PDA

View Full Version : 4th ed feels dumbed down



infinitypanda
2008-06-01, 11:02 PM
Ok, before the flames start, let me just say that I only had about 5 minutes to look over the new rule books, so I gravitated towards the character creation rules. And frankly, it felt a bit dumbed down. Only 8 classes. The only alignments are lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil. Does anyone who has read more have anything to say about this? Is it like this for the rest of the rules, or does it get better?

Jack Zander
2008-06-01, 11:04 PM
Coming from a 4th Edition "Hater" as they call me, I have to say that while the system does feel "dumbed down" a better word would probably be streamlined. It's supposed to be real quick and easy to get into so that everything moves much faster (no more 4 hour character creations). This is great for new players, but it hurts the veterens who may want more options to work with.

Skyserpent
2008-06-01, 11:09 PM
Coming from a 4th Edition "Hater" as they call me, I have to say that while the system does feel "dumbed down" a better word would probably be streamlined. It's supposed to be real quick and easy to get into so that everything moves much faster (no more 4 hour character creations). This is great for new players, but it hurts the veterens who may want more options to work with.

As a 4e "fanboy" this guy is right.

The system moves faster and has fewer options for classes that had millions in 3.5 and more options for classes that had like none... There may be just 8 classes, but they expand as the game moves on into a SILLY number of Paragon paths and well... 4 Epic Destinies, but hey, that's what splatbooks are for.

The whole thing is, once again, streamlined and simpler. However if you're the guy who likes leafing through five sourcebooks searching for that exact specific spell that's better than any other, 4e isn't for you.

Essentially there's a focus on balance, and enforced balance has a way of feeling unfair for those who excel.

Xyk
2008-06-01, 11:10 PM
The only alignments are lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

What??? I don't have the books. That's ridiculous, if i get the books, I would houserule all nine.

infinitypanda
2008-06-01, 11:11 PM
Well, the part I didn't like was how you (as far as I know) can't be chaotic good or lawful evil without dm approval now. Just stuff like that, you know?

Skyserpent
2008-06-01, 11:12 PM
What??? I don't have the books. That's ridiculous, if i get the books, I would houserule all nine.

haha, the alignments have somewhat more significant abilities and they don't have the same meaning as they did in 3.5

A lot of people wanted to get RID of the alignment system.

I guess this is a balance that pleases nobody... go figure. Scrap it, keep it, honestly this isn't that big a deal... You can roleplay whatever you want without having to go through 27 page long alignment debates anymore...

thank GOD.

Rutee
2008-06-01, 11:12 PM
I don't think the alignments really made matters 'complex'.

As to 'too few classes'.. well, yes. That's the core book. If you really want your splatbook spam, it will inevitably come and make the game have as crazy many options as 3rd ed. Yay. :smallsigh:

Skyserpent
2008-06-01, 11:13 PM
Well, the part I didn't like was how you (as far as I know) can't be chaotic good or lawful evil without dm approval now. Just stuff like that, you know?

Yes you CAN. You just don't have to CALL yourself Chaotic good or Lawful Evil, you can be... you know, a Rebel or a Tyrant, be a CHARACTER not a listing on a sheet... jeez...

Tyger
2008-06-01, 11:14 PM
Well, considering that the definition of Good in the 4e PHB is almost exactly what Chaotic Good used to be (ditto Evil is LE) its a pretty small issue. Especially when you factor in the one rule that everyone seems to forget... you can do whatever your group agrees to. Want 5 alignments? 9? 140? Sure, go for it.

We haven't used alignement in about 5 years. So I didn't even read that part of the book. :smallsmile:

FlyMolo
2008-06-01, 11:14 PM
4e streamlined, but less flexible than 3e.

3e clunky in places, but I'll be damned if you can't do whatever.

Bleen
2008-06-01, 11:16 PM
I preferred the old alignment system, honestly. It was actually pretty fun doing all that debating and such, and it had a bit more flexibility than this one...

If I can't get all nine houseruled in, then I'll find a way to convert it to a system that emphasizes the ethical axis instead of the moral one, dangit! That one was more interesting! Cuuurrsseee youuuuu wizzarrrdssss. YOUR BLACK AND WHITE MORALITY SYSTEM SHALL BE YOUR UNDOINGGGGGG!

also I think there were plenty of classes and options for those classes

There's only like two less than the old PHB and the new ones have a lot more build options core-wise.

Rutee
2008-06-01, 11:17 PM
4e streamlined, but less flexible than 3e.

3e clunky in places, but I'll be damned if you can't do whatever.

Useful Dextrous Fighter, with a GM who hates the ToB. Please don't make it so easy.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-06-01, 11:17 PM
I would not say the alignment system is dumbed down. The previous version had an alignment system that was disguised as smart, but has problems as you dig deeper into it. This alignment system makes a lot more sense, and has fewer conflicts. There is 8 classes only right now, but that is because that is all that could fit in one book. Plus they are being very carefully about balancing classes, so they are making sure they are not released too fast There will be a lot more classes later.

But Yes, 4E is 'dumb-downed' in many ways, just not because of the reasons you mentioned. Less thouhg tneeds to be put into creating characters, which will be good for some people, but not for those who like optimizing.But note that while 3E has more thinking involved in creating chracters, 4E has a much more tactical combat system.

Essentially it does seem like 3E, and 4E were created with completely different target audiences in mind.

Ozymandias
2008-06-01, 11:19 PM
4e streamlined, but less flexible than 3e.

3e clunky in places, but I'll be damned if you can't do whatever.

The issue I have with this view (and it's all a matter of opinion, of course) is that there are many more systems that can "do whatever" with more ease and elegance, either through being tailored to different interests (WoD, BESM, etc) or sheer versatility (GURPS). DnD (or 3.X, at least) has always been sort of between the two, and that made it sort of weird and almost turgid.

Bleen
2008-06-01, 11:19 PM
Meh, for me it's not "dumbed down", it's just that they shifted the focus more towards the alignment continuum that I don't really care for.

Tyger
2008-06-01, 11:22 PM
But Yes, 4E is 'dumb-downed' in many ways, just not because of the reasons you mentioned. Less thouhg tneeds to be put into creating characters, which will be good for some people, but not for those who like optimizing.But note that while 3E has more thinking involved in creating chracters, 4E has a much more tactical combat system.

Except that 99% of all optimization currently (i.e. 3.5) is not limited to the CORE classes. So that's an all but impossible measuring stick at this time. Wait until we have 30 splatbooks, and my bet is you'll have just as many Fighter 2 / Wizard 3 / Knight of the Spoon 2 / Eldritch Bizilbaffer 3 (but only for their daily power!) / Champion of Onion 2 / Red Lounger 4 / Cream Totem Barbarian 5 builds as we see today.

But you are accurate on your assessment that 4e is more tactical. The positioning is going to be more and more important. I like it!

Rutee
2008-06-01, 11:24 PM
But you are accurate on your assessment that 4e is more tactical. The positioning is going to be more and more important. I like it!

I kinda don't, to be honest. It's a bit annoying that we felt the need to pick up OpenRPG-like stuff.. It's not so much about using it, but feeling like we needed it.

TheOOB
2008-06-01, 11:24 PM
4e has been dumbed down in the sense that it is no longer as complex to play and thus people who don't have quite the aptitude for role playing games can get a lot more enjoyment out of it.

That said, the game really hasn't lost any depth(in fact, it very well may have gained more). It's a common misconception that complexity equals depth, when in reality the opposite is usually true within reason. A simple system is actually more able to adapt to things outside of what it was designed for them a complex system, which allows the game to do more things.

I could personally take or leave the alignments. I haven't yet seen much of a mechanical effect of alignment. That said, aside from the names, this alignment system makes more sense. A good person is someone who does good things, while a lawful good person is someone who actively works twords advancing the cause of good. An evil person is someone who does evil things, while a chaotic evil person actively tries to be evil.

As for the lack of classes, keep a few things in mind:

1) Classes have way more going on then before. Each class has build options, dozens and dozens of powers for all levels, paragon paths, feats, the whole nine yards. This makes the classes much harder and longer to design, but also makes each class cover more ground as the classes can be adapted many ways by things such as power choice.

2) WotC wanted the first players handbook to have classes that clearly defined the core archtypes, defender, striker, controller, and leader. They want to set the rules for what those archtypes will be before they start to bend the rules a little.

3) Some classes, such as the bard, druid, and monk, will be much harder to design and make well balanced. Not only will they need more time to design them, they probably want some large scale play testing, by releasing the system, to help them make them right.

4) They need some stuff to make you buy future PHBs.

SadisticFishing
2008-06-01, 11:26 PM
Useful Dextrous Fighter, with a GM who hates the ToB. Please don't make it so easy.

That's actually not that hard - it just takes some work. But "Useful dexterous fighter, not counting the book that makes dexterous fighters useful" isn't a very strong argument.

Jack Zander
2008-06-01, 11:36 PM
Useful dextrous fighter? Play a rogue with improved feint and boost your AC as high as possible. You've got a fencer type that is great at taking on a single, powerful opponent as he can feint and combat expertise while not losing (and in fact usually gaining) accuracy.

Now if you wanted me to actually use a fighter, that's like asking for a wizard who specializes in hitting stuff. Sure, you can do it, but there are better ways to fill that concept.

Rutee
2008-06-01, 11:40 PM
That's actually not that hard - it just takes some work. But "Useful dexterous fighter, not counting the book that makes dexterous fighters useful" isn't a very strong argument.

With all the ToB hate, it does. Not that I understand it, mind, but really, the vocal minority is loud enough that I can believe a decent portion of the folks who might look at it.. won't. But really? It's utterly impossible in Core, which is a strike against it right off the bat.

Jayngfet
2008-06-01, 11:49 PM
Personally the "dumbing down" is my biggest turnoff. I liked the old system!

Jack Zander
2008-06-01, 11:51 PM
With all the ToB hate, it does. Not that I understand it, mind, but really, the vocal minority is loud enough that I can believe a decent portion of the folks who might look at it.. won't. But really? It's utterly impossible in Core, which is a strike against it right off the bat.

See post above yours.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-06-01, 11:53 PM
Tyger
You may be right. Once some $E splat books come out, it may start appealing the charcter optimizers. Right now in 4E it does seem like you are just given a charcter and there is no work that you have to do to make it good. I am not in that camp, and and am a big 4E fan. I am just trying to ook at things from the point of view of the other side.

Bleen
2008-06-01, 11:53 PM
It's a bit annoying that we felt the need to pick up OpenRPG-like stuff..

My group wouldn't mind OpenRPG if it weren't such a fickle wench, constantly bugging out and disconnecting people and doing things that weren't in the documentation. Unfortunately, all the other options we've explored are really 'bleh.' It really does seem like 4e wants tactical grid combat more, given the "squares" measurement and lots of small incremental movements and positioning powers.

I'm not too particularly offended by this from a general viewpoint (In 3.5 I liked to have visual aides whenever possible anyway; especially when I had nutjob DM's who thought combat with 12 enemies was a sane thing to do with the systems,) it's just that it feels more inconvenient when I wanna play with my intarwebz friends. :smallannoyed:

Tengu
2008-06-02, 12:34 AM
Only 8 classes.

8 base classes - only 3 less than in core 3.5. And much better designed and more distinct. And with 31 prestige classes.

Irreverent Fool
2008-06-02, 01:20 AM
Useful Dextrous Fighter, with a GM who hates the ToB. Please don't make it so easy.

It's called a rogue.

Edit: Hm. It seems Jack beat me to the punch.

Rutee
2008-06-02, 01:22 AM
It's called a rogue.

Rogues are sneaky, tricksy bastards. Nothing about "Dextrous" requires that.

Kabump
2008-06-02, 01:33 AM
My group wouldn't mind OpenRPG if it weren't such a fickle wench, constantly bugging out and disconnecting people and doing things that weren't in the documentation. Unfortunately, all the other options we've explored are really 'bleh.' It really does seem like 4e wants tactical grid combat more, given the "squares" measurement and lots of small incremental movements and positioning powers.

I'm not too particularly offended by this from a general viewpoint (In 3.5 I liked to have visual aides whenever possible anyway; especially when I had nutjob DM's who thought combat with 12 enemies was a sane thing to do with the systems,) it's just that it feels more inconvenient when I wanna play with my intarwebz friends. :smallannoyed:

Not to familiar with OpenRPG, but I've used MapTool (http://www.rptools.net/doku.php?id=maptool:intro) and it is much to my liking. YMMV. Just tossing out another option, you may have tried it already :)

Vazzaroth
2008-06-02, 02:37 AM
First of all, the alignment has changed that much at all. At first, after reading today's excerpt, I was pissed. How dare they retain chaotic and lawful, but only limit them to good and evil! But then I saw it was just a name change. Good = chaotic good and Evil=lawful evil, almost 100%. They got rid of Neutral good and evil, which I think were sorta jokes anyway. I'm not saying I never played them, but in hindsight those are the alignments I'm most willing to nix.



* Good: Freedom and kindness.
* Lawful Good: Civilization and order.
* Evil: Tyranny and hatred.
* Chaotic Evil: Entropy and destruction.
* Unaligned: Having no alignment; not taking a stand.


As far as the class thing... I was very sad at first as well. But then I realized that it's not much less than CORE 3.5, which is what we will have for 4E. I can't remember the last time I didn't take a prestige class from a supplement or at least a spell or feat or two. I wouldn't call myself an optimizer mechanically, but I like to take feats and spells that best fit into a character concept. (IE my sword and shield fighter with shield spells from PHB2, Weapon focus from core,Shield Block from Heroes of battle, and a smattering of Complete Warrior feats.)

Summary: Yes, it's dumbed down at first unless you've played with nothing but the 3 core books in 3.5. If you have, you will probably notice its simply diffrent, not lesser.

Either way, I still am guardedly excited. At will powers: Awesome. Turning DnD into a boardgame instead of an RPG: Not.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-02, 02:50 AM
Summary: Yes, it's dumbed down at first unless you've played with nothing but the 3 core books in 3.5. If you have, you will probably notice its simply diffrent, not lesser.

It sounds like 3e Core-only had more rules/spells/skills detailing situations outside of combat. Likewise, 4e seems to have more only when you're considering, perhaps, some tactical situations and when you're looking at options for martial characters. That's perfectly fine if that's what you're looking for and I'm sure it will appeal to a lot of people.

People who are used to more out-of-combat scenarios and more interested in high-magic campaigns will definitely think 4e is lesser and is dumbed down.

People who are used to tactical miniatures games, however, might think that 4e has a multitude of brilliant options.

Jerthanis
2008-06-02, 02:56 AM
I feel like there was enough distinction between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good that two characters of those alignments would argue from time to time about methodology or criminal justice or whatever, so I'm not sure why they decided to remove that distinction.

I also feel that if they were going to change the alignment system, they could have actually changed it to something more grown up than an arbitrary black-and-white with clear lines drawn in the sand between them. If the system changed, why didn't it grow up?

Devils_Advocate
2008-06-02, 02:59 AM
"Dumbed down" is Elitist for "not quite so needlessly complicated", right?

(And I don't just mean when 3E fans use that as a criticism of 4E, I mean when anyone uses it as a criticism of anything, ever.)

