PDA

View Full Version : 4e - Balance vs Versatility



Pages : [1] 2

Saph
2008-06-02, 08:16 AM
Well, I've finally had the chance to have a proper look at the books, and tried them out a little. IMO, the consensus here on the forums is fairly accurate.

Good points

4e is much better balanced, both between classes and between different levels. 1st-level characters are much more fun and effective than they are in 3.5, which is a good thing for those players who have GMs that insist on starting games at level 1.

4e's also much simpler to learn and requires less time investment. Of course, part of that is probably due to there just being less books out, but for the moment at least, it's much easier for casual players to pick up.

Bad points

Unfortunately, the way 4e gets that better balance and simplicity is by cutting down character versatility like a chainsaw addict at a tree nursery. Entire types of magic and class features are just gone.

If you measured character versatility on a scale from 1 to 10, it would look something like this (note, the 3.5 classes are on there as a rough estimate only):

1. 3.5 Fighter
2.
3. 4e classes (all)
4.
5. 3.5 Warlock, Bard
6.
7.
8.
9. 3.5 Wizard, Druid
10.

The range of abilities you have access to in 4e core as opposed to 3.5 core is literally an order of magnitude smaller - ten times less.

Conclusion

4e is, just as promised, better balanced and easier to learn and play than 3.5. But good grief, what a price you have to pay for it!

At the moment I'm playing a 12th level 3.5 druid in a D&D campaign. I'm looking at the 4e PHB class chapter, and I kind of want to like it . . . but there just isn't anything there that's anywhere near as cool and fun as what I've got already. As a druid I get to turn into any kind of animal I want (including a dragon, complete with breath weapon), and climb or fly at will. I have a big enough spell variety that I can do pretty much anything I can think of, and I can share most of it with my animal companion, who's awesome all by himself. And if I somehow need even more support, I can summon it. In 4e I can't do any of these things. Looking at the 4e class chapter makes me think of that line from Henry Ford - "You can have the Model T in any colour you want, so long as it's black".

It's easy to come up with explanations for why all this was removed, but the point is - shapeshifting is fun. Having an animal companion is fun. Being able to fly everywhere and climb everywhere and swim in lava and turn enemies into squirrels is fun. Was it really necessary to get rid of all that? With all that time they spent on development, the designers couldn't come up with any better solution other than "axe it all"?

Whether the gain in simplicity is worth the loss of versatility, I just don't know. What I do know is I wish they could have tried harder to do a better job of balancing the two.

- Saph

Kurald Galain
2008-06-02, 08:25 AM
I completely agree with what Saph just said.

Let me add a different example. We all know that 12th level druids are very high on the power curve of 3.5E. On the other hand, we also all know that warlocks are pretty low on the same power curve.

Now I have a 4th-level warlock in a low-powered party that can do the following:
*hang from ceilings like a spider
*shatter nonmagical unattended objects (because my charisma is so low, the save is too easy on attended objects, so this tends to not work)
*summon a swarm of bats
*cast unseen servant, because of a feat I took.

The 4E warlock can do none of this. While all of what I just said is pretty cool, none of it is even remotely overpowered. And none of it exists in 4E.

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 08:29 AM
Well, I've finally had the chance to have a proper look at the books, and tried them out a little. IMO, the consensus here on the forums is fairly accurate.

Good points

4e is much better balanced, both between classes and between different levels. 1st-level characters are much more fun and effective than they are in 3.5, which is a good thing for those players who have GMs that insist on starting games at level 1.

4e's also much simpler to learn and requires less time investment. Of course, part of that is probably due to there just being less books out, but for the moment at least, it's much easier for casual players to pick up.

Bad points

Unfortunately, the way 4e gets that better balance and simplicity is by cutting down character versatility like a chainsaw addict at a tree nursery. Entire types of magic and class features are just gone.

If you measured character versatility on a scale from 1 to 10, it would look something like this (note, the 3.5 classes are on there as a rough estimate only):

1. 3.5 Fighter
2.
3. 4e classes (all)
4.
5. 3.5 Warlock, Bard
6.
7.
8.
9. 3.5 Wizard, Druid
10.

The range of abilities you have access to in 4e core as opposed to 3.5 core is literally an order of magnitude smaller - ten times less.

Conclusion

4e is, just as promised, better balanced and easier to learn and play than 3.5. But good grief, what a price you have to pay for it!

At the moment I'm playing a 12th level 3.5 druid in a D&D campaign. I'm looking at the 4e PHB class chapter, and I kind of want to like it . . . but there just isn't anything there that's anywhere near as cool and fun as what I've got already. As a druid I get to turn into any kind of animal I want (including a dragon, complete with breath weapon), and climb or fly at will. I have a big enough spell variety that I can do pretty much anything I can think of, and I can share most of it with my animal companion, who's awesome all by himself. And if I somehow need even more support, I can summon it. In 4e I can't do any of these things. Looking at the 4e class chapter makes me think of that line from Henry Ford - "You can have the Model T in any colour you want, so long as it's black".

It's easy to come up with explanations for why all this was removed, but the point is - shapeshifting is fun. Having an animal companion is fun. Being able to fly everywhere and climb everywhere and swim in lava and turn enemies into squirrels is fun. Was it really necessary to get rid of all that? With all that time they spent on development, the designers couldn't come up with any better solution other than "axe it all"?

Whether the gain in simplicity is worth the loss of versatility, I just don't know. What I do know is I wish they could have tried harder to do a better job of balancing the two.

- Saph

I think the biggest issue that occurred was that in "Balancing" the classes, there was a limit to how ridiculously powerful they were allowed to make the "weaker" classes. I mean, you're one of the many of us who are just a little irritated that their immense powers are being shut down by the new system in order to compensate for the mediocrity of the "Normal" guys. Fighters, Rogues and the like. The problem is: That level of versatility is quite difficult to deal with and not ALWAYS fun. The first time you get the Wild-Shape power for Druids you can turn into a bunch of animals that could very well be WEAKER than your normal form... there is no animal form that's better at fighting than you already are, hell you might have MORE hit points that the Brown Bear you can shift into. AND better defenses... as far as the animal companion is concerned, sure, it's kinda fun... but so much more bookkeeping. On the same vein, Familiars downright suck. They're cool in theory, but as an ally, Familiars just don't do much, I mean, they have crap hit-points and are easy targets for enemies. Plus keeping track of THEIR abilities is just a pain for anyone except the select few who relish that kind of paperwork.

So while it may have been fun to be a Druid, or a Wizard or a Cleric, the issue became that sometimes the Fighter wants to do cool stuff too, and not be constantly beaten to every punch by the Wizard or the Druid. Too much versatility ends up stepping on other characters toes. If a Druid can have singular class abilities that are better than entire other CLASSES then we have a problem... I'll miss batman, yes, I will miss him dearly, but I think I'll still enjoy 4e...

Duke of URL
2008-06-02, 08:33 AM
My original take on 4e was "if you liked Warlocks and ToB, you'll like 4e".

Now I'm not as sure that this is true. The mechanics are similar enough, but from all accounts, the 4e classes will have less versatility at any given time than those classes above.

(And for the record, I like Warlocks, despite the "power curve" problem, and I'm just really getting into ToB now, so no opinion there.)

Saph
2008-06-02, 08:33 AM
So while it may have been fun to be a Druid, or a Wizard or a Cleric, the issue became that sometimes the Fighter wants to do cool stuff too, and not be constantly beaten to every punch by the Wizard or the Druid.

Wouldn't a better solution have been to make the Fighter cooler?

I haven't heard many people complaining about how dull their Warblade and Swordsage characters are to play . . .

- Saph

Edea
2008-06-02, 08:35 AM
It's easy to come up with explanations for why all this was removed, but the point is - shapeshifting is fun. Having an animal companion is fun. Being able to fly everywhere and climb everywhere and swim in lava and turn enemies into squirrels is fun. Was it really necessary to get rid of all that? With all that time they spent on development, the designers couldn't come up with any better solution other than "axe it all"?

- Saph

While I agree (being a Wizard fan), you forgot some words on the ends of those sentences. Shapeshifting is fun -for you-. Having an animal companion is fun -for you-. Being able to fly everywhere and climb everywhere and swim in lave and turn enemies into squirrels is fun -for you-. I know it is -for me- in 3.5. It's one of the reasons I'd rather eat raw squid than play a martial character in that edition.

All the meanwhile, your dwarven fighter buddy is left with "Och, ah pook it wit' mah axe!"

Basically, without becoming GURPS, this is all that can really be done to remedy that problem. Even with ToB, 3rd edition martial characters are nowhere NEAR druids or wizards, or even warlocks (the UMD warlock is a FORCE), power-wise or versatility-wise. Not even close, -let alone- without ToB.

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 08:42 AM
Wouldn't a better solution have been to make the Fighter cooler?

I haven't heard many people complaining about how dull their Warblade and Swordsage characters are to play . . .

- Saph

I completely agree, with a bit of a caveat

Cooler, yes, but the problem is Playstyle, unfortunately we have the issue of the amount of bookkeeping Warblades and Swordsages required... Some players aren't GOOD at that stuff, and thus end up punished and relegated to the more observational end of the party because they don't feel like putting in an extra few hours of research and optimization.

Making Fighters way cooler is a good idea in theory: but then we'll get just as many people complaining about how D&D is becoming "Dragon Ball Z" and such. The problem appears to be an inability to please EVERYONE, amazing.

I agree that they should have kept SOME semblence of versatility in the Spellcasting classes, and I hope it'll be addressed in later sourcebooks...

Saph
2008-06-02, 08:44 AM
While I agree (being a Wizard fan), you forgot some words on the ends of those sentences. Shapeshifting is fun -for you-. Having an animal companion is fun -for you-. Being able to fly everywhere and climb everywhere and swim in lave and turn enemies into squirrels is fun -for you-. I know it is -for me- in 3.5. It's one of the reasons I'd rather eat raw squid than play a martial character in that edition.

All the meanwhile, your dwarven fighter buddy is left with "Och, ah pook it wit' mah axe!"

But there is a fighter in my party. And a paladin, too. Me being a druid doesn't particularly ruin the game for them.

But even if it did, there are ways to limit the direct in-combat power of these abilities (or to buff the other classes to compensate) without cutting them out completely - and that's what I'd rather have seen them done.

- Saph

Charity
2008-06-02, 08:44 AM
I'm not sure you haven't discounted the rituals available to every class.
Also 3e had a lot of false choice, in so much as the choices were there but they were so bad/subpar that no-one in their right mind would elect to use them.

I would put every core 4e class above the core bard in true versitility..
but 4e won't be for everyone, I am pretty sure however it will be for me.

Prophaniti
2008-06-02, 08:46 AM
Honestly, I play a lot of straight up melee classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Knight, etc.) and I've never felt that I lack cool things to do in combat, nor been constantly upstaged by an overpowered caster. I've made this point before, and still feel that wizards, druids and clerics are only unbalanced on paper. But that's another discussion for another thread.

As far as 4E goes... The more I hear, the less likely it is that I'll actually pick up the books, even just for our group to pick over and laugh at the tieflings.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-02, 08:46 AM
Even with ToB, 3rd edition martial characters are nowhere NEAR druids or wizards, or even warlocks (the UMD warlock is a FORCE), power-wise or versatility-wise. Not even close, -let alone- without ToB.

Yes, but the issue is that on the same scale, 4E characters are nowhere NEAR Tome of Battle characters either.

Fighters and monks suck, we get that. Compared to them, everything is better. But if you do the math, at nearly every level, a 4e character gets substantially less different powers than a 3E warlock, or crusader, or paladin. On the Saph scale, above, most characters in 3E are in the 5-9 range, with the much-maligned fighter being an exception. However, every single 4E character is well below the 5-mark.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-02, 08:56 AM
The way I see it, there's no reason why 4e fighters couldn't have picked up a few save-or-suck-type effects to compensate for what they lacked in 3e.

Sure, they're never going to teleport or polymorph or the like, but they could realistically deal ability damage/drain, blind, stun, hamstring (immobilize), be better at disrupting casting, and even decapitate/skull crack (save or die). All of these would have improved the fighter's lot, against casters and other martial characters alike. Streamlining the rules for sunder, disarm, bullrush, and grapple would make them more effective as well.

I understand some of the vast utility of wizards going out the window, but it sounds like the overall power-cut went too far and simply didn't utilize options that could have been very cool, opting for simple hp-death for everyone.

By trying to give everyone cool options, but keep it simple at the same time, WotC has 'dumbed down' the game and weakened every class from what it could have been.

Charity
2008-06-02, 08:58 AM
Prophaniti I would suggest seeing for yourself rather than relying on vocal internet posters...

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 09:03 AM
Yes, but the issue is that on the same scale, 4E characters are nowhere NEAR Tome of Battle characters either.

Fighters and monks suck, we get that. Compared to them, everything is better. But if you do the math, at nearly every level, a 4e character gets substantially less different powers than a 3E warlock, or crusader, or paladin. On the Saph scale, above, most characters in 3E are in the 5-9 range, with the much-maligned fighter being an exception. However, every single 4E character is well below the 5-mark.

Are you kidding? The Paladin? Really!? I'm sorry but they flippin' SUCKED. Their main combat ability hinged on the enemy being Evil, and a whole lot of DMs really seemed to enjoy tricking the Paladin into wasting his 1/day Smite evil on a guy who was Neutral or even Good just ot make him feel bad. Plus, if you used it and missed you're proper screwed. The horse was alright but it was a whole other thing to keep track of, and your spell selection was mediocre at best. Paladins weren't that great, unless you were that awesome Halfling Pally build w/ Riding dog and mounted combat feats. And even THEN you weren't that great shakes...

You're right: A fourth edition character gets FAR fewer abilities... but I feel that those abilities are still USEFUL, which is more than can be said for a lot of 3.5. An issue in 3.5 was the idea that there was a BETTER choice and a WORSE choice, and depending on the choice you can be alright or screwed. ToB made Fighters pretty much obsolete. No one other than the fighter REALLY wanted Weapon Focus, Exotic Weapon Proficiency wasn't worht it unless you picked up a Spiked Chain... The list goes on...

