unless he started at level 1, and gained 50,000 experience points for talking with Han Solo.



Well, you gotta admit Han Solo is pretty hard core awesome.

Jerthanis
2008-05-24, 05:27 PM
Many games start out past first level anyway, and the ones that do start out from level 1 usually only stay level 1 for one, maybe two, play sessions.
In movie terms or computer RPG terms this is basically the openning credits and you are often past the "humble beginnings" of the character before the second scene.

In a game designed to be played for hours and hours I don't see how it can be claimed that the whole thing is ruined because the first hour of gameplay is changed from how you would like that first hour to be.

To be fair, this is a relatively new concept to D&D. In 2nd edition, it was commonly accepted that if you rolled up a new character, especially for a new game, it would be 1st level. In 2nd edition, 1st level could take three to six game sessions to get through. People who have played since 1st or 2nd ed might see this continuing trend to be marginalizing an area of the game they find awesome. Personally, 1st level was the barrier to interesting abilities and powers back then as it is now, and giving those interesting abilities and powers to a 1st level character is the most efficient way (to me) to eliminate that barrier. Consequently, I think 4th edition is an improvement. I do however, understand the idea of "earning your wings", and how it can improve a game... it just doesn't appeal to me.


Well, you gotta admit Han Solo is pretty hard core awesome.

Yeah... it's true. But 6 levels worth of experience just for giving him some lip?