Kurald Galain
2008-06-02, 03:03 AM
Except that 99% of all optimization currently (i.e. 3.5) is not limited to the CORE classes. So that's an all but impossible measuring stick at this time. Wait until we have 30 splatbooks, and my bet is you'll have just as many Fighter 2 / Wizard 3 / Knight of the Spoon 2 / Eldritch Bizilbaffer 3 (but only for their daily power!) / Champion of Onion 2 / Red Lounger 4 / Cream Totem Barbarian 5 builds as we see today.

I totally want to play an Eldritch Bizilbaffer now :smallbiggrin:


And frankly, it felt a bit dumbed down. Only 8 classes.
I'm really not going to argue about alignment here. But if your point is that 4E only has eight classes whereas 3E has 40-50 of them, the answer is that 4E will also have many more classes once WOTC releases the splatbooks they have been planning for.


With all the ToB hate, it does. Not that I understand it, mind, but really, the vocal minority is loud enough that I can believe a decent portion of the folks who might look at it.. won't. But really? It's utterly impossible in Core, which is a strike against it right off the bat.
True, in 3E you can make a dextrous fighter using just the PHB but he will be ineffective. On the other hand, in 4E you can't make an illusionist at all using just the PHB.

bosssmiley
2008-06-02, 04:21 AM
Dumbed down? No. Simplified? Yes. Abstracted? Definitely.

In my mind 4th Ed is to 3rd Ed as Warhammer Quest is to WFRP. They use similar conventions and are recognisably from the same stable, but in each instance the derivative game has lower entry requirements in terms of time and mental strain expended before play than do the original RPGs.

With their greater emphasis on the models and the battlemat both WHQ & 4th Ed seem aimed at hooking the visual interest of a more casual gaming market. Whether they have the complexity and flexibility to retain the loyalty of a gaming public used to more sophisticated, modifiable systems is another question...

ghost_warlock
2008-06-02, 04:53 AM
Dumbed down? No. Simplified? Yes. Abstracted? Definitely.

In my mind 4th Ed is to 3rd Ed as Warhammer Quest is to WFRP. They use similar conventions and are recognisably from the same stable, but in each instance the derivative game has lower entry requirements in terms of time and mental strain expended before play than do the original RPGs.

With their greater emphasis on the models and the battlemat both WHQ & 4th Ed seem aimed at hooking the visual interest of a more casual gaming market. Whether they have the complexity and flexibility to retain the loyalty of a gaming public used to more sophisticated, modifiable systems is another question...

OOooo Warhammer Quest! I've played that. After a while I realized I could make more money, and have more fun, with random encounters in town than I could in the dungeon part of the game.

Gods, I hope the same doesn't apply to D&D 4e... Okay, time to draft up a petition for WotC to NEVER detail out-of-combat content for 4e just in case random city enounters turn out to be more fun than a hack and slash dungeon crawl.

Edit: Please not that it is 5:10am and I am insane. Thank you.

nagora
2008-06-02, 04:56 AM
I would not say the alignment system is dumbed down. The previous version had an alignment system that was disguised as smart, but has problems as you dig deeper into it.
Like? The old system worked well for decades and makes sense: people can like working in groups without it making any difference to whether they were good or bad, and similarly being good or bad has no effect on whether you are a loner or not.

People got wrapped up in the idea that alignment was a straight jacket that everyone in the gameworld was aware of, but in truth it was simply: a) a shorthand method for the DM of noting how an NPC would act, b) a way of judging whether a character's actions matched those expected of them by others - mainly gods, and c) something for some players to focus on as a skeleton for their character development.

Ceiling009
2008-06-02, 05:12 AM
I think it's less dumbed down and more intuitive to use; there aren't any real subsystems that somehow deviated from the core mechanic of rolling a d20... or involved as much research as a term paper to get an effective and interesting build. It's missing a lot, but then again, if look at each class and the general smoothness of the rules, especially magic items (man I love how it's down now), it's deeper and ultimately more complex soon as you get down to it... (seriously 60 powers per class?)

But I don't think there needs to be explicit rules on the role playing part, and I don't see how this turn DnD into a tactical board game... wasn't it always? I mean the combat is what needed rules, but do you really need rules for talking to folk in the pubs? Or things that role playing could do without any dice rolls? The combat part of the game is pretty smooth, so now you can have more time trying to figure out to woe that bar wench, than trying to figure out to grapple bear... (oh yeah they changed the grapple rules! Yay!)

Reinboom
2008-06-02, 06:02 AM
People got wrapped up in the idea that alignment was a straight jacket that everyone in the gameworld was aware of

This brings me back memories of the last time I had played with alignments in a live group.

"I use detect evil on her."
"She doesn't show evil."
"Weird.."

About 20 minutes later
"I use detect evil on her again."
"She is still not evil."
"Ok, what the hell."

About 20 minutes later... after the players discover what went on.
"So, she jammed the engine works to have this machine blow up and risk all the worker's lives in the back just to make sure we didn't get stuck in the middle of werewolf territory where we would all surely die?"
"Yes, that's about right."
"So... she made a judgement about the value of lives. Why didn't she come up evil again?"

Now, in this situation, it was simple to just say "a different view case of good."
However, this gaming session suddenly got heated and deeper -fast-. I won't go in to further details from there.


I'm rather happy that "detect evil" is not in 4e... as well as quite a few other alignment based mechanics.


-edit-
The idea of this post is to say:
"You're right in that alignments aren't quite a straight jacket, but people still can get caught in a straight jacket caused by alignments of which is the mechanics married to them."

nagora
2008-06-02, 06:04 AM
The combat part of the game is pretty smooth, so now you can have more time trying to figure out to woe that bar wench, than trying to figure out to grapple bear... (oh yeah they changed the grapple rules! Yay!)
Or grapple with the bar wench and deal woe to the bear, which sounds much more appealing!

Griffin131
2008-06-02, 06:19 AM
With all the ToB hate, it does. Not that I understand it, mind, but really, the vocal minority is loud enough that I can believe a decent portion of the folks who might look at it.. won't. But really? It's utterly impossible in Core, which is a strike against it right off the bat.
Tripper/Ranged fighter (dex for to hit). You've got the feats for it, might as well use em. Utterly impossible is pretty strong...

Reel On, Love
2008-06-02, 06:31 AM
Tripper/Ranged fighter (dex for to hit). You've got the feats for it, might as well use em. Utterly impossible is pretty strong...

To use dex to hit, and still be a tripper type, you have to use the spiked chain. And that's ridiculous.

Also, if you're cranking DEX not STR, your tripping will suck.

Leon
2008-06-02, 09:02 AM
That's actually not that hard - it just takes some work. But "Useful dexterous fighter, not counting the book that makes dexterous fighters useful" isn't a very strong argument.

We had a Useful Dexterous Fighter in our current 3.5 game - Until last session where he met the Ogre with a Human Bane Greatclub, he was a Level 3 Fighter with a good dex, Int and choice of skills, one of the parties face's and he was pretty much planing to keep on with fighter for as long as the game went unless he discovered a PrC that he liked.
Used a Raiper/Shortsword or a Whip


I wholeheartedly agree that its Dumbed down, ive played it now and its not the great game that i still will continue on as 3.5. Some of the aspects are nice but over all its not what i want. if i want what it delivers i will play a MMORPG to achive that.

I play DDM (Classic & New) and the 4th Ed seem to embrace that connection a bit to much. i like the Minis and i like to have a representation of what the PC i am playing is like - not always in a model, often just in a artwork. the games that iv eplayed have been much more akin to playing a game of DDM (without the Vs Warband of X aspect)

Only thing that i wait for with baited breath in regard to the new system is what is going to happen to my favoured setting, till thn i shall continue onward with it as it currently is, although i do like the sound of pazios WIP

greenknight
2008-06-02, 09:22 AM
They got rid of Neutral good and evil

They also removed Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral. Those who have detected a trend there might also have some understanding why True Neutral was changed to Unaligned.

Prophaniti
2008-06-02, 10:13 AM
Definitely sounds like its just two ways of saying the same thing, depending on whether you like it (streamlined) or not (dumbed down), which is what I get from what I've read too.

And making a Dex-based melee character is not hard in 3.x, without ToB. Not my usual cup of tea, but I've done it myself with various classes, to various degrees of success. I had a Ninja once (base class) that did very well... till he decided to try to Sudden Strike the orc warlord. I didn't do quite enough to kill him (it was so close!) and he chopped me in two with a lucky crit. We were lower level and I didn't have many hp... fun times, though.

Rutee
2008-06-02, 11:04 AM
Tripper/Ranged fighter (dex for to hit). You've got the feats for it, might as well use em. Utterly impossible is pretty strong...

Ranged fighter is an archer. I didn't say Archer, though I'll grant I didn't specify "Melee". A "Tripper" is a one trick pony.

Though I guess that's not much of an accusation. All melee has a tendency to boil down to it, without the ToB.

elliott20
2008-06-02, 02:09 PM
"dumbed down"? man, and here I was actually thinking that 4E is moving the right direction, what with the whole "make the game a little easier to play" and all. Thank god people pointed that out to me!

but wait, what about the demographic that actually ENJOYS doing accountant work? can't leave out those guys!!



Except that 99% of all optimization currently (i.e. 3.5) is not limited to the CORE classes. So that's an all but impossible measuring stick at this time. Wait until we have 30 splatbooks, and my bet is you'll have just as many Fighter 2 / Wizard 3 / Knight of the Spoon 2 / Eldritch Bizilbaffer 3 (but only for their daily power!) / Champion of Onion 2 / Red Lounger 4 / Cream Totem Barbarian 5 builds as we see today.

that is the tastiest sounding combo ever. We just need to add a couple levels of Paladin of Roasted Chickens with maybe a dip in Arcane Onion Sauteed Trickster, maybe some bullion cubes of chicken essence +5 and BAM, the ultimate chicken soup build!

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-06-02, 02:20 PM
This brings me back memories of the last time I had played with alignments in a live group.

"I use detect evil on her."
"She doesn't show evil."
"Weird.."

About 20 minutes later
"I use detect evil on her again."
"She is still not evil."
"Ok, what the hell."

About 20 minutes later... after the players discover what went on.
"So, she jammed the engine works to have this machine blow up and risk all the worker's lives in the back just to make sure we didn't get stuck in the middle of werewolf territory where we would all surely die?"
"Yes, that's about right."
"So... she made a judgement about the value of lives. Why didn't she come up evil again?"

Now, in this situation, it was simple to just say "a different view case of good."
However, this gaming session suddenly got heated and deeper -fast-. I won't go in to further details from there.


I'm rather happy that "detect evil" is not in 4e... as well as quite a few other alignment based mechanics.


-edit-
The idea of this post is to say:
"You're right in that alignments aren't quite a straight jacket, but people still can get caught in a straight jacket caused by alignments of which is the mechanics married to them."
Lol, this reminds me of a certain Paladin and a halfling Ranger...

Anyhow, the new streamlining sounds so far to be for the better. The nuances between alignments, you can just roleplay that out yourself. This also allows for in-between roleplay, maybe something not quite Neutral Good but not quite Chaotic Good either. It can just fall under "Good".

Vazzaroth
2008-06-02, 02:58 PM
As long as they keep choice and character customization high, I am fine with almost anything as long as it's d20 system. I was so relieved they are keeping feats, although they are very diffrent now. The powers are a good way for a fighter to get the same level of customization a wizard does by picking a couple spells at each level, and I'm really looking forward to the way the Paragon and Epic paths play out as they add more. I've always liked the idea of advancing job/class systems, here towards the end of 3.5, I haven't taken a base class without first choosing a PrC to work towards for awhile.

As long as their are enough core choices to make something like 3 or so diffrenct versions of the classes and each feels diffrent, I will be happy. I personally cannot wait for the warrior supplement they are releasing a few months afterwards. :smallwink:

And where did you hear 60 powers per class?! I assume thats total, not on one character? And another thing, have we heard about any class overlap on powers at all? IE: Will a Fighter and a Monk ever have the same power? Wizard and Warlock?

infinitypanda
2008-06-02, 06:55 PM
But if your point is that 4E only has eight classes whereas 3E has 40-50 of them, the answer is that 4E will also have many more classes once WOTC releases the splatbooks they have been planning for.

Sorry, but just to clarify, I meant 8 core base classes versus 14 core base classes. Sorry if that confused anyone.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 07:27 PM
And where did you hear 60 powers per class?! I assume thats total, not on one character?

More than 60 powers per class, my friend. The Warlock has 72 powers to choose from, and that's without looking at Paragon power choices. You'll understand why when you see the books.


And another thing, have we heard about any class overlap on powers at all? IE: Will a Fighter and a Monk ever have the same power? Wizard and Warlock?

Nope, never. That's what the multiclass feats are for. I find them to be well balanced and elegantly designed.

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 07:29 PM
The idea of 4E being dumbed down has been one of its main complaints throughout its entire pre history. Basically, it inspires a feel like a video game with some action movie thrown in
from
EE

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 07:30 PM
...

EE

For heaven's sake man, change your avatar back.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 07:31 PM
The idea of 4E being dumbed down has been one of its main complaints throughout its entire pre history. Basically, it inspires a feel like a video game with some action movie thrown in
from
EE

It's a lot Better Than It Sounds. It sounds horrible, but it plays really well. Sorta like pre-Achtung Baby U2.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 07:32 PM
For heaven's sake man, change your avatar back.

Why? He truly is The Small Corsican now.

OotS style.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 07:35 PM
It's a lot Better Than It Sounds. It sounds horrible, but it plays really well.

Agreed. A lot of the stuff sounds really bad, and then you try it, and it makes perfect sense and is lots of fun.

Also, a lot of the negative statements I'm seeing towards 4e are based on misinformation or purposeful disinformation (like someone claiming that being Prone makes it easier for enemies to hit you, which is completely false, it in fact makes it harder).

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 07:35 PM
1) Eh, whats wrong with the new look?
2) It might play well sure (my books aren't in yet) the same way Oblivion is more mechanically balanced than Morrowind, but a lot is sacerficed. True Oblivion was still close enough to the its counterpart to still be enjoyable but you get what i mean
3) I am now totally empathizing with Bradbury
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 07:41 PM
2) It might play well sure (my books aren't in yet) the same way Oblivion is more mechanically balanced than Morrowind, but a lot is sacerficed. True Oblivion was still close enough to the its counterpart to still be enjoyable but you get what i mean

No, really. Trust us on this, it's better and nothing is lost. Let me put it this way: It's more like having just played Street Fighter I...and then finding SF II Revival.

Trizap
2008-06-02, 07:46 PM
...........

infinitypanda, why can't you just homebrew the other six core classes based on 4E rules? you don't have to limit yourself to whats in the rulebook, simply take the six core classes not currently in 4E that were in 3.5 then tinker with them until they seem balanced 4E classes.

in fact, why can't everyone just take the content they want from 3.5 then tinker with them until they fit with 4E by homebrewing? seems a pretty good solution to me.

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 07:48 PM
No, really. Trust us on this, it's better and nothing is lost. Let me put it this way: It's more like having just played Street Fighter I...and then finding SF II Revival.