Frankly all these things CAN be swept aside, because as a cooperative game it's up to the PLAYERS to balance out whatever is going on. I've had FUN playing a Bard, and been damn useful in a scrap. I've been a fantastic single-classed fighter and had a lot of exciting times, but that doesn't excuse the system.

Because I know, firsthand, what an overpowered class can do to a game. Competitive players make it their GOAL to defeat other players, to upstage them because of their own insecurities.

Another player, who was NOT a Powergamer, nor was he trying to be a jerk or anything, upstage an ENTIRE OTHER party with his Cleric, ON ACCIDENT. He wasn't TRYING to be Overpowered, but he was well-prepared and he knew how to use a Cleric "Properly" and to him: "This is intelligent, any other method would be stupid." Thus: his more Roleplaying focused friends ended up shafted.

Playing a Weak Character CAN be fun, but you'd have to be the type of person who is OKAY being weak. and I can say for certain that's DEFINITELY not everyone. If a choice is clearly mechanically weaker it's a significant reason NOT to play that character, and with so many clearly superior options in 3.5 this is an issue.

Hell even in his OWN party, the Swordsage himself essentially relegated himself to being a sidekick. Repeatedly pointing out where the Cleric had succeeded and his Swordsage had failed. He was "Okay" with this, but I was not. This isn't how D&D is supposed to be...

And isn't how it IS either, but it's what it can be and what it sometimes even leans towards.

Scintillatus
2008-06-02, 09:07 AM
I am in agreement with the concept of less "pork" in character abilities. Every single power can be used effectively, there are no traps for inexperienced players.

Additionally, mind-affecting abilities, illusions, summoning, shapeshifting et al are likely going to be restricted to their respective iconic character classes, instead of being heaped on the Wizard.

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 09:08 AM
The way I see it, there's no reason why 4e fighters couldn't have picked up a few save-or-suck-type effects to compensate for what they lacked in 3e.

Sure, they're never going to teleport or polymorph or the like, but they could realistically deal ability damage/drain, blind, stun, hamstring (immobilize), be better at disrupting casting, and even decapitate/skull crack (save or die). All of these would have improved the fighter's lot, against casters and other martial characters alike. Streamlining the rules for sunder, disarm, bullrush, and grapple would make them more effective as well.

I understand some of the vast utility of wizards going out the window, but it sounds like the overall power-cut went too far and simply didn't utilize options that could have been very cool, opting for simple hp-death for everyone.

By trying to give everyone cool options, but keep it simple at the same time, WotC has 'dumbed down' the game and weakened every class.

Perhaps, but then the issue arises when this stuff hits players:

Save or Suck spells and abilities aren't fun to have on you. Ability damage and drain cause a significant break in the action while you re-calculate all the changed modifiers, and Save-or-Die effects are NEVER EVER fun unless the players only use them on enemies.

Long term effects are irritating to have effect characters and I get a distinct feeling that 4e is MUCH more Player-vs-Player friendly. Which is an interesting direction to take a "Cooperative game" But frankly there'll ALWAYS be inter-player conflict, and that's part of the fun. The difference now is that the Fighter can actually go at it with the Wizard without being instantly shut down. They are EQUALS now. And not in an irritating way. A fight between two 4e classes will be far more interesting considering the lack of abilities that just end an encounter with one save. I think this is a positive step.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-02, 09:14 AM
I am in agreement with the concept of less "pork" in character abilities. Every single power can be used effectively, there are no traps for inexperienced players.
I don't think this is true. I expect that within a month or two, the Gleemax boards will have put together build guides for each class, explaining which powers are good and which are not. But for instance - certain rogue powers are only useful for the "brawny" rogue, not for the other kind. Yes, that Is A Trap.

Remember, it took the internet a couple years and an intermediate edition to figure out that Weapon Focus was really not that good a feat in 3E.


Additionally, mind-affecting abilities, illusions, summoning, shapeshifting et al are likely going to be restricted to their respective iconic character classes, instead of being heaped on the Wizard.
So you keep saying... but do you have any solid source for that, or is it just an assumption on your part? Because the concept of any effect lasting longer than twelve seconds (i.e. "save ends" or "sustain minor") appears not to exist in 4E.

Judging by the 4E PHB, I'd expect both mind-affecting and illusion to go like "encounter power, wisdom vs. will, deal 3d6 damage on a hit because you create a horrid vision for your enemy", and shapeshifting to be "dexterity vs reflex, deal 1d10+strength on a hit, because you turn into a wolf for three seconds to maul your foe".

Starbuck_II
2008-06-02, 09:21 AM
Bad points

Unfortunately, the way 4e gets that better balance and simplicity is by cutting down character versatility like a chainsaw addict at a tree nursery. Entire types of magic and class features are just gone.

If you measured character versatility on a scale from 1 to 10, it would look something like this (note, the 3.5 classes are on there as a rough estimate only):

1. 3.5 Fighter
2.
3. 4e classes (all)
4.
5. 3.5 Warlock, Bard
6.
7.
8.
9. 3.5 Wizard, Druid
10.


Should it be more like 4e classes at 4 since they can do rituals to cpoy most 3.5 utility Wizard spells?

Heck, all of 4E can fly with their Tensar's Floating disk. 24 hours mind you. How does the 3.5 do it for 24 hours? They don't.


It's easy to come up with explanations for why all this was removed, but the point is - shapeshifting is fun. Having an animal companion is fun. Being able to fly everywhere and climb everywhere and swim in lava and turn enemies into squirrels is fun. Was it really necessary to get rid of all that? With all that time they spent on development, the designers couldn't come up with any better solution other than "axe it all"?

Whether the gain in simplicity is worth the loss of versatility, I just don't know. What I do know is I wish they could have tried harder to do a better job of balancing the two.

- Saph

If I was designing a game and I had to choose between was is fun and broken or not as fun but balanced.
It is smarter to choose the balanced.

Edea
2008-06-02, 09:23 AM
Yes, but the issue is that on the same scale, 4E characters are nowhere NEAR Tome of Battle characters either.

Fighters and monks suck, we get that. Compared to them, everything is better. But if you do the math, at nearly every level, a 4e character gets substantially less different powers than a 3E warlock, or crusader, or paladin. On the Saph scale, above, most characters in 3E are in the 5-9 range, with the much-maligned fighter being an exception. However, every single 4E character is well below the 5-mark.

I think that might be because they're saving material for new core releases. Guess that's how they're making money now.

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 09:27 AM
I don't think this is true. I expect that within a month or two, the Gleemax boards will have put together build guides for each class, explaining which powers are good and which are not. But for instance - certain rogue powers are only useful for the "brawny" rogue, not for the other kind. Yes, that Is A Trap.

Remember, it took the internet a couple years and an intermediate edition to figure out that Weapon Focus was really not that good a feat in 3E.


So you keep saying... but do you have any solid source for that, or is it just an assumption on your part? Because the concept of any effect lasting longer than twelve seconds (i.e. "save ends" or "sustain minor") appears not to exist in 4E.

Judging by the 4E PHB, I'd expect both mind-affecting and illusion to go like "encounter power, wisdom vs. will, deal 3d6 damage on a hit because you create a horrid vision for your enemy", and shapeshifting to be "dexterity vs reflex, deal 1d10+strength on a hit, because you turn into a wolf for three seconds to maul your foe".

Point taken: Yeah, there MIGHT be traps for inexperienced players, but they're really really simple ones that aren't NEARLY as dense or elaborate as the ones in 3.5, of course a few years of supplements probably will change this, but I'm hopeful. Also: the nature of the abilities is such that most builds are fully viable and stand a reasonable chance against pretty much any other build. Of course, this could just be the idiot in me talking and I'm blind to the actual situation, but that's how it looks to me right now...

As far as illusions and transformations: Well, let's hit the two seperately:

Illusions: I think you'll probably be right, and it is extremely irritating. I hope they figure out some way to fix it but I'm highly skeptical.

As far as Shapeshifting, I bet it'll be fine, but rather than being "Transform into X from page Y in Monster Manual Z. It'll be more like the PHB2 Druid variant where it's a set of static ability modifiers on a particular form. Or at least I imagine that'll be the case. I mean, it doesn't contradict anything other than their weird aversion to abilty score enhancement... oh right... their weird aversion to ability score enhancement... Hrm... I think it's doable... but we'll have to see...

All valid points, but those are two, honestly difficult archetypes to work with. illusions can be very VERY easily Overpowered with a creative enough mind. (and considering the standard D&D player, that's very much within the realm of possibility.) Shapeshifting is iconic enough that I think the PLAYER can at least maintain the form for as long as he wants...

But no shifting enemies, not for more than 12 seconds anyway... bleah...

Oslecamo
2008-06-02, 09:29 AM
It's simply the laws of probability. The more choices you add to the game, the bigger is the chance that certain choices may be better than others.

In 3.0 wotc decided to give the players as much chances as possible. Mountains of spells, classes, feats, rules, items and god knows what else. The combinations are endless. With enough rules mastery your character can pretty much do anything.


And we all know how the story ended. The optimizers apeared and they proceeded to dig trough all those combinations in search of holes in the rules. Throwing planets. Don't save, just die. Colapsing reality. Etc, etc. It was inevitable, because there was simply too much rules for WOTC to cover all the possible holes.

And the players complained and complained, so WOTC simply decided, in 4e, to don't run any risks in design and simply kill 90 of the cool stuff that may be abused. This included:

1-EVERY class uses the same freaking rule system. Seriously, the only thing that changes are the names. The fighter is the wizard and the wizard is the fighter. This prevents that any class rules system may be superior to the other.

2-Very versatile stuff that can be used "creatively". Polymorph, metamagic, change this, shape that, spider walk, shatter. Some of them are broken. Others don't. But they're all imprevisible, and thus got the axe.

3-Save or dies, save or sucks, any crazy damage combo. Because aparently players complained that anything that could 1 hit KO the oponent is broken.
Thus any combination that had the closest possibility of allowing a quick player one turn victory was axed untill it stoped screaming.


4-Player minions. Certainly there's a way to implemtent it into a balanced way. But 3.X left too many scars in the minion department for WOTC to risk it again.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-02, 09:30 AM
Perhaps, but then the issue arises when this stuff hits players:

Save or Suck spells and abilities aren't fun to have on you. Ability damage and drain cause a significant break in the action while you re-calculate all the changed modifiers,

Not really. For every 2 points of Str damage the character suffered a -1 to melee hit and damage. For every 2 points of Dex damage, the character suffered a -1 to AC, Reflex saves, and a -1 penalty to ranged attack rolls. For every 1 point of Con damage, the character took 5hp damage and a -1 to Fort saves. Int, Wis, and Cha damage rarely came up, but usually only affected casters. If any score hit zero, the character was rendered unconscious.


and Save-or-Die effects are NEVER EVER fun unless the players only use them on enemies.

Probably true, but they were always exciting and dramatic moments.


Long term effects are irritating to have effect characters

Long-term effects tend to require the least bookkeeping because the character can simply adjust the character sheet accordingly. After a certain level most of the harmful ones can be removed easily enough and nobody's going to complain about a 6-hour boost to a stat, AC, etc.


and I get a distinct feeling that 4e is MUCH more Player-vs-Player friendly. Which is an interesting direction to take a "Cooperative game" But frankly there'll ALWAYS be inter-player conflict, and that's part of the fun. The difference now is that the Fighter can actually go at it with the Wizard without being instantly shut down. They are EQUALS now. And not in an irritating way. A fight between two 4e classes will be far more interesting considering the lack of abilities that just end an encounter with one save. I think this is a positive step.

PvP has only once been a major component of a game I played in - and that was an ALIENS campaign using the Alternity system. Since D&D is predominantly a cooperative game, I've never seen much need for PvP balance.

Scintillatus
2008-06-02, 09:31 AM
I just spent some time cataloguing the variety of things a Wizard can do in and out of combat.

In Combat:


Direct Damage
AoE Damage
Slow
Push/Pull/Shift
Daze
Knocking Prone
Weaken
Create Difficult Terrain
Damage over Time
Sleep
Immobilization
Summoning: Bigby's various hands, Mordenkainen's Sword, et al
Conjurations: from walls to spheres
Stun
Remove LOS (specific, nonspecific)
Teleportation
Mazing
Confusion


I'd like to see someone add things that a Wizard does in 3.5, without stepping on the toes of other concepts, overlapping with the existing concepts there, or adding "mass" to the beginning. Perhaps we can gain an insight into what's missing.

Wait, sorry; forgot Paragon Path special powers (outside of the bonuses from picking the path)


Self-healing
Regain encounter power
Remove an enemy's attack


Okay, and non-combat, not including rituals....


Prestidigitation (various)
Mage Hand
Light
Expeditious Retreat
Feather Fall
Jump
Shield
Dimension Door
Disguise Self
Dispel Magic
Invisibility
Levitate
Wall of Fog
Arcane Gate (Teleportation)
Blur
Mirror Image
Resistance
Displacement
Fly
Greater Invisibility
Stoneskin
Mass Fly
Mordenkainen's Mansion
Time Stop



Aaaand here's the ritual progression;

3 first-level rituals at level 1.
5th, 11th, 15th, 21st, 25th; gain two rituals (your level or lower).

I think we're all aware of how extensive the list of rituals is?

Prophaniti
2008-06-02, 09:32 AM
Prophaniti I would suggest seeing for yourself rather than relying on vocal internet posters...

Oh, I'll at least flip through them at my local book store. I'm not yet to the point of writing them off entirely. I just meant that I hear (not just from posters, but from their previews) less that I like and more that I don't every week. It's not all bad, I just read the thread on the alignment preview, and that, I like.

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 09:41 AM
Not really. For every 2 points of Str damage the character suffered a -1 to melee hit and damage. For every 2 points of Dex damage, the character suffered a -1 to AC, Reflex saves, and a -1 penalty to ranged attack rolls. For every 1 point of Con damage, the character took 5hp damage and a -1 to Fort saves. Int, Wis, and Cha damage rarely came up, but usually only affected casters. If any score hit zero, the character was rendered unconscious.

All that erasing and rewriting didn't bother you? What about when you had one ability modified, and it changed your Attack Bonus, but then your Gauntlets of Ogre Strength was dispelled so that got changed too, but just for a few rounds, and then you took a DIFFERENT Debuff... now you've got to keep track of when each individual effect began and ended and reorganize your abilities accordingly. This was just too much of a headache for me, I'm sorry. and it's not just me, I'm happy that you could handle it so readily, but a lot of the time, it's just a freakin' pain.