From what i read, i doubt it. The people who expressed support before it came out seem to enjoy it, and the people who expressed worry don't. Nothing new there


in fact, why can't everyone just take the content they want from 3.5 then tinker with them until they fit with 4E by homebrewing? seems a pretty good solution to me.
Well then we get something entirely new and WotC losses money.
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 07:49 PM
From what i read, i doubt it. The people who expressed support before it came out seem to enjoy it, and the people who expressed worry don't. Nothing new there

Well then we get something entirely new and WotC losses money.
from
EE

On this, I have to disagree. There's quite a few "converts", who liked it only after they played it.

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 07:52 PM
On this, I have to disagree. There's quite a few "converts", who liked it only after they played it.

and a few people who have lost faith. If the game delivers what it promising, i find it extremly unlikely it will not be dumbed down, unless WotC has pulled off something so amazing story wise that i will lose everything i once considered true

Also, why do people not like the new avatar?
from
EE

Neftren
2008-06-02, 07:52 PM
It is my opinion that 4th Edition has been dumbed down in order to simplify the rules in order to make the game easier to play. I know that my friend really liked Neverwinter Nights, but didn't want to actually start real D&D because the 3.5 Edition Rules were so complicated, not to mention numerous.

Trizap
2008-06-02, 07:56 PM
From what i read, i doubt it. The people who expressed support before it came out seem to enjoy it, and the people who expressed worry don't. Nothing new there

Well then we get something entirely new and WotC losses money.
from
EE

yes, but wouldn't you need the 4E books to know the 4E rules? in order to transfer the content you would need to know the rules, therefore no they won't lose money, that and its very likely they will add more spells and classes in the future, the options aren't gone; you will just have to wait for the right rulebook for them to become official, until then you can simply homebrew it.

Once again the options aren't gone, your just looking too much at the official rulebooks and not considering that you could homebrew it, just cause it ain't the rulebook, doesn't mean its a playable class, thats what homebrew is for.

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 08:00 PM
yes, but wouldn't you need the 4E books to know the 4E rules? in order to transfer the content you would need to know the rules, therefore no they won't lose money, that and its very likely they will add more spells and classes in the future, the options aren't gone; you will just have to wait for the right rulebook for them to become official, until then you can simply homebrew it.

Once again the options aren't gone, your just looking too much at the official rulebooks and not considering that you could homebrew it, just cause it ain't the rulebook, doesn't mean its a playable class, thats what homebrew is for.

1) My books haven't showed up yet
2) Depends on what you want. If i was given the time, money, and staff i could make an extremly good edition, but there isn't much in 4E i'd use (yet, i haven't seen the MM yet)
from
EE

Trizap
2008-06-02, 08:07 PM
1) My books haven't showed up yet
2) Depends on what you want. If i was given the time, money, and staff i could make an extremly good edition, but there isn't much in 4E i'd use (yet, i haven't seen the MM yet)
from
EE


whatever, whatever floats your boat, EE, I was just making a suggestion

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 08:08 PM
whatever, whatever floats your boat, EE, I was just making a suggestion

I see the value in your suggestion, the problem is that 4E seems determined to support the style of play that D&D is often wrongly fully stereotyped as, a mindless hack and slash/duengon crawl
from
EE

Neftren
2008-06-02, 08:14 PM
I see the value in your suggestion, the problem is that 4E seems determined to support the style of play that D&D is often wrongly fully stereotyped as, a mindless hack and slash/duengon crawl
from
EE

Except it's not. There are plenty of opportunities to roleplay, and with all the new races and monsters, it shouldn't be hard to have fun without excessive hack and slash. You're being a bit too narrow.

Who knows... maybe WotC will reintroduce the Bard and Sorcerer at a future time. Perhaps they just didn't feel it fit into the game just yet? They'll probably develop the mechanics in the future.

Trizap
2008-06-02, 08:17 PM
Except it's not. There are plenty of opportunities to roleplay, and with all the new races and monsters, it shouldn't be hard to have fun without excessive hack and slash. You're being a bit too narrow.

Who knows... maybe WotC will reintroduce the Bard and Sorcerer at a future time. Perhaps they just didn't feel it fit into the game just yet? They'll probably develop the mechanics in the future.

I agree, there is no reason for them not to do just that.

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 08:18 PM
Except it's not. There are plenty of opportunities to roleplay, and with all the new races and monsters, it shouldn't be hard to have fun without excessive hack and slash. You're being a bit too narrow.

Who knows... maybe WotC will reintroduce the Bard and Sorcerer at a future time. Perhaps they just didn't feel it fit into the game just yet? They'll probably develop the mechanics in the future.

But that is the style that it is aimed towards. While i will not say 3E gave a lot of aim towards that, it actively supported many more complex elements, and passively supported many others.
from
EE

Bandededed
2008-06-02, 08:25 PM
I got my books a few days ago, and after I wrapped my head around them (which wasn't difficult, by the way) I decided that they were easier.

Yep. Easier. Technically "dumbed down," but I find that phrase vaguely insulting.

The combat rules are very easy, especially at level one. Even at that level though, your fighter could be completely different from mine, and by level 30 they could seem like two different classes - but they're not. That level of customization was reserved for feats and skills in 3.5 - that and multiclassing, anyway - and now they've packed enough potential into those 8 classes that I am satisfied with the limits of complexity.

And why do I hear complaints about not having rules for social interactions? No more broken Diplomacy checks for you? I'm so sorry. Diplomacy still exists, but the rules are completely different.

Combat is combat. In 3.5 it is where things tended to bog down, and that is true in 4e too, except far less so.

Bleen
2008-06-02, 08:25 PM
Never mind, EE, that roughly half of the second chapter is essentially "Roleplaying for people foreign to the concept," and at least attempts to address things such as backstory and personality in a way someone completely unfamiliar with the concept of RP would be able to grasp. Or that Skill Challenges are effectively a system for handling noncombat encounters.

You're not fighting the system trying to make it run non-dungeon-crawl things any more than you are when you play 3.5E.

The game is less-complex than it was before. It does not, however, discourage any of the things you mention any more than 3.5 did.

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 08:27 PM
Never mind, EE, that roughly half of the second chapter is essentially "Roleplaying for people foreign to the concept," and at least attempts to address things such as backstory and personality in a way someone completely unfamiliar with the concept of RP would be able to grasp. Or that Skill Challenges are effectively a system for handling noncombat encounters.

Um, when did i say 3E was perfect? Ever?



You're not fighting the system trying to make it run non-dungeon-crawl things any more than you are when you play 3.5E.

The game is less-complex than it was before. It does not, however, discourage any of the things you mention any more than 3.5 did.

The game design ideals and goals make it seem and act like a video game or action movie, and sacrifices complexity to a point where i feel like it is patronizing me
from
EE

Gamiress
2008-06-02, 08:35 PM
Now, I'd already decided that 4e wasn't for me, because half my characters are completely incompatible. It just isn't set up for my play style, nor that of my group. We're a bunch of heathens who play Shadowrun and Paranoia and hate miniatures.

That said, I've been withholding judgement on the rules. I got the chance to look through them today, and my first reaction was: This reads like D&D For Dummies. With defined roles comes less flexibility of roles. My favourite character was a bard who took on both face and blaster roles through creative application of features, most of them core (a couple from Complete Adventurer and such) and that kind of character just doesn't seem possible with these rules.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 08:38 PM
Um, when did i say 3E was perfect? Ever?



The game design ideals and goals make it seem and act like a video game or action movie, and sacrifices complexity to a point where i feel like it is patronizing me
from
EE

Complexity doesn't equal depth, EE. Trust me on this, the game lost complexity, but gained DEPTH, which is what matters.

Don't let the outside fool you. 4th r00lz, as the 1337ists would say. It has an excellent combat system, incredible balance, and a way to do things outside of combat as exciting as the cross of swords, teeth, and claws, not reduced to a single roll.

Yes, some things can't be done right now (Illusionists and necromancers, for example). But Word of God has confirmed those will arrive later, possibly in the PHBII next year.

Bleen
2008-06-02, 08:39 PM
Um, when did i say 3E was perfect? Ever?
I dunno. Your words. My mouth. Get them out of it.




The game design ideals and goals make it seem and act like a video game or action movie, and sacrifices complexity to a point where i feel like it is patronizing me
from
EE
You know, the 'video game' argument is equivocal to "OMG MOREPIG!", which has already been disproven a number of times on this board. Intelligent, adaptive DM =! hard-coded piece of software.

As for action movie, well, too bad. I guess 4e isn't your style. Some people like action movies. They're exciting and entertaining. If I wanted to sit in a tavern discussing the weather when I played DnD, I would...probably not be bothering to roleplay in real life. So I guess I'm sorry WotC doesn't cater to your playstyle? There's plenty of other systems you can play for that, as I've stated before.

As for sacrificing complexity, well. GOD FORBID we try to make the game more accessible. Elitism might work for your personal attitude, but it doesn't sell product or get you good reviews. Sorry. If you love complex and unintuitive rulesets so much, I guess you can go play FATAL or something.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 08:52 PM
My favourite character was a bard who took on both face and blaster roles through creative application of features, most of them core (a couple from Complete Adventurer and such) and that kind of character just doesn't seem possible with these rules.

Two things to say to this: the first is that the Warlock is both the second best face in the 4e PHB, and also a blaster. You could easily take a straight Warlock and flavor them as a Kung-Fu Hustle-type Bard, complete with musical instrument (reflavored Implement) playing deadly music at their enemies.

The second is that the multiclassing feats in 4e seem very elegantly designed and quite well balanced. A Warlock/Rogue or Wizard/Rogue multiclass would be a great face/blaster. Rogue/Warlock is actually the best face in 4e period, AFAICT.

And this is all in core. Just wait for the splatbooks, the multiclass build possibilities will skyrocket.

elliott20
2008-06-02, 08:53 PM
And why do I hear complaints about not having rules for social interactions? No more broken Diplomacy checks for you? I'm so sorry. Diplomacy still exists, but the rules are completely different.

just because the social interaction mechanic was horrible in 3E doesn't mean that having social interaction rules themselves is going to be bad. It's all about how it's implemented.

elliott20
2008-06-02, 08:54 PM
As for sacrificing complexity, well. GOD FORBID we try to make the game more accessible. Elitism might work for your personal attitude, but it doesn't sell product or get you good reviews. Sorry. If you love complex and unintuitive rulesets so much, I guess you can go play FATAL or something.

Damn, ouch. You just HAD to bring FATAL into this, did you?

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 08:55 PM
I dunno. Your words. My mouth. Get them out of it.

As i said, i remind you that i've never stated that 3E was perfect ever



You know, the 'video game' argument is equivocal to "OMG MOREPIG!", which has already been disproven a number of times on this board. Intelligent, adaptive DM =! hard-coded piece of software.

As possible the first person on these boards to coin the Video game 4E phrase, i find ironic that i have to explain this again. As i've said before, and before and before, when i say video game, i don't mean MMO's in particular. My argument doesn't stem from taht. I mean taht the style is one similar to video games, PC centric, with everything existing withing the world itself to serve for PC convenience, and rather shallow, like Fable.


As for action movie, well, too bad. I guess 4e isn't your style. Some people like action movies. They're exciting and entertaining. If I wanted to sit in a tavern discussing the weather when I played DnD, I would...probably not be bothering to roleplay in real life. So I guess I'm sorry WotC doesn't cater to your playstyle? There's plenty of other systems you can play for that, as I've stated before.

1) Wow, that quite a fallacy there. When did i say that in order to not rely on hack and slash elements, the best way to play is to dicuss the weather within games. I like complexity, and i like consistency, because 4E compared to 3E in regards to design ideals, and both games compared to 2E seem almost privative.
2) Actions movies tend to be absurd, shallow, and tedious and simplistic. It leds to an uninteresting game that sees simplistic and less engaging than eariler editions, hole filled they might be
3) And yet my playstyle, one that relies on basic world consistency, logic and complexity was supported in both 2E and 3E. 4E is aiming for one more simplistic style



As for sacrificing complexity, well. GOD FORBID we try to make the game more accessible. Elitism might work for your personal attitude, but it doesn't sell product or get you good reviews. Sorry. If you love complex and unintuitive rulesets so much, I guess you can go play FATAL or something.
1) If you sacrifice unique and interesting elements of teh game to make it accessible to more people, they yes, forbid it
2) while i support Elitism, that isn't what is i'm supported, i'm against 4E's abandonments of complexity to make the game play like a video game, thus making what make the game enjoyable and less limiting obsolete is far more of an issue
3) Another Fallacy, in fact one that enters the realm of profoundly stupid. I've mocked FATAL plenty of times, and never held it as a anything to inspire to. It is moronic, time wasteful, and it insults everyone on these boards to attempt to compare me to its owners

Really, your entire post is nothing but a series of unbacked Fallacies, time wasting and not at all helpful
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 08:57 PM
Complexity doesn't equal depth, EE. Trust me on this, the game lost complexity, but gained DEPTH, which is what matters.

Don't let the outside fool you. 4th r00lz, as the 1337ists would say. It has an excellent combat system, incredible balance, and a way to do things outside of combat as exciting as the cross of swords, teeth, and claws, not reduced to a single roll.

Yes, some things can't be done right now (Illusionists and necromancers, for example). But Word of God has confirmed those will arrive later, possibly in the PHBII next year.
1) That is the thing, i don't think an inconsistent system can really have depth. I"m optimistic towards teh monsters descriptions and those of the planes, but when the world and the monsters are meant to be PC centric withing the game worlds limiting in depth. I liked 2E in terms of world depth
2) I imagine the combat system would be good, it is what they focus on the most
from
EE

Bleen
2008-06-02, 09:15 PM
And again, as I said, EE, you were putting words in my mouth. Don't. It's poor taste.

Now, let's see here.

1) I never said your arguments stemmed from the MOREPIG argument. I said your arguments are silly for the same reasons those are. Again, putting words in my mouth. Bad habit. Reccommend you stop.

2) I never said you did. Words. In my mouth. You are putting them there. You need to stop, seriously. By the way, when you claim someone is making a "fallacy" it's best to show which one they're using, because otherwise you're just spouting the word to make yourself look smart.

3) 4e is internally-consistent. In fact, the reason WHY it is so consistent is due to the graceful streamlining of the rules, rather than relying on a number of obscure situational clauses to operate well. Again, how complex you like the system is up to your personal taste and I'm sorry you consider that to be a solitary element that causes some bizarre domino effect among a number of factors that aren't even close to correlated.

4) I'm sorry you feel that way about a genre of movie. I feel that most drama is shallow, absurd, and tedious. That doesn't mean a system that wanted to support drama was necessarily bad; just that it wasn't in my taste.

5) Consistent, check. All abilities, classes, and character types intermingle in a way that makes sense and seldom makes exceptions within exceptions. World consistency, check. 4e doesn't have a pre-defined world any more than 3.5 does, so I guess that's up to how you make your campaign setting. Logic, check. All mechanics operate on basic cause and effect and a global set of easily-understood concepts ("The text of a specific ability trumps the text of a general rule").

6) Name five elements of 3.5 that are unique, interesting, and useful that aren't in 4e. Go.

7) See above.

8) Guess I should have added "that was obviously a silly joke" tags so you wouldn't take it so seriously. I'm merely using humor to put what you're saying sounds somewhat-silly to me: that complexity supposed equals depth and quality when a game exists as the antithesis to that.

Jorkens
2008-06-02, 09:15 PM
I mean taht the style is one similar to video games, PC centric, with everything existing withing the world itself to serve for PC convenience, and rather shallow, like Fable.
Apart from the whole 'treasure packet' thing (which afaict is more a guideline for novice GMs so they don't end up killing their parties by expecting them to be ready for a challenge they're underequipped for than an immutable law of the universe) (and which you can ignore anyway, like a lot of people do WBL) what actual evidence do you have for this?

Edit: maybe the reason that 4e feels like it's been dumbed down is less that the system has been drastically reduced in scope, more that the tone of the books is pitched more towards novices and explaining the most basic ideas and applications than towards explaining all the ramifications and possibilities for people like GitP regulars? And that this is why a number of people have been pleasantly surprised when they've actually played the system rather than just reading it? This is conjecture, someone who's read the books could maybe say more.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-06-02, 09:31 PM
I will say again that it does look like 4E does seem to have a completely different target audience then 3E. I can understand why some people don't like 4E. I however am a big fan of it.

To me 4E is better a role player then previous additions. That is because you have so many options when creating a character, that they feel unique. The racial abilites have so much depth to them, that playing an elf fighter feels different from playing an dwarf fighter. Which means it really feels like you are playing an elf. If you want to play a certain type of character, you just play that character. You don't need to find all the right feats to make that characater work. 3rd edition characters to me feels more like matahematical constucts.

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 09:32 PM
And again, as I said, EE, you were putting words in my mouth. Don't. It's poor taste.

You've pulled several Fallacy just there, don't be absurd. take your own advice



1) I never said your arguments stemmed from the MOREPIG argument. I said your arguments are silly for the same reasons those are. Again, putting words in my mouth. Bad habit. Reccommend you stop.
And yet you never said why, and you relied upon the same logic


2) I never said you did. Words. In my mouth. You are putting them there. You need to stop, seriously. By the way, when you claim someone is making a "fallacy" it's best to show which one they're using, because otherwise you're just spouting the word to make yourself look smart.
they don't make that compression. I never said that you need to discuss the weather in game to avoid inconsistency. You don't need to make a game freaking Sims game to avoid Fable style gaming


3) 4e is internally-consistent. In fact, the reason WHY it is so consistent is due to the graceful streamlining of the rules, rather than relying on a number of obscure situational clauses to operate well. Again, how complex you like the system is up to your personal taste and I'm sorry you consider that to be a solitary element that causes some bizarre domino effect among a number of factors that aren't even close to correlated.
actually it isn't, because it relies on a massive amount of meta game logic for it to work



4) I'm sorry you feel that way about a genre of movie. I feel that most drama is shallow, absurd, and tedious. That doesn't mean a system that wanted to support drama was necessarily bad; just that it wasn't in my taste.

And still, you don't need D&d to be based upon an action movie, with a massive amount of metagaming crap mixed in

5
) Consistent, check. All abilities, classes, and character types intermingle in a way that makes sense and seldom makes exceptions within exceptions. World consistency, check. 4e doesn't have a pre-defined world any more than 3.5 does, so I guess that's up to how you make your campaign setting. Logic, check. All mechanics operate on basic cause and effect and a global set of easily-understood concepts ("The text of a specific ability trumps the text of a general rule").
Except in 3E, the game at least tries to maintain the rules both as an in game and out of game rule, while in 4E all of the rule come from a meta gaming perspective. For example, in game via rules monsters's mechanics are those that revolve around the PCs


6) Name five elements of 3.5 that are unique, interesting, and useful that aren't in 4e. Go.

1) Great Wheel
2) NCP PC consistency
3) More unique and interesting mix of classes
4) Monsters with powers and abilities based around things other than the PC
5) Old Alignments



8) Guess I should have added "that was obviously a silly joke" tags so you wouldn't take it so seriously. I'm merely using humor to put what you're saying sounds somewhat-silly to me: that complexity supposed equals depth and quality when a game exists as the antithesis to that.
Except it simply isn't a very good joke, because the reference doesn't add up
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 09:38 PM
1) Great Wheel
2) NCP PC consistency
3) More unique and interesting mix of classes
4) Monsters with powers and abilities based around things other than the PC
5) Old Alignments



1) It could come back with Planescape. And it's still there, only not in name.

2) What d'you mean with that? That you cannot make mobs with PC levels? That's patently false. The templates are only there to make the creation easy, but making the big guys use full fledged PC statistics is a perfectly valid strategy.

3) Like Fighter 10/Wizard 10, the suck of both worlds?

3.5 multiclassing was crap. Either you used loops and holes in the rules to become 00B4R, or you sucked, big time.

4) ??? What did that mean? I don't get this one. Elaborate.

5) Yep, that one I grant to you. It's a shame, IMO.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 09:52 PM
5) Yep, that one I grant to you. It's a shame, IMO.

I rather like the 4e alignment system. It both encompasses the 3e system and sheds its bonds. What specifically about it don't you like?

And if you really want to use the 3e alignment system, what's stopping you? It won't change the game, one bit. After all, Good is basically just CG and Evil is basically just LE.

Trizap
2008-06-02, 09:56 PM
I disagree with 5!

the old alignment system was too restricting! the new one offers even more options and choices for your character to be more natural and to even spread out a bit, instead of being so narrow, the new one is better as its much looser
therefore open to more choices and options. alignments are meant to be a guide, not a definition of your character, "Good" can be anything with a pure heart that are not lawful, "Evil" can mean almost anyone with evil in their hearts that are do not have chaos in them, and unaligned could mean anything you could possibly think of, the old alignment system was too narrow, this one is more spread out, and more flexible, it doesn't impede roleplaying, it enhances it.

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 10:01 PM
1) It could come back with Planescape. And it's still there, only not in name.

2) What d'you mean with that? That you cannot make mobs with PC levels? That's patently false. The templates are only there to make the creation easy, but making the big guys use full fledged PC statistics is a perfectly valid strategy.

3) Like Fighter 10/Wizard 10, the suck of both worlds?

3.5 multiclassing was crap. Either you used loops and holes in the rules to become 00B4R, or you sucked, big time.

4) ??? What did that mean? I don't get this one. Elaborate.

5) Yep, that one I grant to you. It's a shame, IMO.

1) We shall see
2) I could, but i could also fix diplomicy in 3E. They aren't intended to be, it is a shallow gaming style
3) No i mean loss of class diversity
4) in 4E, while monsters often had cool powers and stuff, they didn't exist mechanically simply to be slaughtered by the PCs as written, they just often were. In 4E, they are tailored made as random encounters now, which i think sucks
5) In defense of the Old alignement system from others, it actually allows any view point at all, if you remember that while good and evil are objective, Right and wrong are not. Good doesn't =right and evil doesn't equal wrong. John Brown would be considered evil right, and yet he would consider himself right
from
EE

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 10:24 PM
5) In defense of the Old alignement system from others, it actually allows any view point at all, if you remember that while good and evil are objective, Right and wrong are not. Good doesn't =right and evil doesn't equal wrong. John Brown would be considered evil right, and yet he would consider himself right
from
EE

4e has changed that how exactly?

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 10:30 PM
4e has changed that how exactly?

if you want a moral system, there are two ways to go

1) Make every objective, in terms of every behavior and action having an aligment consequence
2) Or no alignment at all, everything is up to personal feeling
an in between is simply going to cause even mroe alignment inconsistencies

and waht is wrong with my new avatar?
from
EE

Killersquid
2008-06-02, 10:36 PM
Yea, the gutting of the alignment system was stupid. Ok, they made it have no impact on gameplay, but why was it then removed of half of the alignments about?

Also, EE, we all just remember you with your old Napoleon fluffy robe avatar.

Kompera
2008-06-02, 10:45 PM
I see the value in your suggestion, the problem is that 4E seems determined to support the style of play that D&D is often wrongly fully stereotyped as, a mindless hack and slash/duengon crawl
Except for the small fact that there is nothing aside from your own opinion which supports this position. There is nothing in the 3.x rules stopping any group playing 3.x from treating it as "a mindless hack and slash/dungeon crawl," just a there is northing in the 4e rules forcing any group playing 4e to treat it as "a mindless hack and slash/dungeon crawl."


I mean taht the style is one similar to video games, PC centric, with everything existing withing the world itself to serve for PC convenience, and rather shallow, like Fable.
And perhaps that's your opinion on the game, but again there's nothing in the rules which supports this position.
I'm sure the players, when challenged by whatever their GM has designed for the play session are not going to cry "But, wait! Why do we have to fight these Orcs and save the caravan? The game needs to exist for our convenience! Giv loot$ plz kkthnxbye."

You're welcome to your opinion on the game, but you've failed in many threads, even when asked to elaborate or rebutted thoroughly, to ever provide any argument which was not purely opinion driven.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 10:49 PM
if you want a moral system, there are two ways to go

1) Make every objective, in terms of every behavior and action having an aligment consequence
2) Or no alignment at all, everything is up to personal feeling
an in between is simply going to cause even mroe alignment inconsistencies

Why? What's inherently more inconsistent with LG-G-U-E-CE than the old 3x3 grid? If anything, it reduces inconsistency, since alignment wasn't a straitjacket but often was played as such.


and waht is wrong with my new avatar?
from
EE

Nothing's wrong with it, per se.

Wender
2008-06-02, 10:53 PM
The major reason I'm glad they ditched the old alignment system is that they (meaning TSR and WotC) never got it right. They never got it right because they were missing an entire axis (social-personal). It should have been three dimensional at the very least. Since it wasn't:

1) Neutral was overloaded in too many ways. Is she Neutral because she averages out? because she's a principled centrist? because she's indifferent? because her int is 1? What does Neutral mean if druids are more likely to side with Good than Evil? And if predation is supposed to be an example of evil in nature, why are predators Neutral?

2) Whether Good and Evil were objective, and what they meant, wavered from edition to edition and often from supplement to supplement;

3) They could never pin down what Lawful and Chaotic meant. Ever. Does Lawful refer to strict self-discipline, or is it a strong personal code, or is it obeisance to a social code? How about obeisance to the prevailing social code (i.e., when in Rome, do as the Romans do)? They never figured that out.

4) To what extent are alignments descriptive, and to what extent prescriptive? This is what a lot of people got hung up on. There was a tendency to turn everyone into a paladin and make alignments into straitjackets, then complain that they were confining.

Given that I'm not surprised that they finally trimmed down the alignment system (which necessitated getting rid of the cosmology that depended on both axes being there) and got rid of a lot of alignment-specific magic. I'll take simpler if it means clear and consistent definitions.

There seem to be a lot of comparisons between 3.5e in all its splatbook-bloated glory and 4e core. Why? 3e core's choices were downright spartan relative to 2.5e (not to mention broken), and 2e core looked like slim pickings to anyone buried under the mountain of supplements eventually published for 1e (where new rules were often buried in modules!). WotC's need to show a consistent profit will take care of this problem in due time.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 10:59 PM
Given that I'm not surprised that they finally trimmed down the alignment system (which necessitated getting rid of the cosmology that depended on both axes being there) and got rid of a lot of alignment-specific magic. I'll take simpler if it means clear and consistent definitions.

Agreed, 100%. I am fully in favor of this simplification.


There seem to be a lot of comparisons between 3.5e in all its splatbook-bloated glory and 4e core. Why? 3e core's choices were downright spartan relative to 2.5e (not to mention broken), and 2e core looked like slim pickings to anyone buried under the mountain of supplements eventually published for 1e (where new rules were often buried in modules!). WotC's need to show a consistent profit will take care of this problem in due time.

I am really surprised by how many posts completely miss this point. It's core! It's not going to have the breadth of options that 3e with all its supplements had, of course.

Compared to 3e's core, I'd say it looks pretty darn good in terms of real options.

Talya
2008-06-02, 11:16 PM
Useful Dextrous Fighter, with a GM who hates the ToB. Please don't make it so easy.

I've done this. It's not easy, and not perfect, but it's effective and fun.

It involved playing a gray elf, 2-4 fighter, 3 swashbuckler, 10 dervish, 2 champion of Corellon Larethian (not taken in that order) and one other class to for fun. You end up getting to make a full attack while moving, getting +dex to hit on dual scimitars (and no offhand penalty for a non-light weapon), and getting strength, dexterity, and intelligence added to damage.

Now, try to make a dextrous melee Fighter (or even Ranger) in 4e. At all.

Skyserpent
2008-06-03, 12:13 AM
I've done this. It's not easy, and not perfect, but it's effective and fun.

It involved playing a gray elf, 2-4 fighter, 3 swashbuckler, 10 dervish, 2 champion of Corellon Larethian (not taken in that order) and one other class to for fun. You end up getting to make a full attack while moving, getting +dex to hit on dual scimitars (and no offhand penalty for a non-light weapon), and getting strength, dexterity, and intelligence added to damage.

Now, try to make a dextrous melee Fighter (or even Ranger) in 4e. At all.

I think Rutee was referring to Core... so without Swash's and Dervishes, or Champions of Corellon... You don't have much to work with... Of course, once again 3.5 has had a lot of time to fill out their sourcebooks.

Just play a rogue. Or take the Rogue Multiclass feat. Honestly, The Rogue is now quite the swashbuckling swordsman. He's a fast, mobile, dexterity based striker, just because you don't have the word "Fighter" attached to your class doesn't mean you can't be a front-line combat character.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-03, 12:42 AM
Just play a rogue. Or take the Rogue Multiclass feat. Honestly, The Rogue is now quite the swashbuckling swordsman. He's a fast, mobile, dexterity based striker, just because you don't have the word "Fighter" attached to your class doesn't mean you can't be a front-line combat character.

I think the issue is that being a useful, dextrous FIGHTER is something people think the class should be able to accomodate just like people think that being able to necromance should be something the wizard class should accomodate.

People read/watch The Three Musketeers and the class that comes to mind to fulfill this type of character is fighter, rather than rogue. Being dextrous in an effective way is a facet of armsmanship that the fighter class should be able to accomodate but has failed to without multiple splatbooks in 3.x and altogether 4e.

It's similar to someone wanting to play a druid and the DM telling them to just play a cleric of Obad-Hai instead.

GlordFunkelhand
2008-06-03, 06:13 AM
I don't think the alignments really made matters 'complex'.

As to 'too few classes'.. well, yes. That's the core book. If you really want your splatbook spam, it will inevitably come and make the game have as crazy many options as 3rd ed. Yay. :smallsigh:

Ok, let's say you have a group made complete of 3.x core book characters. You can't upgrade that group to 4e at the moment, since there are classes missing. That's the reason my D&D group can't upgrade to 4e. Mainly due to the missing druid class, I am sure we'd be able to find a working solution for the other members of the group.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-03, 06:45 AM
Ok, let's say you have a group made complete of 3.x core book characters. You can't upgrade that group to 4e at the moment, since there are classes missing. That's the reason my D&D group can't upgrade to 4e. Mainly due to the missing druid class, I am sure we'd be able to find a working solution for the other members of the group.