Probably true, but they were always exciting and dramatic moments.
A few dramatic moments are worth losing your character? I don't think so. Save or Die wasn't fun. It was anticlimactic and frustrating 9 times out of 10.

Player: Oh look! the Big Bad Evil Guy rolled a 1 against my Disintigrate. Haha! I'm awesome

...

okay... now what?

DM: *rage*


Long-term effects tend to require the least bookkeeping because the character can simply adjust the character sheet accordingly. After a certain level most of the harmful ones can be removed easily enough and nobody's going to complain about a 6-hour boost to a stat, AC, etc.

Now we're not talking about bookkeeping, long-term effects like Level Loss and stuff CAN be fixed, but they're big, and tiresome and they just bog down gameplay.


PvP has only once been a major component of a game I played in - and that was an ALIENS campaign using the Alternity system. Since D&D is predominantly a cooperative game, I've never seen much need for PvP balance.

To each their own, I'm sure you wouldn't MIND if the classes were balanced would you? Your group sounds phenomenal, but you guys are a lucky party. Most groups I've been in though seem to have a thing for wanting to pit their characters against eachother, maybe just to spar, or maybe on opposite sides of a war. Either case, Balance is important. If not for YOU than for the rest of us. I'm glad they made sure to make it workable for those of us who do end up murdering eachother, because now at least it's a fair murder.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-02, 09:43 AM
I'd like to see someone add things that a Wizard does in 3.5, without stepping on the toes of other concepts, overlapping with the existing concepts there, or adding "mass" to the beginning. Perhaps we can gain an insight into what's missing.

Create minions (summon or necromance), Buff self/others, Shapechange, Avoid combat altogether (via misdirection, charms, or illusions), Contingency - "Be Prepared" is kinda the wizard motto, is it not?, Permanency - really, anything lasting longer than the duration of combat


All that erasing and rewriting didn't bother you? What about when you had one ability modified, and it changed your Attack Bonus, but then your Gauntlets of Ogre Strength was dispelled so that got changed too, but just for a few rounds, and then you took a DIFFERENT Debuff... now you've got to keep track of when each individual effect began and ended and reorganize your abilities accordingly. This was just too much of a headache for me, I'm sorry. and it's not just me, I'm happy that you could handle it so readily, but a lot of the time, it's just a freakin' pain.

Isn't keeping track of that stuff why they invented 3x5 index cards? I never track that stuff on the character sheet. When DMing, a couple quick notes by the monster's hp suffices.

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 09:46 AM
Create minions (summon or necromance)
Buff self/others
Shapechange
Avoid combat altogether (via misdirection, charms, or illusions)
Contingency - "Be Prepared" is kinda the wizard motto, is it not?
Permanency - really, anything lasting longer than the duration of combat

Solid list, that. but might i note:

Buffing is the Cleric's job.
Shapeshifting, okay so now you're the Rogue or the Fighter...
Avoiding Combat, sorry Fighter, I guess you're not important after all...
Contingency and Permanency have their own caveats... Contingency was considered among the most Broken things ABOUT 3.5...

Saph
2008-06-02, 09:50 AM
I'd like to see someone add things that a Wizard does in 3.5, without stepping on the toes of other concepts, overlapping with the existing concepts there, or adding "mass" to the beginning. Perhaps we can gain an insight into what's missing.

I think you might have posted in the wrong place - there's a separate thread on 4e wizards. The example character I was using was a druid. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the list of 4e wizard spells.

- Saph

Scintillatus
2008-06-02, 09:51 AM
Every last thing you have listed goes against the very small and very fair set of rules I laid out.

Minion creation is already in (Mordenkainen's Sword, Orb of Fire, etc), and skeletal minions/undead will likely be reserved for a Shadow power source controller/leader.

Buffing yourself or others is a Leader job, not a Controller job. You already have a vast array of self-buffs anyway, such as Mirror Image.

Illusions will be Bardic, and you already get Disguise Self. Diluting the concept.

Shapechanging is for Druids, not for Wizards. You're diluting the concept again.

Contingency: Breaks the game. Fun fun.

You can Sustain effects, and create permanent things via rituals.

Anything at all the Wizard -should- do that he cannot do in 4e?

Edit;

@Saph: This illustrates that there is no "loss of versatility" in terms of effects you can create. I could make the same list for Clerics, Paladins, Rogues, whatever - it'd come down to the same thing. You can do the same stuff in 4e that you could do in 3e. You said that entire types of magic and class features are gone, and quite frankly, that is not true.

Many classes have not been published yet, and what you think is missing will not be soon enough; shapeshifting, illusion, etc. It certainly sucks that we can't have all the power sources and classes at once, but there's a good reason for it; examining the comparitive balance of each class prior to introducing new things to keep track of.

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 09:59 AM
I think you might have posted in the wrong place - there's a separate thread on 4e wizards. The example character I was using was a druid. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the list of 4e wizard spells.

- Saph

i think he's trying to make a point about versatility. I'd discuss Druids with you but they aren't out yet, and the Wizard IS right next to your Druid on that Versatility scale...

Anyway: I do miss spider climb and smaller interesting effects, Summoning swarms... I'd agree that there ought to be a different way to handle combat than just hp damage but I kind of like that there's only one way to beat a person in a fight and that's to FIGHT HIM. To accomplish another objective in combat should have a different method, i.e. Skill Challenges. I mean, goals in a combat may not necessarily be to neutralize a threat, it could be to secure an item or deliver a message, I think disabling through hp damage is fine. A whole new system of resolving combat through odd effects just seems too difficult and class-specific for me...

ghost_warlock
2008-06-02, 09:59 AM
Solid list, that. but might i note:

Buffing is the Cleric's job.
Shapeshifting, okay so now you're the Rogue or the Fighter...

Stepping on other character's toes is part of the reason why specialization was such a good idea. In theory, you'd have a pretty good idea of what each character was capable before the campaign began so there wouldn't be so much overlap. I was really happy the way it worked out with the Psion and I was hoping they'd use a similar approach for 4e wizards.


Avoiding Combat, sorry Fighter, I guess you're not important after all...

Discretion is the better part of valor, and the fighter can cry all day if he wants to about that. Avoiding a fight is sometimes simply the smart thing to do.


Contingency and Permanency have their own caveats... Contingency was considered among the most Broken things ABOUT 3.5...

All too true, but the intention was sound. I suppose it's inevitable that some combinations of effects are going to be broken.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-02, 10:06 AM
Should it be more like 4e classes at 4 since they can do rituals to cpoy most 3.5 utility Wizard spells?
No, because (1) they can't copy "most" utility spells, only a one-sided subset of them, and (2) doing so takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money (and, if the DM feels so inclined, he can have them require exotic ingredients).



In 3.0 wotc decided to give the players as much chances as possible. Mountains of spells, classes, feats, rules, items and god knows what else.
And the irony is that 4E will end up doing exactly the same with their splatbooks. Heck, there's five additional "power sources" planned, each of which will need 2-4 classes and powers.


I just spent some time cataloguing the variety of things a Wizard can do in and out of combat.
Yeah, but you're not really looking at them. WOTC is very clever at using the old and known names, but the effects don't match up. It's snake oil.

For instance, a 3E wizard can "slow" his enemies; a 4E wizard has a power with the same name, but what it really does is a bunch of damage and a status effect that lasts six seconds. That goes for nearly half your list. Heck, you can't even sustain more than one thing at a time (except if you stop moving or stop doing anything else entirely).

Likewise, exp. retreat lasts one round now; feather fall is usable once per day now; dispel magic doesn't do what it used to do; invis lasts six seconds again, and so forth.


Every last thing you have listed goes against the very small and very fair set of rules I laid out.
That's nothing but rhetoric. You set up a "fair" set of rules that says "Scinty is right", then complain that people disagree with them.



Illusions will be Bardic,
Only in OOTS; traditionally they don't fit the Bard trope at all. Besides, I note you've refused to cite a source on that.

Saph
2008-06-02, 10:26 AM
@Saph: This illustrates that there is no "loss of versatility" in terms of effects you can create. I could make the same list for Clerics, Paladins, Rogues, whatever - it'd come down to the same thing. You can do the same stuff in 4e that you could do in 3e. You said that entire types of magic and class features are gone, and quite frankly, that is not true.

Yes it is.

My druid's main three abilities are Wild Shape, Animal Companion, and spellcasting. Wild Shape is gone. Animal Companion is gone. Spellcasting is there, but now heavily limited. Picking out some of my favourite spells:

• Spider Climb - Can't find it, presumed gone. (If it's there and I've missed it, a page number would be greatly appreciated.)
• Stone Shape - Again, presumed gone.
• Baleful Polymorph - Definitely gone.
• Stoneskin - Ah, finally one that's still there. But it's wizard only, requires you to be level 16, and lasts 5 minutes max. Meh.

You can claim that all this stuff is going to be added later, but I'm comparing 3.5 core to 4e core. If 4e core can't hold up, that's a limitation of the system. But while we're at it, let's compare some of the stuff that's still there. We'll pick wizard spells, since you seem to like them.

Let's have a look at 4e Fly. Now requires you to be level 16(!). Wizard only. Single target only. Five minute duration. Requires concentration. Once per day.

By comparison, my level 12 druid, even within core, can take an animal form that allows him to fly - any animal form, eagle, hawk, dire bat, whatever you like. This sustains for 12 hours, and doesn't require concentration. He can use wild shape four times per day.

Which one would you say is more versatile?

- Saph

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 10:27 AM
Stepping on other character's toes is part of the reason why specialization was such a good idea. In theory, you'd have a pretty good idea of what each character was capable before the campaign began so there wouldn't be so much overlap. I was really happy the way it worked out with the Psion and I was hoping they'd use a similar approach for 4e wizards.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here... what did they do with Psions?

Also: You're staying on such a narrow frame. Not everyone is so considerate, and while a lot of people don't like the fact that Class roles are now Explicit rather than implicit it does fix that problem. Maybe with an audible clunk, but at the end of the day our party works.


Discretion is the better part of valor, and the fighter can cry all day if he wants to about that. Avoiding a fight is sometimes simply the smart thing to do.

yes you can Avoid the fight, use a Diplomacy Skill challenge or sneak or invisibility or something, but once your IN a fight, the only way out is to kick some ass or do some hard-core negotiations. Should magic be allowed to take option c. when no one else has an option c.?


All too true, but the intention was sound. I suppose it's inevitable that some combinations of effects are going to be broken.

Unless we make sure that those combinations can't be broken, which is what they're TRYING to do in 4e, whether they succeed or not is up for questioning...


No, because (1) they can't copy "most" utility spells, only a one-sided subset of them, and (2) doing so takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money (and, if the DM feels so inclined, he can have them require exotic ingredients).


Yeah, but you're not really looking at them. WOTC is very clever at using the old and known names, but the effects don't match up. It's snake oil.

For instance, a 3E wizard can "slow" his enemies; a 4E wizard has a power with the same name, but what it really does is a bunch of damage and a status effect that lasts six seconds. That goes for nearly half your list. Heck, you can't even sustain more than one thing at a time (except if you stop moving or stop doing anything else entirely).

Likewise, exp. retreat lasts one round now; feather fall is usable once per day now; dispel magic doesn't do what it used to do; invis lasts six seconds again, and so forth.


You're right about all that... unfortunately... The abilities are far weaker than they used to be. Thus, not game-breaking... but it can still keep up the speed of the action and it doesn't automatically end all encounters with save/suck. It's more tactical now as opposed to... well... build dependant...


Only in OOTS; traditionally they don't fit the Bard trope at all. Besides, I note you've refused to cite a source on that.
Agreed, I want my Bard to be more of a Factotum than an Illusionist...



And the irony is that 4E will end up doing exactly the same with their splatbooks. Heck, there's five additional "power sources" planned, each of which will need 2-4 classes and powers.

Yeah... that's something to look forward to isn't it?

I disagree with the number of power sources they're ready to pump out, but I'll live with it. But at least we're not starting OUT broken like 3.5, after all, the most broken part of our old system WAS the PHB. The other splatbooks just exacerbated the problem, and made a few fixes...

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 10:29 AM
Let's have a look at 4e Fly. Now requires you to be level 16(!). Wizard only. Single target only. Five minute duration. Requires concentration. Once per day.

By comparison, my level 12 druid, even within core, can take an animal form that allows him to fly - any animal form, eagle, hawk, dire bat, whatever you like. This sustains for 12 hours, and doesn't require concentration. He can use wild shape four times per day.

Which one would you say is more versatile?

- Saph

Warlock level 10 - Shadowform grants you Fly 6 for the encounter. Angelic Avenger 16 gives you wings and a hover speed for the encounter.

Githyanki can make someone fly for 5 squares as an encounter power at level 1.

Charity
2008-06-02, 10:36 AM
Spiderclimb is in there somewhere I'm sure I've seen it Saph...At work at the mo, but I'll look later, if some helpful soul hasn't sorted a page no for you.

Saph
2008-06-02, 10:36 AM
Warlock level 10 - Shadowform grants you Fly 6 for the encounter. Angelic Avenger 16 gives you wings and a hover speed for the encounter.

Githyanki can make someone fly for 5 squares as an encounter power at level 1.

They're nice powers (at least I think so - I haven't looked up the githyanki one) but they just don't hold a candle to Wild Shape in terms of versatility. Being able to fly for several hours is vastly more useful and more fun than being able to fly for five minutes.

- Saph

Charity
2008-06-02, 10:38 AM
Thing is Saph those things are too good to allow for just one class, and if everyones got it then it's the same as nobody having it.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 10:38 AM
They're nice powers (at least I think so - I haven't looked up the githyanki one) but they just don't hold a candle to Wild Shape in terms of versatility. Being able to fly for several hours is vastly more useful and more fun than being able to fly for five minutes.

- Saph

Oh, I know...I'm just saying that Fly isnt only a wizard power like you said. There may even be more. :smallbiggrin:

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 10:40 AM
Yes it is.