They've stated that there is no conversion between third and fourth and that was intentional.

Cainen
2008-06-03, 07:15 AM
They've stated that there is no conversion between third and fourth and that was intentional.

That doesn't make it a plus. Or even neutral.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-03, 07:16 AM
That doesn't make it a plus. Or even neutral.

It wasn't intended to be. It was a statement of fact.

nagora
2008-06-03, 07:54 AM
The major reason I'm glad they ditched the old alignment system is that they (meaning TSR and WotC) never got it right. They never got it right because they were missing an entire axis (social-personal). It should have been three dimensional at the very least. Since it wasn't:

1) Neutral was overloaded in too many ways. Is she Neutral because she averages out? because she's a principled centrist? because she's indifferent? because her int is 1? What does Neutral mean if druids are more likely to side with Good than Evil? And if predation is supposed to be an example of evil in nature, why are predators Neutral?
This mess was largely WotC's making. Neutral is the self-preservation alignment. Druids extend that to preserving the whole of nature. Druids are never Good or Evil, nor Lawful nor Chaotic for that matter. True Neutral is the realm of the insane and very particular types of deities and their clerics.


2) Whether Good and Evil were objective, and what they meant, wavered from edition to edition and often from supplement to supplement;
Good has fairly consistantly been the helping of others, evil the domination of others. Good=generous; Evil=cruel. I don't see that it's changed much, and the whole concept of alignment is that it's objective and always has been.



3) They could never pin down what Lawful and Chaotic meant. Ever.
Lawful people subsume their goals into group goals and will compromise their personal desires with the overall group. Chaotics decide for themselves and don't take orders they don't agree with. Again, pretty solidly held through all editions and not at all a difficult concept.


Does Lawful refer to strict self-discipline, or is it a strong personal code, or is it obeisance to a social code? How about obeisance to the prevailing social code (i.e., when in Rome, do as the Romans do)? They never figured that out.
No to all of those. The first two can be chaotic traits as easily as lawful, and the last one depends on the nature of the character's role but a paladin, for example, need not follow prevailing social codes or laws (although most will). S/he must follow the code of his or her order, nothing else.



4) To what extent are alignments descriptive, and to what extent prescriptive? This is what a lot of people got hung up on. There was a tendency to turn everyone into a paladin and make alignments into straitjackets, then complain that they were confining.
For most people they're descriptive, for those who espouse them (clerics, paladins) they are usually more prescriptive.

So, in short: no apparent problems.

Attilargh
2008-06-03, 07:59 AM
Lawful people subsume their goals into group goals and will compromise their personal desires with the overall group. Chaotics decide for themselves and don't take orders they don't agree with. Again, pretty solidly held through all editions and not at all a difficult concept.
You know, that makes plenty of sense and I find myself agreeing with your view on the matter. However, I can't seem to find a thing in the 3.5 SRD to really back that up.

Also, out of curiousity, do when you say "True Neutral" do you refer to the "balance between Good and Evil" alignment, or the "Neutral Neutral" alignment as a whole?

Charity
2008-06-03, 08:09 AM
I doubt it was so much intentional as inevitable.
But one can always re-imagine your fav character in 4e, there is no major obsticles to this approach.

elliott20
2008-06-03, 08:16 AM
I personally am of the school of thought that D&D was NEVER anything but designed to be a hack n' slash fest. I mean, sure, you can play the game where the players are involved in political intrigue and all that but the system itself was never really all that good about supporting that style of play. It all basically comes down to GM fiat and kit bashing to make it work.

So, to me the argument of calling 4E a simplified hack n' slash game compared to previous edition just doesn't work for me.

3E at this point is pretty much a game where the actual social and non-combat portions of the game is entirely optional but the core combat element is almost surgically implanted into gameplay.

There's nothing wrong with that as that was what we all grew up playing and it's a legacy system.

That's all well and good but let's call a spade a spade here, people. D&D was never a game that actively promotes roleplaying beyond the bare minimal elements.

nagora
2008-06-03, 09:18 AM
You know, that makes plenty of sense and I find myself agreeing with your view on the matter. However, I can't seem to find a thing in the 3.5 SRD to really back that up.

Here's Lawful Neutral with emphasis:

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Major edit: looking at this again, I've realised that the personal code mentioned here is not, as it used to be, a "code one chose", ie still an external code belonging to a group/order/cult etc that one chose to join and not directly related to external society, but a literal personal code which applies to oneself. This is actually, a major change from previous editions and, reading it without benefit of that knowledge does indeed lead to a totally confused idea of what Law/Chaos is all about.

Hmmm. Well, I certainly understand the problem now.


From the CN text:

He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions.
A classic example of lawful not being anything to do with society are the Assassins and Thieves guilds. These organisations can be very lawful, but opperate totally against the law; the group organises missions, protects its members either by force or using their resources to buy legal representation or to bribe law enforcement officers. Very lawful, very illegal. "Organised Crime" is, after all, organised!

It's certainly true that most lawful people will beleive in following the laws of society, but only if they do not feel alienated from that society. There are plenty of examples in history (which we're not supposed to discuss here) of very traditional, very ordered societies which are oppressed by the wider social system and owe no loyalty to it.

As to chaotics, I posted this a couple of years ago (the formatting seems to have been slightly messed up during a board update):
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934677&postcount=662
The character in that short story is self-disciplined, orderly, focused, and totally chaotic. Alignments are not supposed to be as restrictive as people here think.


Also, out of curiousity, do when you say "True Neutral" do you refer to the "balance between Good and Evil" alignment, or the "Neutral Neutral" alignment as a whole?
By True Neutral I mean a character who wishes to prevent any one of the other alignments gaining dominance in the world. I assume that such a position reflects certain "high politics" amongst the gods rather than being something a normal, sane person would espouse.

nagora
2008-06-03, 09:22 AM
I personally am of the school of thought that D&D was NEVER anything but designed to be a hack n' slash fest. I mean, sure, you can play the game where the players are involved in political intrigue and all that but the system itself was never really all that good about supporting that style of play.
1ed supported that style perfectly: it had no rules for it (except Cha, I suppose). The players roleplay their characters, the DM roleplays the NPCs. Perfect! I've played a lot of social and political scenarios in AD&D.

Magic, I need rules for. Combat, I need rules for. Talking to people, not so much.

Matthew
2008-06-03, 09:32 AM
That's all well and good but let's call a spade a spad here, people. D&D was never a game that actively promotes roleplaying beyond the bare minimal elements.

Hee, hee. :smallbiggrin:

elliott20
2008-06-03, 09:42 AM
oh fiddle sticks, I can't type.

Nagora, certainly you CAN play RP in any of those. But it doesn't mean the system necessarily supports it better. Lack of rules does not mean support.

I am of the belief that if you want to encourage a certain kind of player behavior, then there needs to be an incentive for it. That is, if you want players to play to a certain kind of behavior, having your system provide mechanics to support that kind of behavior is not necessarily a bad idea. Having NO mechanics supporting it, while probably better than having terrible mechanics mangling, is not really all that much better because that means that all outcomes of said social interactions are just about as arbitrary as anything else.

and in many ways, it renders some of your stats meaingless. So what if you got a CHA of 28? If you as a player don't know how to talk to people or negotiate or even just have a quick wit, your character will effectively have a CHA of 3.

Now, while I'm not arguing for having a mechanic that takes over the RP aspects entirely and force them into numbers, I do believe that there are systems out there that can support that style of play.

nagora
2008-06-03, 09:52 AM
oh fiddle sticks, I can't type.

Nagora, certainly you CAN play RP in any of those. But it doesn't mean the system necessarily supports it better. Lack of rules does not mean support.

I am of the belief that if you want to encourage a certain kind of player behavior, then there needs to be an incentive for it. That is, if you want players to play to a certain kind of behavior, having your system provide mechanics to support that kind of behavior is not necessarily a bad idea. Having NO mechanics supporting it, while probably better than having terrible mechanics mangling, is not really all that much better because that means that all outcomes of said social interactions are just about as arbitrary as anything else.


But we got the game out to roleplay: it's even in the name "Roleplaying game". We don't need any support or encouragement on that front. We need support for the genre-specifics of what sort of characters and settings we're using. So computers or hyperdrive rules or magic and swords. But we never, ever need role-playing rules because that's what we're here for! Suggestions and positive examples, sure. But any 5-year-old knows how to role-play; the rules just need to get out of our way!

Why does it have to be arbitrary? If my character is argumentative and starts an argument, is that arbitrary? If a character is a loner and causes friction when forced to work with others, is that arbitrary? Would it be any better if the former had an "start argument" skill and the latter a "team player" penalty?

elliott20
2008-06-03, 10:08 AM
But we got the game out to roleplay: it's even in the name "Roleplaying game". We don't need any support or encouragement on that front. We need support for the genre-specifics of what sort of characters and settings we're using. So computers or hyperdrive rules or magic and swords. But we never, ever need role-playing rules because that's what we're here for! Suggestions and positive examples, sure. But any 5-year-old knows how to role-play; the rules just need to get out of our way!

Why does it have to be arbitrary? If my character is argumentative and starts an argument, is that arbitrary? If a character is a loner and causes friction when forced to work with others, is that arbitrary? Would it be any better if the former had an "start argument" skill and the latter a "team player" penalty?
what you're confusing here is the difference between intent of action and result of action. Social mechanics do not necessarily have to restrict the INTENT of the player, it just needs some kind of help on the outcome of that intent.

and when your character comes with a stat that specifically suggests their capability in that arena, having some guidelines as to how that affects your intentions is not just helpful, it also helps internal consistency.

think of it this way, by removing any mechanics that support social interaction, the player's ability to roleplay is entirely constrained by how good an actor and good a negotiator they themselves are. AND it is constrained by how well the other player (be it another PC or the GM) is willing to reciprocate that effort.

Talya
2008-06-03, 10:15 AM
I think Rutee was referring to Core... so without Swash's and Dervishes, or Champions of Corellon...

She specifically ruled out Tome of Battle. Strange she would do that alone if she meant Core-only.



Just play a rogue. Or take the Rogue Multiclass feat. Honestly, The Rogue is now quite the swashbuckling swordsman. He's a fast, mobile, dexterity based striker, just because you don't have the word "Fighter" attached to your class doesn't mean you can't be a front-line combat character.

Say I don't want to play a rogue. I want to play a dual-weilding dextrous ranger. Make it work for me, effectively, in 4e. (Note my build above has 3 unused levels that can be any base class or PRC you want without interfering with the build.)

Jade_Tarem
2008-06-03, 10:21 AM
"Dumbed down" is Elitist for "not quite so needlessly complicated", right?

(And I don't just mean when 3E fans use that as a criticism of 4E, I mean when anyone uses it as a criticism of anything, ever.)

"The gods help us all." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0506.html)

nagora
2008-06-03, 10:23 AM
what you're confusing here is the difference between intent of action and result of action. Social mechanics do not necessarily have to restrict the INTENT of the player, it just needs some kind of help on the outcome of that intent.

Okay.


and when your character comes with a stat that specifically suggests their capability in that arena, having some guidelines as to how that affects your intentions is not just helpful, it also helps internal consistency.

If possible, yes. I just don't think it's possible. The task is so subtle and complex that I think it's best left up to the DM if that sort of situation comes up (eg, player is an oaf, character is 18 Cha). Most people manage fine, IME.


think of it this way, by removing any mechanics that support social interaction, the player's ability to roleplay is entirely constrained by how good an actor and good a negotiator they themselves are. AND it is constrained by how well the other player (be it another PC or the GM) is willing to reciprocate that effort.
To an extent I think that's fair enough, although I see where you're coming from. In this area I think rules need to use a light touch, and no rules are, as you said, better than bad rules.

Charity
2008-06-03, 10:27 AM
A game is not dumb or dumbed down because you cannot port in a character exactly as concieved from a previous edition.

Re-imagine the character or play a different one, if only one character concept will do, ask yourself why it is imperative to the concept that it must be (rather arbitarily) dex based TWF.
You can be a TWF ranger, you can use light weapons why must it be that on your character sheet that the dex stat is higher than the str stat?

I would suggest it is becuase you want to not like 4e, and thats fine but realise it has nothing to do with the overall worthyness of the system as an RPG and more to do with your preferences.

elliott20
2008-06-03, 10:44 AM
Okay.



If possible, yes. I just don't think it's possible. The task is so subtle and complex that I think it's best left up to the DM if that sort of situation comes up (eg, player is an oaf, character is 18 Cha). Most people manage fine, IME.


To an extent I think that's fair enough, although I see where you're coming from. In this area I think rules need to use a light touch, and no rules are, as you said, better than bad rules.

to a certain extent, I disagree that it's impossible. But rather, we need to approach it from a new angle. the key lies partially in what you say, a lighter touch. Social interaction is, like you said, nuanced and subtle, and sometimes is very fluid.

to attempt to capture all the detailed nuances and subtlety with numbers would be an exercise in disaster. and so, any kind of social mechanic would have to be rather general but allow for fluidity in terms of both time of resolution and method of resolution.

i.e. in some games, they implement OOC compromises as part of the mechanic so that the outcome of a social interaction is not a black or white "I win you lose" situation. social interaction is rarely that oneside that the outcome will come out with one side clearly winning over the other. in some games, a character's argument varies in strength from argument to argument, determined sometimes almost randomly (modified by their skill, of course), representing the myriad of possible little nuances that effect a person's mental state from minute to minute. these little ideas and mechanics all help to keep things loose and fluid.

NephandiMan
2008-06-03, 10:49 AM
A couple points here.

First, I agree that whether you regard 4e as "dumbed down" or "streamlined" will depend on whether you regard 4e as a whole in a generally positive or generally negative light.

Second, WotC has redesigned D&D, apparently from the ground up, to appeal to a casual gaming crowd, one that has been raised on MMORPGs and other video RPGs, and one that has not played any tabletop RPGs before. From a marketing standpoint, that's not only a legitimate decision, it also makes very good sense - D&D was the first RPG that many of us played, and if WotC wants to make it more accessible for first-timers, I say bully for them.

That said, WotC certainly haven't done themselves any favors with long-time gamers, especially long-time players of older D&D editions. While the claims that D&D has become a board game or a video game are plainly exaggerated, there is something to both of them. If one wanted a symbol of the shift away from pure imagination and toward miniatures, it's right there in the stat block: movement, which was once measured in feet, is now measured solely in squares. It's as though WotC is deliberately discouraging us even mechanically from thinking of these characters as living, breathing individuals, rather than numbers on a sheet or plastic figures on a grid.

This brings me to my final point: along with the deliberate discouragement of imagination that I just mentioned, it seems that WotC is actively encouraging players to homogenize their characters, in order to fill a given role within the party. As has been remarked, character options become more and more limited as party roles become more and more clearly defined. I think that if WotC wants to have any kind of long-term success, or appeal to a broader spectrum of players, they will have to introduce an extraordinary variety of ways to fill the party roles. And only time will tell whether even that will be enough.

Dumbed down? In the end, I would not say that. But for the reasons I have given, I will need to see a good variety of supplementary materials before I would be willing to play 4e on anything more than a trial basis.

Indon
2008-06-03, 10:51 AM
Well, yeah, it's dumbed down. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Replacing THAC0 and downward-increasing AC with BAB and increasing AC was dumbing down the game. But the old system was unintuitive and awkward, so many agreed the change was definitely a good thing.

When you make something smooth and intuitive, that dumbing down can be a good thing.

When you remove a problematic feature of a game rather than improving it, that dumbing down is probably a bad thing.

Good dumbing down: Traps. Traps were streamlined into basically a type of monster in 4'th edition. Excellent "dumbing down" right there - by making things more intuitive, an aspect of the game can be more useful.

Bad dumbing down: Alignment. The mechanical aspect of alignment was significantly reduced, while not necessarily making alignment more intuitive. Bad "dumbing down" here - an aspect of the game was actively made less useful for the game, without any particular streamlining effect. People will still argue about what the alignments mean, they're just going to be arguing about fewer of them, and less often if they become less significant in the game.

4'th edition has a lot of dumbing down: Some of it, though, is really cool, like traps (and the THAC0-BAB change way back when). Some of it isn't. It's a real mixed bag in that regard.

nagora
2008-06-03, 10:51 AM
i.e. in some games, they implement OOC compromises as part of the mechanic so that the outcome of a social interaction is not a black or white "I win you lose" situation. social interaction is rarely that oneside that the outcome will come out with one side clearly winning over the other. in some games, a character's argument varies in strength from argument to argument, determined sometimes almost randomly (modified by their skill, of course), representing the myriad of possible little nuances that effect a person's mental state from minute to minute. these little ideas and mechanics all help to keep things loose and fluid.

It sounds a lot of bother when the DM can do all that in his/her head. And probably knows more about a) social interaction generally, and b) the social interactions appropriate to his/her campaign setting than a game designer who has never met that DM's players.

Also, social interaction is not always a form of combat.

We'll be debating Socrates soon at this rate.:smalleek:

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 10:54 AM
A couple points here.


This brings me to my final point: along with the deliberate discouragement of imagination that I just mentioned, it seems that WotC is actively encouraging players to homogenize their characters, in order to fill a given role within the party. As has been remarked, character options become more and more limited as party roles become more and more clearly defined. I think that if WotC wants to have any kind of long-term success, or appeal to a broader spectrum of players, they will have to introduce an extraordinary variety of ways to fill the party roles. And only time will tell whether even that will be enough.


I disagree on this point just by the fact that you don't have to have all the classic party roles anymore to have a viable party. You could have a party of 4 rangers and they could do just fine.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 10:58 AM
I disagree on this point just by the fact that you don't have to have all the classic party roles anymore to have a viable party. You could have a party of 4 rangers and they could do just fine.

You know, I'm not sure how true that really is. Combat, at least at low levels, has proven pretty deadly without a Leader in the little I've played thus far.

elliott20
2008-06-03, 11:00 AM
It sounds a lot of bother when the DM can do all that in his/her head. And probably knows more about a) social interaction generally, and b) the social interactions appropriate to his/her campaign setting than a game designer who has never met that DM's players.

Also, social interaction is not always a form of combat.

We'll be debating Socrates soon at this rate.:smalleek:

well, social interaction that has no conflict are not the ones we need rules for, cuz when everyone agrees, the game just moves on and that's it. the only time we really need rules to come in and help out is when people are deadlocked in a decision making process. i.e. when two PCs are in conflict with each other.

Granted, you're right, this is a lot of to bother a lot of the times. that's why rules of social engagement should only come in when it's used for something that is actually important. most of the time, I follow the "say yes or roll" principle. If something is not important enough to bother, say yes to the players and move on. If it's something that matters but it's not so important as to set up the entire social engagement rules, just make it a single roll and move on. when doing that, I'm fine with it because quite frankly it's not going to matter that much.

but what if the players want to say, convince a king to go to war against his ally? that's an important task they're performing. that's when I'd pull out the social rules.

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 11:01 AM
You know, I'm not sure how true that really is. Combat, at least at low levels, has proven pretty deadly without a Leader in the little I've played thus far.

Really? I mean I see how they can be useful but I don't think they are absolutely necessary. The plucky melee wizard I'm playing hasn't needed my party cleric at all. I'd expect that party tactics would go a radical shift with 4 rangers though.

TSGames
2008-06-03, 11:09 AM
Ok, before the flames start, let me just say that I only had about 5 minutes to look over the new rule books, so I gravitated towards the character creation rules. And frankly, it felt a bit dumbed down. Only 8 classes. The only alignments are lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil. Does anyone who has read more have anything to say about this? Is it like this for the rest of the rules, or does it get better?

4E seems to be the first attempt in D&D to apply basic recognized design principles, in short: the KISS Principle. This is an idea that has long been employed in unix and other programming. It means: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

This is not necessarily bad. Through simplification of the system it seems that they have made it easier to learn, and operate within the rules. As a result the books need to be consulted less, and gameplay tends to flow faster.

I was very skeptical of 4E before I had the books, and make no mistake I still am skeptical, but their design philosophy does not seem to be the problem. How they implemented specific mechanics, the fluff, the fact that grabbing an opponent does virtually nothing now, how they chose to balance the classes, etc... these are things that I think were designed poorly, and with much effort. WotC had the right idea: simplify the system to streamline gameplay, but I remain undecided as to if they implemented it, or anything else, correctly.

nagora
2008-06-03, 11:11 AM
but what if the players want to say, convince a king to go to war against his ally? that's an important task they're performing. that's when I'd pull out the social rules.
But as DM, I should know the King's mind, and the King should be rational (usually). If there's a reason the King won't do that, then it doesn't matter what the PCs say. If they have evidence and reasons why he should, then he will do it. Usually there's a balance but the balance is not between the PCs and the King it's between the reasons themselves, if you see what I mean.

Things like Cha can swing a finely balanced argument, and low Wis can allow a bad argument weight, but a stupid argument is still a stupid argument and a clear case of murder is still a clear case of murder. If the DM still has to assign difficulties or weights or whatever then the process is simply a more complex version of "the DM roleplays the NPCs".

nagora
2008-06-03, 11:14 AM
4E seems to be the first attempt in D&D to apply basic recognized design principles, in short: the KISS Principle. This is an idea that has long been employed in unix and other programming. It means: Keep It Simple, Stupid.


Actually, 1ed OA tried that with the skill rules which were the germ of the "d20 system". They showed that the coma in "Keep it simple, stupid" can sometimes be an abbreviation for "and".

Simple is not enough on its own.

TSGames
2008-06-03, 11:19 AM
Actually, 1ed OA tried that with the skill rules which were the germ of the "d20 system". They showed that the coma in "Keep it simple, stupid" can sometimes be an abbreviation for "and".

Simple is not enough on its own.

Nor would any reasonable person claim such a thing. However, there are many benefits to simplicity, many of which I feel 4E utilizes appropriately through the general mechanics. As for the specific mechanics... well, you won't catch me defending them anytime soon.

skywalker
2008-06-03, 11:19 AM
You know, I'm not sure how true that really is. Combat, at least at low levels, has proven pretty deadly without a Leader in the little I've played thus far.

Seconded. 1st level combat without a cleric is scary. Which is maybe what they were shooting for. But yes, AKA is correct, that would most probably not work.

elliott20
2008-06-03, 11:19 AM
But as DM, I should know the King's mind, and the King should be rational (usually). If there's a reason the King won't do that, then it doesn't matter what the PCs say. If they have evidence and reasons why he should, then he will do it. Usually there's a balance but the balance is not between the PCs and the King it's between the reasons themselves, if you see what I mean.

Things like Cha can swing a finely balanced argument, and low Wis can allow a bad argument weight, but a stupid argument is still a stupid argument and a clear case of murder is still a clear case of murder. If the DM still has to assign difficulties or weights or whatever then the process is simply a more complex version of "the DM roleplays the NPCs".

well, in the very end, yeah, it's still going to be just that. the purpose of a social interaction mechanic is not to completely remove all reasoning and logic out the window. It's simply there as a tool to help the GM judiciate conflict for when there is fuzzy room.

of course, there is also the problem that in a lot of situations, often people are not as rational and reasonable as you'd think. emotions can sometimes have a great deal to do with it. of course, this can also tie right back to the GM knowing the NPC.

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 11:29 AM
Seconded. 1st level combat without a cleric is scary. Which is maybe what they were shooting for. But yes, AKA is correct, that would most probably not work.
I was just using rangers as an example a party of 4 clerics is just as valid. Concerning the all rangers party, I think it would work just because that a) there is an effective means to heal out of combat b) using the heal skill can keep people alive until combat is over.

kc0bbq
2008-06-03, 12:33 PM
I was just using rangers as an example a party of 4 clerics is just as valid. Concerning the all rangers party, I think it would work just because that a) there is an effective means to heal out of combat b) using the heal skill can keep people alive until combat is over.Have you actually tried this? Or are you just basing it on what you *can* do?

Because it would prove to be pretty inefficient and, frankly, impractical in most encounters. Immediate healing without losing characters to try and bandage people all throughout combat is a recipe for disaster.

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 12:46 PM
Have you actually tried this? Or are you just basing it on what you *can* do?

Because it would prove to be pretty inefficient and, frankly, impractical in most encounters. Immediate healing without losing characters to try and bandage people all throughout combat is a recipe for disaster.

It is entirely theoretical and I'd be surprised if it ever actually came up as an issue. From my experience, rangers may be particularly bad in this situation since in my party the ranger was the only one who ever needed cleric healing. (It may be because the player isn't very experienced in D&D and was a bit rash) Everyone else was entirely self-sufficient.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 01:19 PM
It is entirely theoretical and I'd be surprised if it ever actually came up as an issue. From my experience, rangers may be particularly bad in this situation since in my party the ranger was the only one who ever needed cleric healing. (It may be because the player isn't very experienced in D&D and was a bit rash) Everyone else was entirely self-sufficient.

I had the exact opposite experience. In 3 sessions of 4e, 4 characters have gone down. Without cleric healing there would have been more instances than that. Even properly balanced encounters at low levels in 4e can be deadly or nearly so.

If anything, when it comes to party roles, it seems that 4e has moved to needing people in each role more, since it's far more difficult for classes to pick up the slack of a missing role.

nagora
2008-06-03, 01:28 PM
I had the exact opposite experience. In 3 sessions of 4e, 4 characters have gone down. Without cleric healing there would have been more instances than that. Even properly balanced encounters at low levels in 4e can be deadly or nearly so.

Not to be picky, but if the encounter is "properly balanced", should it not be nearly deadly? Isn't that the very definition of a balanced encounter, or even scenario? Hard enough to kill sloppy players, but winable by skillful players.

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 01:32 PM
Not to be picky, but if the encounter is "properly balanced", should it not be nearly deadly? Isn't that the very definition of a balanced encounter, or even scenario? Hard enough to kill sloppy players, but winable by skillful players.

You bring up a good point. It's all about the players. Except for one (the ranger) all the PCs in my game I would classify as highly skilled players. I have absolute faith that if we had all chosen to go with Rangers we'd have no problem with most encounters. In fact in our last 3.5 game we didn't have any melee characters or healers and we became fairly adept at skirmish tactics.

jkdjr25
2008-06-03, 01:47 PM
I have to be honest. I've looked through the 4e books and I think that to say that I detest them would be too mild a descriptor. I don't like having my character relgated to a particular role just because I happen to be playing class X. That pigeonholes characters and I just can't get behind that on basic principle.

I played a little bit of 1st edition way back in the day (was in elementary school and only played twice). From there I didn't actually play D&D again until I was in college and then it was 2nd edition. Thaco was always an issue for me because the math just didn't seem intuitive to me. When 3rd edition hit our group was reluctant at first but we found it move swiftly, it allowed for so many different concepts and character builds that it became our game of choice. Then 3.5 came out, and though there was much grumbling, we adopted it as our system of choice. I'm playing with a new group now, and like the old one we use 3.5 as our primary system of choice.

I showed the 4e books to one of my friends in this group and he also thought it was fairly nonsensical. I'm waiting to see what a third person thinks before I make a truly final decision; but in all honesty I don't like what I've seen. Yes it streamlines character creation but it also forces players into party "roles" that they may not want to play. Combining many of the rogue's skills into the singular "thievery" skill effectively means that the rogue is just a thief again. I know a lot of people who don't play thief rogues, myself included, so this was just one of a number of unwelcome changes.

I don't begrudge WoTC making a 4th edition of D&D. I think that it's great they want to get new players into the game. But in doing so I think they may alienate a good number of their older players. Some of whom, like me and my group, will switch from buying WoTC books to buying Paizo's, since they'll continue to print books using the rules we like.

Just my two cents but I thought it was worth noting.

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 02:00 PM
I showed the 4e books to one of my friends in this group and he also thought it was fairly nonsensical. I'm waiting to see what a third person thinks before I make a truly final decision; but in all honesty I don't like what I've seen. Yes it streamlines character creation but it also forces players into party "roles" that they may not want to play. Combining many of the rogue's skills into the singular "thievery" skill effectively means that the rogue is just a thief again. I know a lot of people who don't play thief rogues, myself included, so this was just one of a number of unwelcome changes.

So wait, you're complaining that Rogues get the ability to disable traps for free compared to earlier editions where they got trapfinding for free? I'm not really seeing the problem.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 02:02 PM
I have to be honest. I've looked through the 4e books and I think that to say that I detest them would be too mild a descriptor. I don't like having my character relgated to a particular role just because I happen to be playing class X. That pigeonholes characters and I just can't get behind that on basic principle.

I played a little bit of 1st edition way back in the day (was in elementary school and only played twice). From there I didn't actually play D&D again until I was in college and then it was 2nd edition. Thaco was always an issue for me because the math just didn't seem intuitive to me. When 3rd edition hit our group was reluctant at first but we found it move swiftly, it allowed for so many different concepts and character builds that it became our game of choice. Then 3.5 came out, and though there was much grumbling, we adopted it as our system of choice. I'm playing with a new group now, and like the old one we use 3.5 as our primary system of choice.

I showed the 4e books to one of my friends in this group and he also thought it was fairly nonsensical. I'm waiting to see what a third person thinks before I make a truly final decision; but in all honesty I don't like what I've seen. Yes it streamlines character creation but it also forces players into party "roles" that they may not want to play. Combining many of the rogue's skills into the singular "thievery" skill effectively means that the rogue is just a thief again. I know a lot of people who don't play thief rogues, myself included, so this was just one of a number of unwelcome changes.

I don't begrudge WoTC making a 4th edition of D&D. I think that it's great they want to get new players into the game. But in doing so I think they may alienate a good number of their older players. Some of whom, like me and my group, will switch from buying WoTC books to buying Paizo's, since they'll continue to print books using the rules we like.

Just my two cents but I thought it was worth noting.

Oh, so it pigeonholes more than the previous editions?

Gimme a single classed fighter who can cast spells like a wizard. In ANY edition. :smallamused:

Seriously. 4th might seem horrible, but PLAY it before you decide, will you? Don't just follow the leader, make an informed opinion.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 02:08 PM
Not to be picky, but if the encounter is "properly balanced", should it not be nearly deadly? Isn't that the very definition of a balanced encounter, or even scenario? Hard enough to kill sloppy players, but winable by skillful players.