My druid's main three abilities are Wild Shape, Animal Companion, and spellcasting. Wild Shape is gone. Animal Companion is gone. Spellcasting is there, but now heavily limited. Picking out some of my favourite spells:

• Spider Climb - Can't find it, presumed gone. (If it's there and I've missed it, a page number would be greatly appreciated.)
• Stone Shape - Again, presumed gone.
• Baleful Polymorph - Definitely gone.
• Stoneskin - Ah, finally one that's still there. But it's wizard only, requires you to be level 16, and lasts 5 minutes max. Meh.

You can claim that all this stuff is going to be added later, but I'm comparing 3.5 core to 4e core. If 4e core can't hold up, that's a limitation of the system. But while we're at it, let's compare some of the stuff that's still there. We'll pick wizard spells, since you seem to like them.

Let's have a look at 4e Fly. Now requires you to be level 16(!). Wizard only. Single target only. Five minute duration. Requires concentration. Once per day.

By comparison, my level 12 druid, even within core, can take an animal form that allows him to fly - any animal form, eagle, hawk, dire bat, whatever you like. This sustains for 12 hours, and doesn't require concentration. He can use wild shape four times per day.

Which one would you say is more versatile?

- Saph

Only FOUR classes in 3.5 are remotely that versatile. And maybe 4e should have made EVERYONE that versatile, that would have been awesome. But not for everyone. Versatility brings complexity, a LOT of it. So much bookkeeping, is not fun for everyone. A lot of us have been spoiled on 3.5 options with our Batman Wizards and CoDzillas but still, that doesn't mean they're RIGHT. Versatility is nice, but somewhat counter to the whole "Party Roles" aspect of the game. You, as a Druid can do SO much more than a fighter can, and there is a limit to how amazing we can make Fighters before people start complaining about Realism and such, (Hell they're ALREADY doing it...) However, Magic is unlimited, and thus, can be easily rationalized to be so incredibly powerful. But with great power comes Responsibility, just because the idea of magic is unlimited doesn't give you the right to be all powerful compared to non-magic user plebeians...

Also: Core is redefined in 4e to include all future PHBs DMGs and MMs...

Rutee
2008-06-02, 10:42 AM
They're nice powers (at least I think so - I haven't looked up the githyanki one) but they just don't hold a candle to Wild Shape in terms of versatility. Being able to fly for several hours is vastly more useful and more fun than being able to fly for five minutes.

- Saph

Wasn't Wild Shape broken with Natural Spell though? And, well, there were all those splats that added things like "Draconic Wild Shape".

Though, there's.. ti's called the Master of Many Forms, right? Added small static bonuses and the ability to add things like a Fly or Swim Speed, rather then changing into particular creatures, right? I suspect that when Druid comes out, if they keep the shapeshifting, it'd follow that model. The only class with any traditional 'right' to shapeshifting was the wizard, and well, I have no problem with that class losing versatility, since DnD can't just /add/ that level of versatility to everyone. Well they could, but almost every other fan would scream.

Scintillatus
2008-06-02, 10:49 AM
@Saph; Which would you say is less broken?

In addition, you are entirely discounting design concerns such as "Will an over-abundance of initial choices be problematic for balance?" "Will we be able to observe and provide errata/edits/splatbooks for a huge amount of classes?" "Can we ensure high quality for each class if we put in more?"

The 4th Edition ruleset is not "dumbed down" or "less versatile"; you miss the Druid character concept. This is a shame. I miss the Bard character concept, and I hope that the PHB does it justice. But accusations of "less versatility" need to be checked against questions like "is it balanced?". Can you really find a justification for save-or-lose? Or removing someone entirely from the battlefield with two spells? I don't think you can.

I don't think you can fault the 4e mechanics system on its own merits, nor do I think you can find a design justification for including extremely complex concepts like shapeshifting and summoning, right off the bat, without breaking them like was done in 3e.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-02, 10:49 AM
So here I am, waiting with some anticipation for the fated 4e, and still there are threads about the game before I've looked at it. At least at this point, we are commenting on aspects that exist.

I've always liked flashing my geek credentials as a 1e & 2e player and this is no time to stop. Haha. You don't escape that easily. Whether this will be relevant to the conversation or not, I've put it out on the table so I can use that card like that annoying Magic: The Gathering artefact that sits out there on your opponent's field and you can't get rid of no matter what you do and you groan every time he uses it. Rock on. Here's some of my opinions:

1. Balance is for Suckers: Why we have to have all classes properly balanced is beyond me. It becomes a limiting game. Yes, the Fighter does like to feel effective, but making sure the Fighter and the Wizard are equally effective seems like you're punishing the Wizard because his class is generally powerful.

2. Gross Imbalance is for Suckers: 3e had some good changes and bad changes. One bad thing was how Fighters seemed to get the shaft. They went from having the best saves and attacks in 1e-2e (haha! Got it in!) to having the worst saves and nerfed multiple attacks. A 2e Fighter had less attacks than a 3e Fighter of the same level, but the 2e was hitting at maximum attack bonus each time. The 3e Fighter had few skill points, few useful Class skills as well. Thanks to Int being unimportant to the class, the Fighter tended to do only one thing passably well, and that was Fight.

3. Complexity Does Not Equal Versatility: 3e Wizards and druids are not so much versatile in make than they are complex. The complexity did offer some versatility, mind you. However, the reason so many people shy away from Wizards and Druids I find, is because those classes required some book-keeping and extensive notations. The complexity was something I enjoyed. But it's neither a good or bad thing, merely a playing preference. If one didn't like complexity, there were other classes that could hit as hard as a wizard, but with less trouble (such as the Sorcerer). Oddly, I never got into the Sorcerer class.

4. Simplicity is a Good Thing(tm): One of the things I like what I see in 4e is a move to simplicity. 3e tended to have a complex adjudication system that lent one to looking for how the rules dealt or would deal with a specific situation. 4e seems to offer basic systems that can adapt as needed. Simply put, 4e makes it easier for the party powerhouse to pick up and hurl the dwarf at a fleeing enemy (one of my benchmarks for a decent game) than 3e ever did. This is a good thing. Allowing players to come up with creative ways to overcome obstacles without slowing down a game is a definite plus in my book.

Okay. I'm shutting up now. I tend to just go on and on.

Dark Tira
2008-06-02, 10:51 AM
Spiderclimb is in there somewhere I'm sure I've seen it Saph...At work at the mo, but I'll look later, if some helpful soul hasn't sorted a page no for you.
Page 134. It's a warlock power now.

Saph
2008-06-02, 10:53 AM
Only FOUR classes in 3.5 are remotely that versatile. And maybe 4e should have made EVERYONE that versatile, that would have been awesome. But not for everyone. Versatility brings complexity, a LOT of it. So much bookkeeping, is not fun for everyone.

I know - I'm not actually disagreeing with you here. Scintillatus was claiming that what I was saying was wrong, that 4e classes are actually that versatile, that magic types like shapeshifting and class features like animal companions weren't gone. That was what I was replying to.


Wasn't Wild Shape broken with Natural Spell though? And, well, there were all those splats that added things like "Draconic Wild Shape".

It was in the 'overpowered' category rather than the 'totally broken' one - Wild Shape is very powerful, but all it does is change your physical abilities. It's not an instakill ability like Irresistable Dance or Shivering Touch.

But, honestly, it's not the combat power of Wild Shape that I care about. I don't like Wild Shape because it boosts my combat power, I like Wild Shape because it lets me turn into any animal I can think of, and being able to turn into any animal I can think of is freaking awesome. I can turn into an eagle and spend a few hours cruising above the party at 3,000 feet watching them travel. I can turn into a seal and go swimming. I can turn into a small woodland animal and annoy campers. I can freak out the ranger by pretending to be her animal companion. And with Draconic Wild Shape, I can turn into a silver dragon and walk on clouds and spit cones of cold at people I don't like. It's fun, and that's why I'm playing the game in the first place. And that's why I'm not happy that I can't do it in the new edition.

- Saph

Rutee
2008-06-02, 10:57 AM
But, honestly, it's not the combat power of Wild Shape that I care about. I don't like Wild Shape because it boosts my combat power, I like Wild Shape because it lets me turn into any animal I can think of, and being able to turn into any animal I can think of is freaking awesome. I can turn into an eagle and spend a few hours cruising above the party at 3,000 feet watching them travel. I can turn into a seal and go swimming. I can turn into a small woodland animal and annoy campers. I can freak out the ranger by pretending to be her animal companion. And with Draconic Wild Shape, I can turn into a silver dragon and walk on clouds and spit cones of cold at people I don't like. It's fun, and that's why I'm playing the game in the first place. And that's why I'm not happy that I can't do it in the new edition.
The fun thing was, however, overpowered. I think they've got the framework in for shapeshift though, with the PHB2 and the other variants, so you might see it when it comes time to give the Druid a book.

Duke of URL
2008-06-02, 10:57 AM
It's fun, and that's why I'm playing the game in the first place. And that's why I'm not happy that I can't do it in the new edition.

Aw, c'mon, the fun of being able to do stuff like that can't compare to the thrill and excitement of meticulously balanced tactical wargaming with pigeonholed character roles!

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 11:03 AM
So, the basic theme of this thread is "Any time in the past was better than the present"?

Pfft.

Dark Tira
2008-06-02, 11:07 AM
The fun thing was, however, overpowered. I think they've got the framework in for shapeshift though, with the PHB2 and the other variants, so you might see it when it comes time to give the Druid a book.

Also, if the Doppleganger is any indication, WotC doesn't mind a large amount of flexibility as long as it has no real impact of combat. The new druid could conceivably end up with a very useful shapeshift ritual that grants the forms but eliminates combat applications of the forms.

Swordguy
2008-06-02, 11:14 AM
So, the basic theme of this thread is "Any time in the past was better than the present"?

Pfft.

Or "I'm not going to be happy about any given RPG regardless of what it does right or wrong".

...that could be for the whole forum, actually.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 11:16 AM
Also, if the Doppleganger is any indication, WotC doesn't mind a large amount of flexibility as long as it has no real impact of combat. The new druid could conceivably end up with a very useful shapeshift ritual that grants the forms but eliminates combat applications of the forms.

Now, there's an idea...

They could, for example, make an Overland Flight ritual that worked out of combat, but in combat, you'd have a few precious rounds to land or it's Sayonara, Charlie for you.

Victor Thorian
2008-06-02, 11:19 AM
So, the basic theme of this thread is "Any time in the past was better than the present"?

Pfft.

to quote Vladimir Taltos:
don't you miss the days you used to be nostalgic?

on topic: I am sure we all are going to get what we want once 4e is established. There's just too few sources to make a conclusion at the moment. It will, sooner or later, be as big as 3.5e is right now, and hopefully they'll manage to do it without breaking too many eggs.

edit: changed the wording to be less boring.

Morty
2008-06-02, 11:22 AM
I agree in full. 4ed seems to have done a good job balancing classes between each other and give fighters some combat options... but they axed the capabilites of every class that was more versatile than fighter or barbarian. 3ed spellcasters are extremely fun to play because they've got acces to boatloads of spells. Some of those spells are rarely used, but they're there. Unfortunaetly, all core magic users in 3ed are, as everyone knows, overpowered. But did they have to reduce their versatility so badly in order to make them reasonably powerful? I don't think so. And melee classes aren't all that versatile either- they've got more options than 3ed Fighter, but that's not much of an achievment. I can't belive I'm saying that, but compare them to ToB classes who get whole lot of manuevers and stances to choose from.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 11:25 AM
*shrug*

Play it a few times and see if its the system for you. The few times I've played it, I've had a blast. I think it suits me better than 3e. I'm done trying to convince people its good and to let them make their own decisions. Hopefully the decisions that people make will be informed decisions, not just basing opinions on half-truths, hearsay and what not.

That said, I agree with a lot of Saph has to say here, but I don't think of this shift towards balance is a bad thing. I enjoy it.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 11:25 AM
If you want to see it that way, sure. Some of us would rather read and try to understand the true intent of the post.
And I agree in full. 4ed seems to have done a good job balancing classes between each other and give fighters some combat options... but they axed the capabilites of every class that was more versatile than fighter or barbarian. 3ed spellcasters are extremely fun to play because they've got acces to boatloads of spells. Some of those spells are rarely used, but they're there. Unfortunaetly, all core magic users in 3ed are, as everyone knows, overpowered. But did they have to reduce their versatility so badly in order to make them reasonably powerful? I don't think so. And melee classes aren't all that versatile either- they've got more options than 3ed Fighter, but that's not much of an achievment. I can't belive I'm saying that, but compare them to ToB classes who get whole lot of manuevers and stances to choose from.

If you think so. I read through it, but I disagree.

Really, thing is, WotC took the best solution. What would you say if I told you I could make a system where spellcasters still retained all of their versatility and martial characters remained useful...at the cost of making martial characters inherently magic, making them warp reality with each blow?

No doubt, EVERYONE would complain that it is "Too anime!", that "It goes against the spirit of D&D!", or something like that. So trust me, the nerf WAS the only way that the majority would like. The other solution was giving meleers Charles Atlas superpowers, and for some reason, EVERYONE would have complained because of that.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-02, 11:26 AM
So, the basic theme of this thread is "Any time in the past was better than the present"?

Pfft.

Actually, I'd say the theme is, for just about any 4e thread: Change is never easy.

Whenever a game system is changed, there's going to be people happy with the changes and people unhappy. Most often it becomes a conversation where the former can't see why the latter is so upset, and the latter can't see what the former is so excited about. We disagree, debate, discuss, argue, and start a few bar fights over it, then we get back to life.

Rock on.

Morty
2008-06-02, 11:34 AM
Really, thing is, WotC took the best solution. What would you say if I told you I could make a system where spellcasters still retained all of their versatility and martial characters remained useful...at the cost of making martial characters inherently magic, making them warp reality with each blow?

No doubt, EVERYONE would complain that it is "Too anime!", that "It goes against the spirit of D&D!", or something like that. So trust me, the nerf WAS the only way that the majority would like. The other solution was giving meleers Charles Atlas superpowers, and for some reason, EVERYONE would have complained because of that.