That wasn't really the case in 3e. A balanced encounter was supposed to tax around 1/4 of a moderatley skilled party's resources, not be a "If skilled you live" situation.

Although, flipping through the DMG that does appear to have changed for 4e.

Regardless, that still goes to my point. If poorly skilled players (assuming I am one for the sake of argument here) get someone dead and highly skilled players don't need healing at all, then it stands to reason that the average group needs clerical healing.


Combining many of the rogue's skills into the singular "thievery" skill effectively means that the rogue is just a thief again. I know a lot of people who don't play thief rogues, myself included, so this was just one of a number of unwelcome changes.


Would it be ok if they had condensed it into a skill called "roguery" because honestly I'm not seeing the logical connection here.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 02:12 PM
That wasn't really the case in 3e. A balanced encounter was supposed to tax around 1/4 of a moderatley skilled party's resources, not be a "If skilled you live" situation.

Although, flipping through the DMG that does appear to have changed for 4e.

Regardless, that still goes to my point. If poorly skilled players (assuming I am one for the sake of argument here) get someone dead and highly skilled players don't need healing at all, then it stands to reason that the average group needs clerical healing.

Meh, it really depends on good power choice.

An all archery ranger group that used pushback attacks and moved away would be nigh unkillable, for example. It's all based on developing good group tactics.

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 02:18 PM
Meh, it really depends on good power choice.

An all archery ranger group that used pushback attacks and moved away would be nigh unkillable, for example. It's all based on developing good group tactics.

Exactly. I'm not saying an all ranger party is an optimal choice for new players. I am saying that it's a perfectly viable party even if it plays differently.

nagora
2008-06-03, 02:21 PM
That wasn't really the case in 3e. A balanced encounter was supposed to tax around 1/4 of a moderatley skilled party's resources, not be a "If skilled you live" situation.

Well, you can lose without being killed, of course. And 1/4 assumes 4 encounters before being able to "recharge". That's very, very low, IMO (from a 1ed perspective).



Regardless, that still goes to my point. If poorly skilled players (assuming I am one for the sake of argument here) get someone dead and highly skilled players don't need healing at all, then it stands to reason that the average group needs clerical healing.
Sounds fine to me.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 02:22 PM
Exactly. I'm not saying an all ranger party is an optimal choice for new players. I am saying that it's a perfectly viable party even if it plays differently.

Here's the thing though, in 3.x a skilled group could get away without having al party roles filled also. An unskilled group really couldn't without much pain. If what we are saying about 4e is that a skilled group can get away without all the party roles filled, but an unskilled can't we really haven't observed much of a change in dependency upon having all the roles filled.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 02:26 PM
Here's the thing though, in 3.x a skilled group could get away without having al party roles filled also. An unskilled group really couldn't without much pain. If what we are saying about 4e is that a skilled group can get away without all the party roles filled, but an unskilled can't we really haven't observed much of a change in dependency upon having all the roles filled.

No, what we're saying is that just about any class combination you can think of is gonna work, without having to spend a lot of time in a WORLD OF PAIN!!!111!!!one!

In 3.5, you're seriously screwed without an arcanist, for example.

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 02:28 PM
Here's the thing though, in 3.x a skilled group could get away without having al party roles filled also. An unskilled group really couldn't without much pain. If what we are saying about 4e is that a skilled group can get away without all the party roles filled, but an unskilled can't we really haven't observed much of a change in dependency upon having all the roles filled.

To be fair, an unskilled group can get killed with any mix of a party. For all I know they might actually do better if they are all rangers since they can stay at range and plink.

And what Azerian said.

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 02:29 PM
"Dumbed down" is Elitist for "not quite so needlessly complicated", right?

And, apparently, "inconsistent" is Elitist for "abstract". Which, of course, is bad for some reason.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 02:34 PM
No, what we're saying is that just about any class combination you can think of is gonna work, without having to spend a lot of time in a WORLD OF PAIN!!!111!!!one!

I've found this not to be the case.


In 3.5, you're seriously screwed without an arcanist, for example.

You can get by without one if you have a second primary divine caster instead.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 02:37 PM
I've found this not to be the case.



You can get by without one if you have a second primary divine caster instead.

Fly and Overland flight. Hope your divine caster is willing to blow XP on anyspell and that you have enough moolah for scrolls of overland flight.

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 02:46 PM
I've found this not to be the case.


You seem to believe that in-combat healing is absolutely necessary. So do you think a party of all clerics would be better or worse than the standard party?

Ryusacerdos
2008-06-03, 02:53 PM
Just play whatever you have fun with (as long as you don't ruin anyone else's fun).

Thats the rule I go by. I don't care if its 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th ed. If its fun for you, fine.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 02:57 PM
Fly and Overland flight. Hope your divine caster is willing to blow XP on anyspell and that you have enough moolah for scrolls of overland flight.

Or, you know, the travel domain. Or the party members' have one of the many, many magical items that allow them to fly for a while. There are lots of ways to get flying.


You seem to believe that in-combat healing is absolutely necessary. So do you thing a party of all clerics would be better or worse than the standard party?

Um, no. I didn't say "absolutely necessary" nor did I even imply it. Please don't try to turn my argument into something it's not.

I said that having that party role filled doesn't seem to be any less important in 4e than it was in 3e. I think that's probably true of all the party roles, except maybe striker. As such, I think a standard party with all roles filled would be much more effective than a party of all clerics. Which is, in fact, my point about roles being just as, or less, dispensible in 4e.

Indon
2008-06-03, 03:01 PM
Here's the thing though, in 3.x a skilled group could get away without having al party roles filled also.

Well, to be fair, in 3.x a single skilled player with a well-planned character could reliably overcome challenges designed for an equivalent-level four-person group.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 03:05 PM
Well, to be fair, in 3.x a single skilled player with a well-planned character could reliably overcome challenges designed for an equivalent-level four-person group.

Well yes. Which is part of the reason I find this whole line that '4e allows you to no longer need a balanced party' thing to be a little silly. At the upper end of 3.5 player skill you weren't really dependant upon party composition either.

Indon
2008-06-03, 03:07 PM
Quite. If anything, 4'th edition has a much stronger requirement to have all 4 roles covered (or, as some games would put it, Tank/DPS/Heal/CC).

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 03:07 PM
Um, no. I didn't say "absolutely necessary" nor did I even imply it. Please don't try to turn my argument into something it's not.

I said that having that party role filled doesn't seem to be any less important in 4e than it was in 3e. I think that's probably true of all the party roles, except maybe striker. As such, I think a standard party with all roles filled would be much more effective than a party of all clerics. Which is, in fact, my point about roles being just as, or less, dispensible in 4e.

I apologize I was combining your arguments with other posters. Anyway, there is a difference between party viablity and party optimization. I'm saying that any combination of characters is a viable if optimized party. Compare having an all fighter party in 4th vs. 3rd. In 4th it may or may not be better than the standard party but it still works. In 3rd it's largely a futile endeavor.

jkdjr25
2008-06-03, 03:09 PM
Oh, so it pigeonholes more than the previous editions?

Gimme a single classed fighter who can cast spells like a wizard. In ANY edition. :smallamused:

Seriously. 4th might seem horrible, but PLAY it before you decide, will you? Don't just follow the leader, make an informed opinion.

I've read the books. That would seem to be sufficient evidence that I'm informed enough to decide if I want to play it or not. I don't like what I've read, hence I choose to stick with what I like.

It all comes down to preference really. I like 3.5 better because of the versatility and the ability to make the kinds of characters that I like. (Personally I dig things like the Shadowcaster, Truenamer, and the like)

If others want to switch to 4e I don't begrudge them that, it just doesn't suit what I like to make. (In the interest of honesty I'm not really much of a powergamer. I tend toward a concept and take the feats that fit, whether they're good or bad)

Indon
2008-06-03, 03:09 PM
Compare having an all fighter party in 4th vs. 3rd. In 4th it may or may not be better than the standard party but it still works. In 3rd it's largely a futile endeavor.

I disagree. In 3.x, two fighters (one optimized charger, one optimized archer) could probably manage almost all concievable 4-person encounters at any given level, if well-optimized.

Nonanonymous
2008-06-03, 03:11 PM
Y'know, I was kind of expecting some rather good things from 4th edition, then I looked through the monster manual and noticed something... There was next to no descriptive text for any of the monsters at all, just pictures. So, yeah, it's definitely dumbed down, and I really don't appreciate that.

Indon
2008-06-03, 03:13 PM
Y'know, I was kind of expecting some rather good things from 4th edition, then I looked through the monster manual and noticed something... There was next to no descriptive text for any of the monsters at all, just pictures. So, yeah, it's definitely dumbed down, and I really don't appreciate that.

I dunno if I'd call this "dumbed down". Unflavorful, yeah. But the game's makers aren't doing that with the expectation that people don't want to read the long words, but more likely with the desire of brevity, to fit more mechanics into the book at the cost of unimportant "fluff".

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 03:14 PM
I've read the books. That would seem to be sufficient evidence that I'm informed enough to decide if I want to play it or not. I don't like what I've read, hence I choose to stick with what I like.


Honestly, typically I'd agree with you. However, 4e does in fact play a lot better than it reads and this is coming from someone who was very skeptical about it when he read it.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 03:15 PM
I've read the books. That would seem to be sufficient evidence that I'm informed enough to decide if I want to play it or not. I don't like what I've read, hence I choose to stick with what I like.

It all comes down to preference really. I like 3.5 better because of the versatility and the ability to make the kinds of characters that I like. (Personally I dig things like the Shadowcaster, Truenamer, and the like)

If others want to switch to 4e I don't begrudge them that, it just doesn't suit what I like to make. (In the interest of honesty I'm not really much of a powergamer. I tend toward a concept and take the feats that fit, whether they're good or bad)

Again, PLAY the game before you decide. One of the key characteristics of 4th, according to most people, is "Reads horrible, but plays like a dream".

So yeah, until you play it, you are NOT informed.

Not to mention, it's unfair to speak about the "versatility" of 3.5 and then mention splatbook classes. Try to make an effective fighter with the core, for example, I dare you.

Trust me. No matter how much you dislike it, it is foolish to pronounce a game system "Bad" or "Not your thing" without having played it. That's what everyone says about GURPS, and no one says it's bad once they play it.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 03:17 PM
That's what everyone says about GURPS, and no one says it's bad once they play it.

::raises hand:: I've played it. Didn't like it. The core mechanic and I did not get along.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 03:19 PM
::raises hand:: I've played it. Didn't like it. The core mechanic and I did not get along.

Which edition? A lot depends on that.

And which part of the core mechanics? There's plenty of things about it.

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 03:19 PM
I disagree. In 3.x, two fighters (one optimized charger, one optimized archer) could probably manage almost all concievable 4-person encounters at any given level, if well-optimized.
In combat sure a those fighters could conceivably kill most encounters but what if one of them died? In 4th all characters have access to out of combat healing, out of combat spells (rituals), and skills. You can much more easily get through the game without a healer or arcanist in 4th than in 3rd.

jkdjr25
2008-06-03, 03:32 PM
Again, PLAY the game before you decide. One of the key characteristics of 4th, according to most people, is "Reads horrible, but plays like a dream".

So yeah, until you play it, you are NOT informed.

Not to mention, it's unfair to speak about the "versatility" of 3.5 and then mention splatbook classes. Try to make an effective fighter with the core, for example, I dare you.

Trust me. No matter how much you dislike it, it is foolish to pronounce a game system "Bad" or "Not your thing" without having played it. That's what everyone says about GURPS, and no one says it's bad once they play it.

I disagree with your assessment in the strongest possible terms. It may play well, in fact I'll give you that it very likely does play well. However why should I play something that I don't like the rules of?

I wasn't enamored of the saga system to begin with (I loved the West End Games D6 Star Wars game and, to date, it's the only one that I think captured the feel of Star Wars). I don't like a system that pigeon holes me into a particular role. I don't want to have to multiclass to be a leader type, but that seems to be the case with 4e. Clerics and Warlords are leaders, that's their role and if you play one the expectation is that's what you're going to be.

And yes you can make an effective fighter with just the core. You can make the figher more effective through splat books but you don't need them to do so.

You can also make every other class more effective through such books, and this is coming from someone who likes the core fighter and barbarian classes.

Having read the rules, I don't like what I've read. Reading them gives me a intelectual understanding, I don't need to play rules that I don't like to know I don't like them. Reading them is enough to let me know that I don't like it.

Now if someone in my area were to run it, I MIGHT be persuaded to play it if the rest of my group also played it, but as of now I don't know anyone in my group who plans on buying it. I've also talked at length with people who've played D&D longer than I have and they have the same opinion as me.

I can't speak to GURPS but I do know people who don't like it because they think it's a tad too rules heavy. I can't say for myself, but I trust their judgement because they're people I respect and trust on other matters.

Again, just my opinion on the matter. Your mileage may vary.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 03:40 PM
Which edition? A lot depends on that.

And which part of the core mechanics? There's plenty of things about it.

This was a few years ago (6 years I think) at a con. I don't remember, and I possibly never knew, which edition. The all d6's thing bugged me.


In combat sure a those fighters could conceivably kill most encounters but what if one of them died? In 4th all characters have access to out of combat healing, out of combat spells (rituals), and skills. You can much more easily get through the game without a healer or arcanist in 4th than in 3rd.

You mean without a controller or leader right?


I disagree with your assessment in the strongest possible terms. It may play well, in fact I'll give you that it very likely does play well. However why should I play something that I don't like the rules of?


For some reason, your position reminds me of a Dr. Seuss book I used to love. Would you play it here or there?

Talya
2008-06-03, 03:42 PM
4e isn't flexible enough out of the box to design as many character concepts as 3.5 was. Furthermore, with the 3 gigabytes of splatbooks I've got for 3.5, I can make pretty much any character concept I want mechanically sound. In a few years, when 4e has 3 gigabytes of splatbooks available (and is subsequently being bitched about by all these forums as being unbalanced), I might consider it useable.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 03:44 PM
And yes you can make an effective fighter with just the core. You can make the figher more effective through splat books but you don't need them to do so.


Sorry, but you lost all the credibility there. A fighter that isn't powered up by splatbooks goes, ironically, "SPLAT!" when he meets an appropriate foe of his level.

Also, you KNOW you made a massive contradiction here?


I disagree with your assessment in the strongest possible terms. It may play well, in fact I'll give you that it very likely does play well. However why should I play something that I don't like the rules of?

If it plays well, it HAS good rules, rules that contribute to the enjoyment of the game. You might want to phrase that differently.

Bait: Hmm, then you didn't play GURPS 4th edition, I believe. It's incredibly awesome, though it's rules heavy. I'd give it a try.

Trog
2008-06-03, 03:49 PM
I disagree with the premise of this thread. From what I have seen of the rules thus far none of it feels dumbed down. In fact I would argue the opposite. It's smarter.

The system they came up with seem to work really well. Even power levels for all classes so they are all equally viable options. Constant progression of your character from level to level. Choices at each level. They have eliminated all kinds of stuff that min/maxers used to take horrible advantage of because the system wasn't as tight as this one. All rules that I have seen fit together perfectly and simply.