It's not about the nerf. It about removing 3/4 of the options wizards and clerics used to have. And non-casters aren't all that versatile either, but that's another story. 3ed casters needed a nerf both in versatility and sheer power, I won't deny that. However, what WoTC did to achieve this is a complete overkill. They didn't so much "tone down" casters as "axe most of their abilites and make them blasters/guys who buff their buddies while whacking enemies with maces". And guess what, fighters don't need to be inherently magical to be balanced with versatile casters. They just have to be reasonably versatile instead of "do everything better than everyone else as well as do stuff noone else can".

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 11:36 AM
It's not about the nerf. It about removing 3/4 of the options wizards and clerics used to have. And non-casters aren't all that versatile either, but that's another story. 3ed casters needed a nerf both in versatility and sheer power, I won't deny that. However, what WoTC did to achieve this is a complete overkill. They didn't so much "tone down" casters as "axe most of their abilites and make them blasters/guys who buff their buddies while whacking enemies with maces". And guess what, fighters don't need to be inherently magical to be balanced with versatile casters. They just have to be reasonably versatile instead of "do everything better than everyone else as well as do stuff noone else can".

Okay. Find a way to make flight viable without allowing Fighter's to remain stationary in the air round after round and to make air jumps.

Or Disintegrate. Or Time Stop, a complete iconic. Without magical-like actions, it's impossible.

Dyrvom
2008-06-02, 11:37 AM
Howdy.

I think that a lot of individuals in this discussion are missing a major facet of the 4E philosophy. It is more customizable- I have the books. Looking at power variety, feat lists and especially monster examples, it is clear that Wizards' priority was not giving us back what we lost in 3.5. It was to provide us with the tools and balanced examples we need to recreate those things from 3.5 we considered most awesome. If you sit down, look at polymorph: squirrel and then look at some high paragon dailies from 4E, and do a thorough and self-sincere job, you can create a balanced and cool spell.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-02, 11:39 AM
I agree in full. 4ed seems to have done a good job balancing classes between each other and give fighters some combat options... but they axed the capabilites of every class that was more versatile than fighter or barbarian. 3ed spellcasters are extremely fun to play because they've got acces to boatloads of spells. Some of those spells are rarely used, but they're there. Unfortunaetly, all core magic users in 3ed are, as everyone knows, overpowered. But did they have to reduce their versatility so badly in order to make them reasonably powerful? I don't think so.
I fully agree so far.
You really don't have much to choose from, and you don't get many powers, either.
I mean, simplifications aren't bad by default, but they took it too far, I think.


And melee classes aren't all that versatile either- they've got more options than 3ed Fighter, but that's not much of an achievment.
That's one of my main problems with 4e:
Almost no powers that equal tactical maneuvers which have a lasting effect.

For example, there are three level 6 Fighter utilities. One grants a bonus to initiative, one increases Fort, Ref and Will defense, and one reduces the damage suffered by one attack.

This seems to be true for the leaders, too, although I haven't looked into that too deeply.


I can't belive I'm saying that, but compare them to ToB classes who get whole lot of manuevers and stances to choose from.
Oh, you still get them. You just don't get too many (/enough).

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 11:39 AM
Howdy.

I think that a lot of individuals in this discussion are missing a major facet of the 4E philosophy. It is more customizable- I have the books. Looking at power variety, feat lists and especially monster examples, it is clear that Wizards' priority was not giving us back what we lost in 3.5. It was to provide us with the tools and balanced examples we need to recreate those things from 3.5 we considered most awesome. If you sit down, look at polymorph: squirrel and then look at some high paragon dailies from 4E, and do a thorough and self-sincere job, you can create a balanced and cool spell.

Of course. But homebrewing is a pain. I could make a new illusionist class...But I'd have to devote weeks to test it and try to find loopholes. Thus, homebrewing is summarily ignored in debates, because NOBODY wants to break their backs.

Dyrvom
2008-06-02, 11:41 AM
You misunderstood my point. Homebrewing in 4E is much easier than in 3.5.

Indon
2008-06-02, 11:44 AM
And the irony is that 4E will end up doing exactly the same with their splatbooks. Heck, there's five additional "power sources" planned, each of which will need 2-4 classes and powers.
Yeah, but since there's a very short list of what powers actually _do_, any future class is just going to be a remixing of what we've already seen. By selecting existing powers and changing names and flavors, you could create the 4E incarnation of any 3.x class with just the core books.

My two cents:

Classes aren't the only things that have suffered on the versatility front. While I once thought that the racial system would be designed into an elegant replacement of LA/RHD, I see now from reading the books that I am sorely mistaken.

It is clear that no race not in the PHB is meant to be played, and reverse-engineering them into playability via the Monster Manual will be dubious and difficult, at best. It seems that Wizards decided not to solve the difficulties posed by exotic races, and rather decided to scrap the problem altogether by trying to discourage players from playing them.

Oh, yeah, and evil deities and their worshippers. Yeah, sure, you can play one, you just have to rewrite all the divine powers (unless you like your Paladin of Vecna [heh] smiting people with rainbows flying out of his cruelly-shaped scythe/scimitar).


So, the basic theme of this thread is "Any time in the past was better than the present"?

Pfft.

No, 3'rd edition, with its' Level-Adjustment/Racial Hit Die system, was better than AD&D: It provided awesome options for exotic character concepts which simply no longer exist in 4'th edition.

And I'd say the basic theme of the thread would be, "...but at what cost?" Which I might add I've been ranting about for months.

Frosty
2008-06-02, 11:48 AM
It's one of the reasons I'd rather eat raw squid than play a martial character in that edition.

All the meanwhile, your dwarven fighter buddy is left with "Och, ah pook it wit' mah axe!"


That quote just made my day. You've put a smile on my face. Thank you.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 11:48 AM
You misunderstood my point. Homebrewing in 4E is much easier than in 3.5.

Homebrewing is also not discussed here, but in another forum. See, NOBODY cares about the ease of homebrew. If it has to be homebrewed, it's a concept the devs couldn't do, for whatever reason. Thus, it's inconsequential.

Morty
2008-06-02, 11:50 AM
Okay. Find a way to make flight viable without allowing Fighter's to remain stationary in the air round after round and to make air jumps.

Or Disintegrate. Or Time Stop, a complete iconic. Without magical-like actions, it's impossible.

Sure. You can start with not making flight so goddamn easy. 4ed actually did a good job on this. Disntegrate is easy as well- fighters can resist things like that without it being magic, only toughness. Time Stop can be made shorter, but to truly balance it it'd require all spell to be less horribly overpowered, so two or three of them don't tear poor fighter to shreds. It can also give wizard some short-term negative effects after it ends, so that if the fighter survives the spells cast during the Time Stop, he's got an easier job offing the wizard. You can also remove Time Stop entirely, as it's one of the spells that are just plainly too powerful.

Dyrvom
2008-06-02, 11:50 AM
Yeah, but since there's a very short list of what powers actually _do_, any future class is just going to be a remixing of what we've already seen. By selecting existing powers and changing names and flavors, you could create the 4E incarnation of any 3.x class with just the core books.


I'd say not. For example, not one power in the 4E PHB1 petrifies the target, but the petrified effect is included therein and some monsters deal with it in the MM. By looking at the various other mid and high level status-ailment-inducing powers, one can easily create a player power that petrifies targets. That is to say, I see no merit in your implication that the 4E "version" of a class is merely a rehash of some core crunch with new fluff and naming conventions. Crunch is so intuitive in 4E that one doesn't need a master's in statistics to homebrew- but they still need to be creative to make their powers unique.

Jack Zander
2008-06-02, 11:57 AM
"They didn't remove it because I can put it back in" is just a variation of the Rule 0 Fallacy.

Why did they remove Illusions? It certainly wasn't the most powerful school. Strong yes, but in no way overpowered. All they had to do was tone down a few of the spells.

So why did WotC take out Illusions? Because every image spell relied on the DM to decide what happens. And WotC doesn't want their players and DMs being creative. No, everything must be resolved by the rolling of dice to ensure people don't screw up how they want us to play.

So instead they are taking more time to make sure that every illusion has a definate effect and roll to it (most will probably deal 3d6 damage and add an effect for 6 seconds :smalltongue:).

Johnny Blade
2008-06-02, 12:02 PM
Classes aren't the only things that have suffered on the versatility front. While I once thought that the racial system would be designed into an elegant replacement of LA/RHD, I see now from reading the books that I am sorely mistaken.
Yeah, agreed. This, by the way, is the only point where I really sat back and wondered what the hell they were thinking.
All playable races get more or less the same bonuses (+2 to two attributes, +2 to two skills, one or two bonuses, one power) .
Not one -2 or anything, which means that, actually, Hobgoblins and Goblins have the same average Strength.

And it would have been so easy to give every character a pool of, lets say, 5 points, which could be used to buy either a "LA race" or additional (utility) powers. It would even have enabled races with the equivalent of a negative LA. (It would probably be Power Adjustment, though.)


It is clear that no race not in the PHB is meant to be played, and reverse-engineering them into playability via the Monster Manual will be dubious and difficult, at best. It seems that Wizards decided not to solve the difficulties posed by exotic races, and rather decided to scrap the problem altogether by trying to discourage players from playing them.
Actually, I played a Minotaur as my first character, and it was cool.
I didn't lag behind in any way.

(Of course, the above still applies.)


Oh, yeah, and evil deities and their worshippers. Yeah, sure, you can play one, you just have to rewrite all the divine powers (unless you like your Paladin of Vecna [heh] smiting people with rainbows flying out of his cruelly-shaped scythe/scimitar).
Come on, that shouldn't be too hard. :smalltongue:

Dyrvom
2008-06-02, 12:03 PM
Homebrewing is also not discussed here, but in another forum. See, NOBODY cares about the ease of homebrew. If it has to be homebrewed, it's a concept the devs couldn't do, for whatever reason. Thus, it's inconsequential.

Did you read the 4E Excerpt on monster customization? I think when you see the MM in context and the feat selections in the PHB, along with the advice in the DMG, you will see where I am coming from. As for homebrewing not being discussed in this forum, I think it is too intrinsic to the essence of 4E to not be included in this particular thread, to which it is more relevant than most posting can yet know.

I understand that my view is obscured due to be based in part on knowledge I got from switching my order to Buy.com, but perhaps I can give another better example. There are no level 1 or 2 solo or elite monsters in the MM. If you want to run a boss at one of those levels, you use the monster customization rules, parts of which essentially tell you to homebrew. I understand that that is off the issue of class versatility, but in order for my point on that subject to come across, one must first see the sense in my argument on homebrewing in 4E.

Dark Tira
2008-06-02, 12:11 PM
"They didn't remove it because I can put it back in" is just a variation of the Rule 0 Fallacy.

Why did they remove Illusions? It certainly wasn't the most powerful school. Strong yes, but in no way overpowered. All they had to do was tone down a few of the spells.

So why did WotC take out Illusions? Because every image spell relied on the DM to decide what happens. And WotC doesn't want their players and DMs being creative. No, everything must be resolved by the rolling of dice to ensure people don't screw up how they want us to play.

So instead they are taking more time to make sure that every illusion has a definate effect and roll to it (most will probably deal 3d6 damage and add an effect for 6 seconds :smalltongue:).

Technically, they didn't remove illusions. There are a few illusion based powers and rituals. What they got rid of (for now) are the image and shadow lines of spells because they are far too generalized in utility and they will likely be somehow covered in future classes.

Dyrvom
2008-06-02, 12:14 PM
"They didn't remove it because I can put it back in" is just a variation of the Rule 0 Fallacy.

Why did they remove Illusions? It certainly wasn't the most powerful school. Strong yes, but in no way overpowered. All they had to do was tone down a few of the spells.

So why did WotC take out Illusions? Because every image spell relied on the DM to decide what happens. And WotC doesn't want their players and DMs being creative. No, everything must be resolved by the rolling of dice to ensure people don't screw up how they want us to play.

So instead they are taking more time to make sure that every illusion has a definate effect and roll to it (most will probably deal 3d6 damage and add an effect for 6 seconds :smalltongue:).

Calling me on the Rule 0 Fallacy (which, as I am trying to prove, is in a different light in 4E) is outstandingly hypocritical when a few lines later you commit the omniscience fallacy of claiming to know WotC's evil intentions and motives.

One thing I won't defend though is the possibility that on the business side of things, certain FR and Eb reps may have called up core and asked that certain illusion and shadow-themed directions be left unexplored to leave breathing room for psionics and the shadow power source.

Indon
2008-06-02, 12:15 PM
I'd say not. For example, not one power in the 4E PHB1 petrifies the target, but the petrified effect is included therein and some monsters deal with it in the MM. By looking at the various other mid and high level status-ailment-inducing powers, one can easily create a player power that petrifies targets. That is to say, I see no merit in your implication that the 4E "version" of a class is merely a rehash of some core crunch with new fluff and naming conventions. Crunch is so intuitive in 4E that one doesn't need a master's in statistics to homebrew- but they still need to be creative to make their powers unique.

Yeah, there's a bunch of exotic races in the Monster Manual, too, but the system is pretty much 100% designed for them to be unplayable. Same thing with the powers.

How do you think that Wizards would include Petrification into a power while still having it balanced with other powers? Petrification, you see, has the problem of it being an actual status effect, along with the few save-or-dies in the MM. It's far outside of the scope of a PC power, on the Wizards' scale (or, in this thread's terms, Petrification is at least a 7 on the versatility scale - 4'th edition doesn't go that high).

Like the races, and the templates, and evil deities, those abilities appear to be designed purely for monster-only access. Implementing them would demolish the game's balance, which is the major advantage it has over 3.x.

So, I ask you, which would you rather do:

Create interesting things for 4'th edition from whole cloth, or

Police and assist your players for 3'rd edition to prevent rules abuses.

Dyrvom
2008-06-02, 12:29 PM
Yeah, there's a bunch of exotic races in the Monster Manual, too, but the system is pretty much 100% designed for them to be unplayable. Same thing with the powers.

How do you think that Wizards would include Petrification into a power while still having it balanced with other powers? Petrification, you see, has the problem of it being an actual status effect, along with the few save-or-dies in the MM. It's far outside of the scope of a PC power, on the Wizards' scale (or, in this thread's terms, Petrification is at least a 7 on the versatility scale - 4'th edition doesn't go that high).

Like the races, and the templates, and evil deities, those abilities appear to be designed purely for monster-only access. Implementing them would demolish the game's balance, which is the major advantage it has over 3.x.