Now simple does not mean dumbed down. The system is like a machine. It has many moving parts. The difference between 3.5 and 4.0 are like having a machine with tons and tons of moving parts, not all of which meshed with one another well (3.5), and one that has fewer moving parts and all parts fit snugly with one another (4.0). The only way you can get a complicated machine like that to get that streamlined is through testing what doesn't work and improving it. Obviously to look at the system tons of testing has been done.

Now, do I have less choices than 3.5? Of course. Countless splatbooks are out for 3.5. 4.0 hasn't even hit the shelves yet. As more books come out detailing more options the game will ramp back up to the complexity we have come to enjoy under 3.5. The difference is this time it won't break as much in the growing.

jkdjr25
2008-06-03, 03:49 PM
Sorry, but you lost all the credibility there. A fighter that isn't powered up by splatbooks goes, ironically, "SPLAT!" when he meets an appropriate foe of his level.

Also, you KNOW you made a massive contradiction here?



If it plays well, it HAS good rules, rules that contribute to the enjoyment of the game. You might want to phrase that differently.

Bait: Hmm, then you didn't play GURPS 4th edition, I believe. It's incredibly awesome, though it's rules heavy. I'd give it a try.

Again I'll disagree on the making an effective fighter without splat books. You don't need them to make an effective fighter. They're certainly nice to have but hardly a necessity.

It may play well for some, and those are likely people who enjoy the new rules set. For those that don't like the new rules set I'm not convinced it would play well. All a matter of perception and opinion in this case.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 03:57 PM
Again I'll disagree on the making an effective fighter without splat books. You don't need them to make an effective fighter. They're certainly nice to have but hardly a necessity.

It may play well for some, and those are likely people who enjoy the new rules set. For those that don't like the new rules set I'm not convinced it would play well. All a matter of perception and opinion in this case.

Would you need a list of foes that can vanquish a fighter with painful ease?

jkdjr25
2008-06-03, 04:01 PM
Would you need a list of foes that can vanquish a fighter with painful ease?

No thanks. But hey that Iron Golem that the wizard can't affect with a lot spells, yeah, the fighter with his weapon can eventually hammer it down with a cleric keeping him healed.

No monster was ever meant to be faced by just one class.

As I've repeatedly said, I don't begrudge other people liking and playing 4e. It's just not for me, and I base that decision on what I've read.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 04:04 PM
No thanks. But hey that Iron Golem that the wizard can't affect with a lot spells, yeah, the fighter with his weapon can eventually hammer it down with a cleric keeping him healed.

No monster was ever meant to be faced by just one class.

As I've repeatedly said, I don't begrudge other people liking and playing 4e. It's just not for me, and I base that decision on what I've read.

Iron Golem?

Solid Fog. Orbs. FREEZING fog, if you want to do the job with a single spell. Flight.

And that's only drawing from memory. There're plenty more spells that can defeat an iron golem with painful ease. Again, need a list? You underestimate the wizard, really.

Kabump
2008-06-03, 04:46 PM
4e isn't flexible enough out of the box to design as many character concepts as 3.5 was. Furthermore, with the 3 gigabytes of splatbooks I've got for 3.5, I can make pretty much any character concept I want mechanically sound.

From my sitting back and reading all the arguments for and against 4e, this seems to be the major (note: not ONLY, just most common) "deal breaker" if you will for the system. It seems the people who feel it limits what you can conceptually do in designing what kind of character you can make don't care for it. They feel it isnt flexible enough for them to make the kind of character they'd like to play, and therefore it is bad (again, summarizing). A very fair argument, and I can see where they are coming from. However I feel most people are including the plethora of splat into this, and not just 3.5 core vs 4 core. Of course you have more options with the splat, but i think core on core there is still a lot you can do with 4e when compared to 3.5e. This seems to be the problem, AFAICT, rather than rule changes. Dunno, Im a D&D noob (ive only been playing for about 4 months now) so what do I know? All I know is I very much enjoy 3.5, and am very intrigued by 4e.

Talya
2008-06-03, 04:57 PM
From my sitting back and reading all the arguments for and against 4e, this seems to be the major (note: not ONLY, just most common) "deal breaker" if you will for the system. It seems the people who feel it limits what you can conceptually do in designing what kind of character you can make don't care for it. They feel it isnt flexible enough for them to make the kind of character they'd like to play, and therefore it is bad (again, summarizing). A very fair argument, and I can see where they are coming from. However I feel most people are including the plethora of splat into this, and not just 3.5 core vs 4 core. Of course you have more options with the splat, but i think core on core there is still a lot you can do with 4e when compared to 3.5e. This seems to be the problem, AFAICT, rather than rule changes. Dunno, Im a D&D noob (ive only been playing for about 4 months now) so what do I know? All I know is I very much enjoy 3.5, and am very intrigued by 4e.

I compared it both ways.

A few classes have more options in 4e core compared to 3.5 core, it's true. Overall, however, you have far fewer options and design possibilities in 4e core than in 3.5 core. Yeah, it might be better for fighters, but not everybody plays a fighter.

I'd never actually play 3.5 core-only though. Why would I? There are never too many published character-build options. If I could get another 4 gigabytes of splatbook fun for 3.5, I'd do so.

Kabump
2008-06-03, 05:06 PM
I wasn't arguing with you, Talya, just quoting you because you used the argument I was talking about, that is all. And you reiterated the point i was trying to make right here:


Overall, however, you have far fewer options and design possibilities in 4e core than in 3.5 core.

Most people who feel that way dont care for 4e it seems, I wasnt arguing, merely making an observation on what I feel like ive observed from reading these threads. Thats all. Im in no way telling you your position is wrong, in fact there isnt anything wrong with that feeling.


I'd never actually play 3.5 core-only though. Why would I?

Never said you should :) I certainly dont play 3.5 core, i was just merely stating most people are arguing lack of versatility with 3.5 and splat vs 4 core. Who knows the options available once splat starts coming out? I love the 3.5 splat, ToB is a godsend for me! Love me my swordsage!!

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 08:06 PM
A few classes have more options in 4e core compared to 3.5 core, it's true. Overall, however, you have far fewer options and design possibilities in 4e core than in 3.5 core. Yeah, it might be better for fighters, but not everybody plays a fighter.

That's odd... by my mark, fighters, paladins, rangers, and rogues (i.e half the classes) have many more choices available to them in the 4e PHB than the 3e PHB, unless one wants to do something absurd like count 4e powers vs. 3e feats. Without sitting down and counting, I suspect Warlocks have more powers available as well (even if they end up knowing roughly the same number of powers per character build). Warlords, of course, are a new melee introduction, and of course several are not yet in this book (largely because each class has some fifteen pages dedicated to it). But, if I've picked up on any trend here, this is really about Wizards not having eleventy billion spells, all of which a given character can learn, isn't it?

That's not about 4e being "dumbed down"; that's about a class that could do anything getting reined in, because it causes problems with that "everyone contributes meaningfully" conceit. I'm not going to get into a discussion about what degree of "anything" Wizards can do, or whether there's counters, or whether "any sane DM" would allow them to do what the rules allow them to do, or whether "everyone contributes meaningfully" is a good design conceit to have, etc., because it's been exhaustively covered elsewhere, and anyone who disagrees will not be swayed by a mere mortal such as myself.

Just pointing out that "a few" and "(arguably) over half" present very different pictures, and that some people have made it very clear that they consider the reduction in Cleric/Wizard power a good thing, if not a core reason for switching to 4e. :)

Talya
2008-06-03, 08:24 PM
That's odd... by my mark, fighters, paladins, rangers, and rogues (i.e half the classes) have many more choices available to them in the 4e PHB than the 3e PHB, unless one wants to do something absurd like count 4e powers vs. 3e feats.

I don't think that's absurd at all. "Powers are the new feats."

Also, the nearly limitless combinations of race, templates, multiclassing and PRC choices in 3.5 (Even in just the PHB/DMG/MM) need to be factored in.

JaxGaret
2008-06-03, 09:33 PM
Warlords, of course, are a new melee introduction

3e Marshal + White Raven discipline + some new 4e stuff = 4e Warlord.
Just like 3e Paladin + Devoted Spirit discipline + some new 4e stuff = 4e Paladin.


But, if I've picked up on any trend here, this is really about Wizards not having eleventy billion spells, all of which a given character can learn, isn't it?

Yeah, that's pretty much all Talya cares about in the conversion. Casters aren't uber any more, so it's no fun.


Just pointing out that "a few" and "(arguably) over half" present very different pictures, and that some people have made it very clear that they consider the reduction in Cleric/Wizard power a good thing, if not a core reason for switching to 4e. :)

I certainly do. I love the class balance of 4e, it makes character creation fun again, instead of an exercise in metagaming and making sure that your build isn't too strong or too weak, from the level you start at to the level you end the campaign.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 09:38 PM
Yeah, that's pretty much all Talya cares about in the conversion. Casters aren't uber any more, so it's no fun.

Yeah. She needs moar Iggy Pop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLCQU8iKalA).

jkdjr25
2008-06-03, 09:44 PM
Yeah. She needs moar Iggy Pop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLCQU8iKalA).

Part of me wants to say that, on some level, there shouldn't be a total balance between a fighter and a wizard. They come from two very different mindsets and, to be fair, ealier editions showed this.

Wizards spend their lives studying how to harness arcane power, honing their minds to a razor's edge, where as a fighter spends their lives perfecting their body and skill with a weapon or weapons. If they wanted to balance things replace the fighter with the warblade from the book of nine swords. That book went a long way toward creating a balance that made sense in context to how fighter types train.

There are any number of fixes that don't rely on magic. If there's not one in a book there's always the option of talking to your DM and working out something that way.

I stand by my earlier statements about the 4e rules.

JaxGaret
2008-06-03, 09:54 PM
Part of me wants to say that, on some level, there shouldn't be a total balance between a fighter and a wizard. They come from two very different mindsets and, to be fair, ealier editions showed this.

There isn't a total balance between a Fighter and a Wizard in 4e. I am almost certain that an Epic 4e Wizard will wipe the floor with an Epic 4e Fighter in a pvp combat, for example. Just like in 3e.

It's just he won't do it as an Immediate action before Initiative is even rolled :smallsmile:

4e Wizards are still Wizards, masters of matters arcane. They may not be 3e Wizards, but I am very glad of that.


Wizards spend their lives studying how to harness arcane power, honing their minds to a razor's edge, where as a fighter spends their lives perfecting their body and skill with a weapon or weapons. If they wanted to balance things replace the fighter with the warblade from the book of nine swords. That book went a long way toward creating a balance that made sense in context to how fighter types train.

...

So you'd have no problem if the 4e Fighter was instead called Warblade and had Warblade flavor?

That would be a ridiculous argument. Flavor the 4e Fighter however you want. It's not like they weighed it (or any of the other classes) down with lots of specific fluff, after all.


I stand by my earlier statements about the 4e rules.

Until you actually play the game, your statements will be lacking in regards to judgments of the system as a whole.

Neftren
2008-06-03, 10:01 PM
Okay, I think the major fallacy that people are falling into is that it is extremely narrow. It isn't. You are perfectly capable of renaming the classes whatever you want, and applying whatever fluff you want to it. There's also a handy mechanic known as homebrewing. Doesn't exist yet? Make it up.

If you feel that the Warlord or Cleric are the only main leader types, you can always reflavor the Fighter with different abilities and such to make a battle hardened warrior and leader. Or multiclass. The possibilities are endless, and as Talya pointed out, in a year or two, there will be a huge number of new possibilities when new books or homebrew comes out.

I'd say you guys need to try it before making a final decision.

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 10:31 PM
I don't think that's absurd at all. "Powers are the new feats."

Also, the nearly limitless combinations of race, templates, multiclassing and PRC choices in 3.5 (Even in just the PHB/DMG/MM) need to be factored in.

Okay, I can do that. The d20 SRD lists 110 feats for 3rd Edition.

The martial classes I mentioned each have over 70 distinct powers. Given multiclassing, any given character has over 140 choices available. Granted, they'll only have a dozen at any one time, but hey, that's about halfway between the number of feats a fighter and a ranger get in 3e... and you trade out the low-powered ones.

Heck, this argument doesn't even stack up if feats are the new feats. There are 81 Heroic feats, 52 Paragon feats, and 17 Epic feats, for a total of 151 feats vs. 110 for 3e. Even dropping Epic, it's 133 vs. 110.

The SRD lists 24 monsters with "As Characters" entries, of which 8 have a ECL of 1 or less. The 4e MM lists 16 races in the Racial Traits section.

The SRD lists 15 prestige classes. The 4e PHB has 31 Paragon Paths.

Honestly, PHB vs. PHB, the options presented are pretty competitive... unless you're a Wizard, and upset that literally 40% of the book is not dedicated to you anymore.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-04, 05:09 AM
ATrust me. No matter how much you dislike it, it is foolish to pronounce a game system "Bad" or "Not your thing" without having played it. That's what everyone says about GURPS, and no one says it's bad once they play it.

I do say that GURPS is bad, after having played it. In fact, I'd say that GURPS reads great but plays badly.

Note that by "bad" I don't mean "objectively bad" but actually "not my taste because there's way too many rules" - but then you were asking after people's opinion on GURPS. Note also that I have and use several GURPS source books in non-GURPS campaigns, because many of their splatbooks are really excellent even if you ignore all the rule-technical bits.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-04, 05:24 AM
I do say that GURPS is bad, after having played it. In fact, I'd say that GURPS reads great but plays badly.

Note that by "bad" I don't mean "objectively bad" but actually "not my taste because there's way too many rules" - but then you were asking after people's opinion on GURPS. Note also that I have and use several GURPS source books in non-GURPS campaigns, because many of their splatbooks are really excellent even if you ignore all the rule-technical bits.

Ditto. I liked the options presented in character creation but thought that gameplay sucked. (I it played for a year-or-so during college before establishing a 3e group.)

SamTheCleric
2008-06-04, 07:07 AM
Okay, I can do that. The d20 SRD lists 110 feats for 3rd Edition.

The martial classes I mentioned each have over 70 distinct powers. Given multiclassing, any given character has over 140 choices available. Granted, they'll only have a dozen at any one time, but hey, that's about halfway between the number of feats a fighter and a ranger get in 3e... and you trade out the low-powered ones.

Heck, this argument doesn't even stack up if feats are the new feats. There are 81 Heroic feats, 52 Paragon feats, and 17 Epic feats, for a total of 151 feats vs. 110 for 3e. Even dropping Epic, it's 133 vs. 110.

The SRD lists 24 monsters with "As Characters" entries, of which 8 have a ECL of 1 or less. The 4e MM lists 16 races in the Racial Traits section.

The SRD lists 15 prestige classes. The 4e PHB has 31 Paragon Paths.

Honestly, PHB vs. PHB, the options presented are pretty competitive... unless you're a Wizard, and upset that literally 40% of the book is not dedicated to you anymore.


Ruki... I don't know where you've been... but over the past day or so... your post have been thought out, well researched and very well spoken. I tip my hat to you. You deserve a medal :)