So, I ask you, which would you rather do:

Create interesting things for 4'th edition from whole cloth, or

Police and assist your players for 3'rd edition to prevent rules abuses.

I'd like clarification on the "100% unplayability" of the monstrous races. I'll also need the versatility meter explained again considering that it would seem, by definition, that a single thing (petrification) could not score so high on something meant to measure aggregate variety.

As for evil gods, templates, etc., I certainly would have liked them to be fleshed out for player use. Templates are one of the very few aspects of 4E that truly looks incompatible with easy homebrewing into PC context. However, and this is a bit of a tangent, but I think it resonates with the situation we D&Ders find ourselves in:

When City of Heroes was first announced, I knew that City of Villains was going to come out as well. Now looking at WotC, foreseeing something like perhaps a PHB2 or 3 and MM2 or 3 concentrating on evil and good (respectively), is easy to assail as a marketing ploy. However, the 4E core books thus far are dense enough with actually usable and pertinent information that I wouldn't condemn any such future move personally. I also think that it is healthy for these releases to have themes as such, since it makes them both more easy to design for and more elegant in concept.

fendrin
2008-06-02, 12:36 PM
So why did WotC take out Illusions? Because every image spell relied on the DM to decide what happens. And WotC doesn't want their players and DMs being creative. No, everything must be resolved by the rolling of dice to ensure people don't screw up how they want us to play.

I would say that WotC didn't want to rely on their players and DMs being creative. Goodness knows I've played with my fair share of people on either end of the spectrum.

I think the assumption is that creative players/DMs can augment the system, but the game should be playable without being creative.

I take it as a compliment and a safety net all rolled into one.

MartinHarper
2008-06-02, 12:42 PM
I'm thinking that a good house rule for folks who can handle more flexibility than typical 4th edition players will be to allow them access to all of their class's at-will powers, rather than having to pick and choose. Encounter/Daily/Utility powers remain as-is.

Petrification as a power:
Hit: 3[w] damage, target is slowed (save ends).
Death effect: if target is reduced to negative hit points, target turns into a statue rather than dying. This effect can be reversed with the Stone to Flesh ritual.

Where's the difficulty?

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 12:45 PM
The following is my opinion of 4e balance and versatility and what WotC should have done:

1) Used ToB as the baseline for all non caster classes.
2) Use the Expanded Psionic Handbook as the baseline for all caster classes except Warlocks (which should have been kept pretty much the same)
3) Force caster specialization.

A bunch of spells should have been either rebalanced, tweaked, or out right removed. And what I mean by caster specialization is the following:

Let's take Saph's druid. At level 1 he can choose to focus on shapeshifting, magic, or natural minions. He also get's to pick one of the other 2 as a secondary focus.

Let's say he chooses shapeshifting as his focus with magic as his secondary. This means that the druid get's full on Wild Shape (as in the PHB), perhaps even improved. And he get's a truncated spell list, no spells above 6th level and some spells that he can't cast. And he has no control over natural minions.

Now let's take a druid who does the opposite. He get's 9th level spells and access to the whole druid spell list, but he can not cast in animal form and his shapeshifting follows the variant rules (basically stat sets and he can pick what ones he wants).

And finially let's take a druid who majors in natural minions while minoring in shapeshifting. He can shift like the magic major but he also has vast control over nature. He can summon up animals to do tasks for him, he can converse with trees and animals, etc. But he can't cast spells.

Now the wizard (basically just grab the psion and refluff it and add in some of the wizard spells).

The cleric? Again a refluffed psion with a different spell list. Force him to use a d4 and remove the martial powers, the sole holy warrior will be the paladin.

The paladin? Refluffed Psiwarrior. Change his spell list and give him full BAB.

The ranger? Refluffed Psiwarrior. Change his spell list and give him full BAB. Lot's more powers focusing on ranged attacks and TWF.

The bard? Refluffed swordsage with a different powers list.

The monk? Refluffed swordsage with a slightly different powers list and prolly of the unarmed variant.

The fighter? The warblade, pure and simple.

The barbarian? Refluffed crusader.


The basic theme is that all full casters and some half casters have a powers per day mechanic and all others have a powers per encounter mechanic. Yes, the casters are more powerful when they nova and yes they can be more versatile. But they run down, the others are weaker (not a lot but some) and can't burn through a days worth of power in 1 go but they can fight all day without a problem.
--------

Anyone want to tell me that the above isn't balanced? And most of the mechanics were already written, all they would have had to do was focus on spells and powers and most of those they can find in 3.5 books and just tweak.

Indon
2008-06-02, 12:46 PM
I'd like clarification on the "100% unplayability" of the monstrous races.
Not 100% unplayability - Just completely designed to be unplayable. 0% intent of playability.

Surely we'll be able to hack together some gnome stats on the homebrew forum, at least. But the list of races we'll be able to make playable based on the MM is very short, and each will be a guessing game simply because we aren't told what the stats before racial modifiers are, and the MM (unlike the 3'rd edition MM) makes no consideration towards playing any of them.


I'll also need the versatility meter explained again considering that it would seem, by definition, that a single thing (petrification) could not score so high on something meant to measure aggregate variety.
A single thing that wouldn't show up unless you have a certain degree of aggregate variety. Petrification isn't even an ability that ToB classes get, last I checked, and they're higher up on the scale than anything in 3'rd edition is.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 12:57 PM
Not 100% unplayability - Just completely designed to be unplayable. 0% intent of playability.

Surely we'll be able to hack together some gnome stats on the homebrew forum, at least. But the list of races we'll be able to make playable based on the MM is very short, and each will be a guessing game simply because we aren't told what the stats before racial modifiers are, and the MM (unlike the 3'rd edition MM) makes no consideration towards playing any of them.[/I].

Erm... there are like 12 or so "races" in the back of the MM, including the Gnome Stats and powers.

(Bugbear, Minotaur, Githyanki, Githzerai, Kobold, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Longtooth Shifter, Razorclaw Shifter, Warforged, Gnome...)

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 12:59 PM
Not 100% unplayability - Just completely designed to be unplayable. 0% intent of playability.

Surely we'll be able to hack together some gnome stats on the homebrew forum, at least. But the list of races we'll be able to make playable based on the MM is very short, and each will be a guessing game simply because we aren't told what the stats before racial modifiers are, and the MM (unlike the 3'rd edition MM) makes no consideration towards playing any of them.

Ro,L's gonna jump at my throat, but...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Please, READ the goddamn book before spouting that crap. We have the races statted out in the MM, and they're perfectly playable. Next time, don't lie when you post.

Dyrvom
2008-06-02, 01:00 PM
Not 100% unplayability - Just completely designed to be unplayable. 0% intent of playability.

Surely we'll be able to hack together some gnome stats on the homebrew forum, at least. But the list of races we'll be able to make playable based on the MM is very short, and each will be a guessing game simply because we aren't told what the stats before racial modifiers are, and the MM (unlike the 3'rd edition MM) makes no consideration towards playing any of them.


A single thing that wouldn't show up unless you have a certain degree of aggregate variety. Petrification isn't even an ability that ToB classes get, last I checked, and they're higher up on the scale than anything in 3'rd edition is.

Okay, so with the monstrous races, you were refering to those that they did not actually lay out stats for. It sounded like you were saying the ones they did crunch out for PC usage were intended not to be playable (which seemed like a weirdly harsh accusation). There are 16 such PCable races in the MM. Is that that much fewer playable humanoid races than in the 3.5 core MM?

As the effect of petrification has nothing to do with aggregate variety, and is associated most with the Medusa, Gorgon and Cockatrice (all niche monsters), I will assume that you didn't know what aggregate means and didn't understand my statement.

Jack Zander
2008-06-02, 01:06 PM
Calling me on the Rule 0 Fallacy (which, as I am trying to prove, is in a different light in 4E) is outstandingly hypocritical when a few lines later you commit the omniscience fallacy of claiming to know WotC's evil intentions and motives.

One thing I won't defend though is the possibility that on the business side of things, certain FR and Eb reps may have called up core and asked that certain illusion and shadow-themed directions be left unexplored to leave breathing room for psionics and the shadow power source.

1) Is that even a fallacy or did you make that up?

2) I never claimed to know all of WotCs evil intentions (I'm sure there are a lot more that I haven't thought of yet! :smalltongue:). That was just my speculation/educated guess based on the material we've seen so far.

3) No, I'm not calling you out on the Rule 0 Fallacy, I'm calling WotC out on it. If they want to produce a good game, it can't rely on its consumers homebrewing to make up for all the stuff you can't do.

Now there will indeed be more books published to let you cast illusions. Why? I'm already paying 40 bucks for this book. Why doesn't it give me all the options 3e had? Some upgrade...

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 01:09 PM
1) Is that even a fallacy or did you make that up?

2) I never claimed to know all of WotCs evil intentions (I'm sure there are a lot more that I haven't thought of yet! :smalltongue:). That was just my speculation/educated guess based on the material we've seen so far.

3) No, I'm not calling you out on the Rule 0 Fallacy, I'm calling WotC out on it. If they want to produce a good game, it can't rely on its consumers homebrewing to make up for all the stuff you can't do.

Now there will indeed be more books published to let you cast illusions. Why? I'm already paying 40 bucks for this book. Why doesn't it give me all the options 3e had? Some upgrade...

Because it's not an upgrade. 4th is a new edition. If you honestly expect it to have as many options as 3.5 with splats, I have an excellent bridge for sale.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-02, 01:13 PM
I'm thinking that a good house rule for folks who can handle more flexibility than typical 4th edition players will be to allow them access to all of their class's at-will powers, rather than having to pick and choose. Encounter/Daily/Utility powers remain as-is.
That's a good idea.
A minor change, but it would add some more tactical depth to encounters.

(Although, you should limit it to three at-wills, or let humans pick one from any class, as they get an additional one.)


Petrification as a power:
Hit: 3[w] damage, target is slowed (save ends).
Death effect: if target is reduced to negative hit points, target turns into a statue rather than dying. This effect can be reversed with the Stone to Flesh ritual.

Where's the difficulty?
Monsters drop dead at 0 hp, so your power does nothing but the usual damage + condition stuff. :smalltongue:

Maybe make it trigger when the enemy is bloodied? Should allow a safe, of course.

I could think of something like:

Eyes of the Medusa Wizard Attack 29
You fire two menacingly glowing beams at your enemy, imitating the gaze of the dreaded Medusa.
Daily - Arcane, Force
Standard action Range 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 2d8 force damage per attack and the target is immobilized until the end of your next turn. If both attacks hit, the target must succeed on a saving throw or be petrified.


Note: I listed this as a Wizard attack, but it really isn't very fitting. All level 29 Wizard dailies target multiple enemies, since they are Controllers.
It also isn't really in line with any of the Warlock pacts, though.

Quellian-dyrae
2008-06-02, 01:28 PM
Okay. Find a way to make flight viable without allowing Fighter's to remain stationary in the air round after round and to make air jumps.

Or Disintegrate. Or Time Stop, a complete iconic. Without magical-like actions, it's impossible.

I'd like to make an attempt here. First, though, I'd like to set forth a simple premise that a high-level fighter, while not inherently magical, should certainly be superhumanly accomplished in physical and martial capabilities. In short, if there is going to be an assumption that a fighter can be balanced against a high-level mage, it can't be limited to the same capabilities as a low-level fighter. Without such a premise, no, there is no way to balance them (which is, I feel, why they failed to balance them in 3.5 - a high level warrior was basically the same as a low-level warrior, but with higher stats, more feats, and some magic items).

So, with regards to the abilities listed:

Flight: A high level warrior should not be pigeonholed into using a single weapon effectively - not even just a single type of weapon, but a single specific weapon (the magical one that it spent a quarter of its gold on, of course). The fighter should not just be proficient with a bow, but a master archer able to accurately attack at ranges equal to spells, with good damage, and the ability to shoot past cover, concealment, and wind in ways that no low-level fighter can match. Once the fighter has ranged capability on par with a caster's, flight provides only a limited tactical advantage.

Time Stop: Two possibilities. First, fix the broken aspects of the spell (you know, the ones where you time stop, and drop a bunch of delayed or persistent area effects to lay utter waste). Time Stop should give wizards a chance to retreat, buff, set up defenses, and so on. Alternately, give fighters methods of gaining extra action par with wizards. There doesn't need to be anything magical about it.

Disintegrate: Actually, I kinda think fighters hold against this spell just fine. A well-optimized fighter probably won't have significantly more difficulty dealing damage or destroying objects.

And a few more for kicks:

Invisibility: An ability that lets a warrior pinpoint a character who attacks, casts a spell, or uses an ability for one round makes invisibility a useful tactical buff and defense, but not an utter shutdown.

Teleportation: Making sure a fighter at range is as effective as a caster at range covers this to a large degree. The other problem is teleporting out of grapples. For that, a grapple build should include an ability to "tag along" when an enemy teleports. Also, I think an excellent ability for a fighter would be to be able to make an AoO against an enemy that suddenly appears due to teleportation.

Polymorph: Make it a generic augmentative spell. Changing form is the fluff.

Save-or-X: Give them to fighters too. You can nauseate a target with stinking gasses? I can nauseate a target by hitting it in the gut with my giant hammer. (Whether or not Save-or-X effects improve or reduce how fun combat is is a topic for debate I suppose, but there is really no reason for them not to be available across the board).

Even spells that subjugate skills can be kept useful without thwarting skillmonkies. Just substitute caster level for ranks for the spell, and have it remove one of the restrictions or costs of using the skill. For example, invisibility would let you substitute caster level for ranks for a Hide check, and let you hide even when you don't have cover or concealment or while being observed. The greater version would stay active after an attack and neutralize the Hide penalty for attacking. A Knock spell would simply let you make an Open Lock check substituting caster level for ranks, or open bars on doors or whatever. And so on.

Yes, some spells need to be toned down, I'm not saying they don't. But for the most part, they need to be toned down with regards to the mechanical benefits they provide, not completely removed. And many spells are only overpowered because no one thought to give non-casters ways to deal with them, not because they are inherently too strong to fit in the game.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 01:32 PM
I'd like to make an attempt here. First, though, I'd like to set forth a simple premise that a high-level fighter, while not inherently magical, should certainly be superhumanly accomplished in physical and martial capabilities. In short, if there is going to be an assumption that a fighter can be balanced against a high-level mage, it can't be limited to the same capabilities as a low-level fighter. Without such a premise, no, there is no way to balance them (which is, I feel, why they failed to balance them in 3.5 - a high level warrior was basically the same as a low-level warrior, but with higher stats, more feats, and some magic items).

So, with regards to the abilities listed:

Flight: A high level warrior should not be pigeonholed into using a single weapon effectively - not even just a single type of weapon, but a single specific weapon (the magical one that it spent a quarter of its gold on, of course). The fighter should not just be proficient with a bow, but a master archer able to accurately attack at ranges equal to spells, with good damage, and the ability to shoot past cover, concealment, and wind in ways that no low-level fighter can match. Once the fighter has ranged capability on par with a caster's, flight provides only a limited tactical advantage.

Time Stop: Two possibilities. First, fix the broken aspects of the spell (you know, the ones where you time stop, and drop a bunch of delayed or persistent area effects to lay utter waste). Time Stop should give wizards a chance to retreat, buff, set up defenses, and so on. Alternately, give fighters methods of gaining extra action par with wizards. There doesn't need to be anything magical about it.

Disintegrate: Actually, I kinda think fighters hold against this spell just fine. A well-optimized fighter probably won't have significantly more difficulty dealing damage or destroying objects.

And a few more for kicks:

Invisibility: An ability that lets a warrior pinpoint a character who attacks, casts a spell, or uses an ability for one round makes invisibility a useful tactical buff and defense, but not an utter shutdown.

Teleportation: Making sure a fighter at range is as effective as a caster at range covers this to a large degree. The other problem is teleporting out of grapples. For that, a grapple build should include an ability to "tag along" when an enemy teleports. Also, I think an excellent ability for a fighter would be to be able to make an AoO against an enemy that suddenly appears due to teleportation.

Polymorph: Make it a generic augmentative spell. Changing form is the fluff.

Save-or-X: Give them to fighters too. You can nauseate a target with stinking gasses? I can nauseate a target by hitting it in the gut with my giant hammer. (Whether or not Save-or-X effects improve or reduce how fun combat is is a topic for debate I suppose, but there is really no reason for them not to be available across the board).

Even spells that subjugate skills can be kept useful without thwarting skillmonkies. Just substitute caster level for ranks for the spell, and have it remove one of the restrictions or costs of using the skill. For example, invisibility would let you substitute caster level for ranks for a Hide check, and let you hide even when you don't have cover or concealment or while being observed. The greater version would stay active after an attack and neutralize the Hide penalty for attacking. A Knock spell would simply let you make an Open Lock check substituting caster level for ranks, or open bars on doors or whatever. And so on.

Yes, some spells need to be toned down, I'm not saying they don't. But for the most part, they need to be toned down with regards to the mechanical benefits they provide, not completely removed. And many spells are only overpowered because no one thought to give non-casters ways to deal with them, not because they are inherently too strong to fit in the game.

...Out of curiosity, have you considered lending a hand in the homebrew forums? Such crystal clear vision and keen rules grasp is quite needed.

Seriously. That's a pretty good idea on what balance constitutes, and I applaud you for it. *Claps*.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 01:35 PM
...Out of curiosity, have you considered lending a hand in the homebrew forums? Such crystal clear vision and keen rules grasp is quite needed.

Seriously. That's a pretty good idea on what balance constitutes, and I applaud you for it. *Claps*.

And nothing about my idea?

I really am tempted to actually go in and make a 3.7 edition.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 01:47 PM
And nothing about my idea?

I really am tempted to actually go in and make a 3.7 edition.

...Wow, how did I miss it? It's really good.

In fact, you SHOULD make it. Post up the idea in the homebrew forum, and I'll join in. I even have my own ideas, and the knowledge about the kind of design philosophy we have to follow.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-02, 01:55 PM
So....the biggest concern with 4th ed is that....you cant be versitile like a wizard or cleric....while the biggest concern with 3rd ed.....was that they were to versitle and powerful? Whats it going to take to make everyone happy?

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 01:56 PM
So....the biggest concern with 4th ed is that....you cant be versitile like a wizard or cleric....while the biggest concern with 3rd ed.....was that they were to versitle and powerful? Whats it going to take to make everyone happy?

An amusement park filled with hookers and blackjack.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-02, 01:58 PM
An amusement park filled with hookers and blackjack.

Go to Jersey, its waiting for you

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 01:59 PM
So....the biggest concern with 4th ed is that....you cant be versitile like a wizard or cleric....while the biggest concern with 3rd ed.....was that they were to versitle and powerful? Whats it going to take to make everyone happy?

No. The biggest concern with 4e is that it forces a very specific play style and very specific class roles, the next biggest problem is that it is 90% tactical wargame, 10% RPG.

The biggest concern with 3e is that full casters can do nigh anything with little or no limits and that WotC couldn't playtest or balance anything at the time to save their lives.

Indon
2008-06-02, 02:13 PM
Erm... there are like 12 or so "races" in the back of the MM, including the Gnome Stats and powers.

Oh? I must have missed them when I read it.

While that's not as good as actually being able to construct a playable race from a monster entry (and not nearly as good as the "X as a playable race" many more entries had in the 3.5 monster manuals), at least it's something, so that's cool.


As the effect of petrification has nothing to do with aggregate variety, and is associated most with the Medusa, Gorgon and Cockatrice (all niche monsters), I will assume that you didn't know what aggregate means and didn't understand my statement.

No, it's just that I'm looking at things from the perspective of design intent.

If you're designing a class with the objective of versatility, you're free to put in powerful effects such as petrification, since versatility is your objective, you can achieve it by bringing in abilities that vary in power.

If you're desgining a class with the objective of balance, you're only free to use effects in a narrow power range, leading to low versatility - and petrification, being a permanent effect, is far above the effects range of other powers in 4'th edition.

It is thus unbalanced, and therefore, as part of the design philosophy of 4'th edition, can never be a player ability. The result is that 4'th edition character versatility is too low to ever have petrification effects availible to a player - unless, of course, the actual effect were vastly reduced and it was just called 'petrification' (such as in that "slows, and if the target dies then it's a statue instead of a corpse" example given).

Innis Cabal
2008-06-02, 02:23 PM
No. The biggest concern with 4e is that it forces a very specific play style and very specific class roles, the next biggest problem is that it is 90% tactical wargame, 10% RPG.

The biggest concern with 3e is that full casters can do nigh anything with little or no limits and that WotC couldn't playtest or balance anything at the time to save their lives.

So leaving flavor and descriptions out of most moves, and keeping most non-combat situations unspecified is cutting away from RP? I think that the problem there dosnt lie with the game but with people(DM's, players, what have you) being unable to do anything free-style...which is what RP is. People were unhappy with diplomacy, now you dont have to roll, if you have to talk your way out of a situation you actually have to talk, and the DM who should make the call to begin with, gets to make the call. Description is left in the hands of the player, where it should have been, phoey on spell themantics as a feat. Its not 3rd ed, its not the same to begin with.

People wanted balance, you have balance. To have balance you need to sit down and see where everyone should be on the battle field and start there. This is a -just released- game. We dont know where they are going with it or how fast. All the whining and complaining ive seen over 4th ed is because its stacked against 3rd ed and thats not all that fair to a new game. Its dumbed down yes, its made for new players in mind. Its made so people cant make a god character as easily. Isnt that what you wanted? Cleaner rules, less power in the hands of casters and more use in the hands of non-casters? All ive ever read on any D&D forum is exactly that. WoTC has given you what you want, maybe not the way you wanted it, but they listened to people and now everyone is whining about the very things they claimed they desired in a game.

Job
2008-06-02, 02:42 PM
It seems to me that 4e is suffering from a rather severe case of “reads bad, plays good”.

Having read most of it, I understand completely when people start saying it’s all about combat, void of RP opportunity, an MMO, etc. The way it’s presented most certainly lends it to such interpretations.

However when I was actually playing the feeling was very different. All these preconceptions and opinions took backseat to the ‘flavor’ introduced by the DM and my fellow players, and in the meantime the combat and skill challenges were fun and easy to understand.

Reel On, Love
2008-06-02, 02:48 PM
It seems to me that 4e is suffering from a rather severe case of “reads bad, plays good”.

Having read most of it, I understand completely when people start saying it’s all about combat, void of RP opportunity, an MMO, etc. The way it’s presented most certainly lends it to such interpretations.

However when I was actually playing the feeling was very different. All these preconceptions and opinions took backseat to the ‘flavor’ introduced by the DM and my fellow players, and in the meantime the combat and skill challenges were fun and easy to understand.

While it reads bad in some places, most of it reads pretty good, too.
It's suffering from a rather severe case of Nerd Rage, is what.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-02, 02:50 PM
And nothing about my idea?

I really am tempted to actually go in and make a 3.7 edition.

I believe Paizo has annouced they'll be making Pathfinder along similar lines as a "3.7 Edition."

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 02:55 PM
So leaving flavor and descriptions out of most moves, and keeping most non-combat situations unspecified is cutting away from RP? I think that the problem there dosnt lie with the game but with people(DM's, players, what have you) being unable to do anything free-style...which is what RP is. People were unhappy with diplomacy, now you dont have to roll, if you have to talk your way out of a situation you actually have to talk, and the DM who should make the call to begin with, gets to make the call. Description is left in the hands of the player, where it should have been, phoey on spell themantics as a feat. Its not 3rd ed, its not the same to begin with.
Play an enchanter. Play an illusionist. You can not do either in 4e. The only "traditional" arcane caster role that you can fill is that of artillery piece.


People wanted balance, you have balance. To have balance you need to sit down and see where everyone should be on the battle field and start there. This is a -just released- game. We dont know where they are going with it or how fast.
I honestly didn't give 2 figs about balance in 3e. Sure I would have preferred it more balanced but I could take care of any problems with house rules and rule 0 easily enough. I much prefer a rule set that I have to prune away then one that I have to add to.


All the whining and complaining ive seen over 4th ed is because its stacked against 3rd ed and thats not all that fair to a new game.
Um no, its entirely fair. WotC called it a "revision" of the 3.5 rules and named it D&D 4e. They chose to use that franchise for marketing purposes, I know that, but that does not allow them to ignore the other effects. One of which is that it is not a new game. It is a revision of 3.5.


Its dumbed down yes, its made for new players in mind. Its made so people cant make a god character as easily. Isnt that what you wanted?
Not really. 3.5 was plenty easy if you had a functional brain and a DM who would put their foot down. If the group wants to play wit han optimized party then you work together to make those characters at least roughly equal, if one guy makes a god and the others don't then the DM should say "try again, that character is not acceptable".


Cleaner rules, less power in the hands of casters and more use in the hands of non-casters? All ive ever read on any D&D forum is exactly that.
My complaint isn't with what WotC did but with how they did it.


WoTC has given you what you want, maybe not the way you wanted it, but they listened to people and now everyone is whining about the very things they claimed they desired in a game.
No, WotC has given me maybe 3 things that I wanted from 4e: an easy combat system, a points of light in the dark world, and maybe something else (not sure but there is prolly something). If WotC had had half a brain they would have taken the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Tome of Battle and used them as the base for the entire class system.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 02:56 PM
I believe Paizo has annouced they'll be making Pathfinder along similar lines as a "3.7 Edition."

So far I'm "meh" on pathfinder. It has things I like and is an improvement on 3.5 (prolly) but it's not that great.

Edea
2008-06-02, 03:00 PM
That quote just made my day. You've put a smile on my face. Thank you.

You're most welcome :smallbiggrin:.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-02, 03:13 PM
It seems to me that 4e is suffering from a rather severe case of “reads bad, plays good”.

Having read most of it, I understand completely when people start saying it’s all about combat, void of RP opportunity, an MMO, etc. The way it’s presented most certainly lends it to such interpretations.

However when I was actually playing the feeling was very different. All these preconceptions and opinions took backseat to the ‘flavor’ introduced by the DM and my fellow players, and in the meantime the combat and skill challenges were fun and easy to understand.
So far, I think you're right. The flaws 4e has or may have, however, could hurt long-term motivation.

And, about the role-playing: I actually see 4e affecting that, too. You see, there aren't many character choices, due to a limited amount of powers to choose from, the simplification of the skill system, the weakness of feats and so on. And WotC seems to plan to release more classes and power sources instead of more options for the core classes, although that's speculation on my part.
Also, you are more or less forced to swap your powers (and, to a lesser extent, feats), making it, together with the limited choices, hard to come up with a real mechanical representation of your character's personality.
Those are (hopefully) minor issues, but I still see them.

Don't get me wrong, though: right now, I enjoy it. The pace of combat alone makes it an interesting system.



All the whining and complaining ive seen over 4th ed is because its stacked against 3rd ed and thats not all that fair to a new game.
Well, I don't think that anyone on these boards has unlimited time and money to play each and every RPG system out there, so decisions have to be made.
Therefore, it's not only fair but almost necessary to compare it to other options.
Even more so to 3.5, which is the system's direct precedessor and probably known by most people around here.

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 03:27 PM
1.Play an enchanter. Play an illusionist. You can not do either in 4e. The only "traditional" arcane caster role that you can fill is that of artillery piece.


2 I honestly didn't give 2 figs about balance in 3e. Sure I would have preferred it more balanced but I could take care of any problems with house rules and rule 0 easily enough. I much prefer a rule set that I have to prune away then one that I have to add to.


3 Um no, its entirely fair. WotC called it a "revision" of the 3.5 rules and named it D&D 4e. They chose to use that franchise for marketing purposes, I know that, but that does not allow them to ignore the other effects. One of which is that it is not a new game. It is a revision of 3.5.


4 Not really. 3.5 was plenty easy if you had a functional brain and a DM who would put their foot down. If the group wants to play wit han optimized party then you work together to make those characters at least roughly equal, if one guy makes a god and the others don't then the DM should say "try again, that character is not acceptable".


5 My complaint isn't with what WotC did but with how they did it.


6 No, WotC has given me maybe 3 things that I wanted from 4e: an easy combat system, a points of light in the dark world, and maybe something else (not sure but there is prolly something). If WotC had had half a brain they would have taken the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Tome of Battle and used them as the base for the entire class system.

1, you have that there, one point. That's something I'm praying will be dealt with later and honestly, I'm even a little optimistic about it.

2. Just because YOU don't care about balance doesn't mean no one else did. You're a heavy wizard player, Tip, you're Really GOOD at D&D, we get that. You enjoy performing superior research and being rewarded for your efforts. I salute your skill, and I can relate. However this new system isn't really FOR us, we're the guys who got "nerfed" to use MMO terminology. You enjoyed near-omnipotence, and you were responsible enough not to use it to destroy your friends. The problem is not everyone is that responsible and I've seen a lot of games fall apart because the DM was inexperienced, couldn't handle one or two optimizers, or just wasn't rules savvy enough to keep up with the players. Which honestly I don't think speaks very well for the system. Maybe he was a bad DM, but it's not his fault he wants to tell a story but isn't privvy to the nuances of Batman or other crazy builds...

3. It's a new SYSTEM that is designed to be an update of 3.5 yes, however it may be a while before the equivalent supplements come out that we may compare the system as a whole cloth. Of course, comparing JUST the "Core" systems is an interesting method, but I'd like to note that WotC has officially thrown out their old "Core" technique by announcing that ALL PHBs and DMGs and MMs are going to be considered "core" which is a decent economic standpoint as well as something that may be able to answer some of these issues. I can't know for sure and I can't tell you any of this will be fixed, but it PROBABLY will be, I just don't know for sure.

4. But not every DM is genre savvy enough to be able to make a clear judgement call on what is or is not acceptable, and because it's in the rules a lot fo players feel that they should be allowed to play whatever they want. You, like many others, put too much trust in the consumers. Just because 3.5 CAN be played correctly and well doesn't mean it will, or even that it encourages it. A lot of people can play in an unoptimized party, but most of the time it's because they don't KNOW what optimization IS. It takes a lot of... something... to be able to consciously choose the weaker of a set of options, and often times it's extremely difficult to figure out which options they are until it's too late. Your group is good, others may not be. The system can lead to pretty serious power-play and Save or Die effects are just plain irritating... Balance trumps versatility for some, and others thrive on the imbalance OF versatility because they feel entitled to that amount of power since they managed to figure OUT X crazy spell combo.

5. Noted.

6. Again, it seems a lot of you just don't understand that relentless bookkeeping isn't fun for everybody. Maybe for some people, and for those people: Great, however keeping track of a gigantic list of abilities, reallocating them and re preparing them several times a session bogs down gameplay like a mother... Okay, fine they can try and do it outside of the game, but not everyone HAS that kind of time. I mean, seriously, some people want to be able to have fun in D&D and do awesome stuff, without having to leaf through a million sourcebooks to find that one exact awesome ability. You guys like bookkeeping, it's part of the fun for you. Okay, bravo, but it's not for everyone and it's a very quiet, lonely kind of fun that half the party may not be privvy to...

Animefunkmaster
2008-06-02, 03:43 PM
All the meanwhile, your dwarven fighter buddy is left with "Och, ah pook it wit' mah axe!"

This is why I like playing martial classes sometimes. It is fun when you accomplish things that you believe "only a wizard could do". Doesn't happen often, but think of the fighter chain tripper, thats a good degree of fun if you have never played one.

Also, it is a good starting point for newbies. Fighters do not have to be as intelligent as wizards. A new player playing a wizard is not going to be as proficient as someone who knows how to play Batman. Being an effective casters takes a little more effort.

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 03:50 PM
This is why I like playing martial classes sometimes. It is fun when you accomplish things that you believe "only a wizard could do". Doesn't happen often, but think of the fighter chain tripper, thats a good degree of fun if you have never played one.

Also, it is a good starting point for newbies. Fighters do not have to be as intelligent as wizards. A new player playing a wizard is not going to be as proficient as someone who knows how to play Batman. Being an effective casters takes a little more effort.

The problem with rewarding effort inn 3.5 is it can often FEEL like we're punishing the fighter for not putting in ENOUGH effort... which is rather unfair...

Fighters are a good starting point for newbies, okay, fine, but that doesn't mean they should suck. (Which they do, with the exception of very few builds that newbies shouldn't be expected to be privy to.) But then we leave this unspoken understanding that only rookies PLAY fighters, or that playing a Fighter makes you less "Good at D&D" than playing a Wizard, and if that's true then that's just... wrong...

So while I like the sentiment and it's how I rationalized the system to myself over the past few years, I just don't see what's superior about a system that needlessly allows for that significant amount of imbalance.

If I want to play crazy martial characters, I'll play Exalted, if I want to play a godlike-caster, I'll play 3.5, but if I want a balanced and fun system for a nice fantasy RPG, it's 4e for me...

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 03:50 PM
1, you have that there, one point. That's something I'm praying will be dealt with later and honestly, I'm even a little optimistic about it.
So am I. And if they handle it right my opinion may very well change.


2. Just because YOU don't care about balance doesn't mean no one else did. You're a heavy wizard player, Tip, you're Really GOOD at D&D, we get that. You enjoy performing superior research and being rewarded for your efforts. I salute your skill, and I can relate. However this new system isn't really FOR us, we're the guys who got "nerfed" to use MMO terminology. You enjoyed near-omnipotence, and you were responsible enough not to use it to destroy your friends. The problem is not everyone is that responsible and I've seen a lot of games fall apart because the DM was inexperienced, couldn't handle one or two optimizers, or just wasn't rules savvy enough to keep up with the players. Which honestly I don't think speaks very well for the system. Maybe he was a bad DM, but it's not his fault he wants to tell a story but isn't privvy to the nuances of Batman or other crazy builds...
You used the word 'you' first and in a post quoting me, so if I respond as if you are referring to me specifically I don't really see how you can hold that against me. :smallwink:

And in all honesty, while I mostly play wizards in PbP games that has nothing to do with how much I like them, it has to do with the fact that they are PbP games with unknown players. I have wizard builds that I can tweak from god level to average party level based solely on spell selection and what I choose to do. If we loose a person or two, or someone has a character that can't pull their own weight, etc. I have the ability to step in and pick up the slack. I actually prefer ToB and Psionics to wizards.


3. It's a new SYSTEM that is designed to be an update of 3.5 yes, however it may be a while before the equivalent supplements come out that we may compare the system as a whole cloth. Of course, comparing JUST the "Core" systems is an interesting method, but I'd like to note that WotC has officially thrown out their old "Core" technique by announcing that ALL PHBs and DMGs and MMs are going to be considered "core" which is a decent economic standpoint as well as something that may be able to answer some of these issues. I can't know for sure and I can't tell you any of this will be fixed, but it PROBABLY will be, I just don't know for sure.
*shrug* If you go by just the 3 original books from each edition 3.5 allowed a lot more options than 4e does. 4e may well get better when more books are published and more options appear, if they have split the 3.5 wizard into 5-6 different classes for instance.


4. But not every DM is genre savvy enough to be able to make a clear judgement call on what is or is not acceptable, and because it's in the rules a lot fo players feel that they should be allowed to play whatever they want. You, like many others, put too much trust in the consumers. Just because 3.5 CAN be played correctly and well doesn't mean it will, or even that it encourages it. A lot of people can play in an unoptimized party, but most of the time it's because they don't KNOW what optimization IS. It takes a lot of... something... to be able to consciously choose the weaker of a set of options, and often times it's extremely difficult to figure out which options they are until it's too late. Your group is good, others may not be. The system can lead to pretty serious power-play and Save or Die effects are just plain irritating... Balance trumps versatility for some, and others thrive on the imbalance OF versatility because they feel entitled to that amount of power since they managed to figure OUT X crazy spell combo.
I feel both sides are idiots. While I would prefer a balanced system to an unbalanced system, versatility comes first. And versatility does not necessarily imply imbalance.


6. Again, it seems a lot of you just don't understand that relentless bookkeeping isn't fun for everybody. Maybe for some people, and for those people: Great, however keeping track of a gigantic list of abilities, reallocating them and re preparing them several times a session bogs down gameplay like a mother... Okay, fine they can try and do it outside of the game, but not everyone HAS that kind of time. I mean, seriously, some people want to be able to have fun in D&D and do awesome stuff, without having to leaf through a million sourcebooks to find that one exact awesome ability. You guys like bookkeeping, it's part of the fun for you. Okay, bravo, but it's not for everyone and it's a very quiet, lonely kind of fun that half the party may not be privvy to...

I despise book keeping, the worst part of 3.5 as far as I am concerned.

----
What 4e really could use is a primarily out of combat role. The guy who is really subpar in combat but has a ton of out of combat utility. Call it a jack of all trades or tinkerer role.

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 04:03 PM
okay then, neat, I'm glad we have some semblance of an understanding.

I think you're right, they did put a bit too much emphasis on combat for the hack-slashy types and made that the primary goal of this release... I can't say that was the best move they could have made, but as far as their goal, it did the job alright. Combat is exciting and visceral. Now let's see if they can release some supplements to bring the rest of the game up to snuff eh?

Rutee
2008-06-02, 04:04 PM
Wizards can be versatile when everyone else is. Go on, convince the rest of the DnD crowd that Fighters should be able to accomplish whatever they please with martial prowess. I'll wait. After all, if the ToB is any indicator, it should be easy, right?

tyckspoon
2008-06-02, 04:07 PM
----
What 4e really could use is a primarily out of combat role. The guy who is really subpar in combat but has a ton of out of combat utility. Call it a jack of all trades or tinkerer role.

So far this would appear to be a Rogue (because of highest base number of trained skills) who spends a lot of feats on Skill Training. He won't be 'sub par' in combat except where he might have been better with a combat feat because sub-par in combat is not meant to be in 4E's design vocabulary. He will be noticeably more versatile out of combat in return, able to take on almost any skill check with a decent chance of success.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 04:10 PM
Wizards can be versatile when everyone else is. Go on, convince the rest of the DnD crowd that Fighters should be able to accomplish whatever they please with martial prowess. I'll wait. After all, if the ToB is any indicator, it should be easy, right?

Fighters, as presented in 3.5 core, were the stupidest class in the whole game (and that says a lot when things like the healer were out there). And the barbarian wasn't much better.

Chuck them both and replace them with the Warblade and a reflavored Crusader respectively.

Hell, every non caster and most non full casters should be redone using ToB as the baseline. All casters should be redone using the psion as the baseline with some half casters using the Psiwarrior.

kamikasei
2008-06-02, 04:11 PM
Wizards can be versatile when everyone else is. Go on, convince the rest of the DnD crowd that Fighters should be able to accomplish whatever they please with martial prowess.

I'm wondering if we ought to just discard the idea of The Fighter.

I mean, there's combat in the game. Everyone has to Fight a bit. Unless you make The Fighter the one guy who's good at Fighting, and make other classes/concepts focus on other things (which gives you the "at any given time, only one character can be contributing" problem), perhaps what we need is to scrap The Fighter, and have some other concept for "a guy primarily about melee with weapons" who has natural out-of-combat abilities that fit (in the way that a wizard has "well, in combat I'll blast him with a magic missile or put him to sleep, while out of combat I'll teleport us across a continent or scry on our enemies", or a rogue has "well, in combat I'll knife him in the kidneys or hamstring him, and out of combat I'll dismantle the trap or pump the majordomo for information on the prince's movements". What would such a concept be, I wonder?

Rutee
2008-06-02, 04:25 PM
Fighters, as presented in 3.5 core, were the stupidest class in the whole game (and that says a lot when things like the healer were out there). And the barbarian wasn't much better.

Chuck them both and replace them with the Warblade and a reflavored Crusader respectively.

Hell, every non caster and most non full casters should be redone using ToB as the baseline. All casters should be redone using the psion as the baseline with some half casters using the Psiwarrior.

Warblades still lack for both combat prowess and versatility, compared to the casters. A Warblade is a Fighter, for pretty much every theoretical purpose. We're speaking conceptually, no?



I mean, there's combat in the game. Everyone has to Fight a bit. Unless you make The Fighter the one guy who's good at Fighting, and make other classes/concepts focus on other things (which gives you the "at any given time, only one character can be contributing" problem), perhaps what we need is to scrap The Fighter, and have some other concept for "a guy primarily about melee with weapons" who has natural out-of-combat abilities that fit (in the way that a wizard has "well, in combat I'll blast him with a magic missile or put him to sleep, while out of combat I'll teleport us across a continent or scry on our enemies", or a rogue has "well, in combat I'll knife him in the kidneys or hamstring him, and out of combat I'll dismantle the trap or pump the majordomo for information on the prince's movements". What would such a concept be, I wonder?
Conan? Should their out of combat method diverge greatly from the Rogue?

Talya
2008-06-02, 04:29 PM
I 100% agree with this post.

Nothing a spellcaster could do in 3e should have been taken away, ever.

And no, spellcasters in 3.x were not gamebreakingly powerful nor did they make the game signficantly less fun for melee types. (The lack of utility for melee types may have, but that was rectified with splatbooks for the most part.)

Lapak
2008-06-02, 04:31 PM
Conan? Should their out of combat method diverge greatly from the Rogue?That's a good point, but the Rogue is pretty settled. Actually, thinking back on fantasy in general, the Fighter tends to be the front man for the group, the leader, the one who is setting the quests and negotiating with the kings. So I'd think that if we were going down this road, the fighter should get the social skills and enhanced reputation (since he is not a hard-to-understand wizard type, a goody-goody priest, or an untrustworthy rogue) and be expected to be the primary talker. To do that would require cutting the feet out from under the rest; you'd have to really play up that people in general don't trust wizards or thieves and don't expect clerics to be concerned with anything but advancing their god's cause rather than worldly ones.

kamikasei
2008-06-02, 04:31 PM
Conan? Should their out of combat method diverge greatly from the Rogue?

For the sake of distinctiveness, I think so. If one guy can do magic, then having two guys who stab things and are skillful, but in different proportions, doesn't really stand out so much.

I'd like to see a class/archetype that's as different from the rogue, despite being a mundane meleeist, as clerics are (or can be) from wizards, despite being a primary caster. Of course, as part of that I'd like to see that distinction widened too.

Indon
2008-06-02, 04:32 PM
People wanted balance, you have balance.

I think everyone agrees on this.

But some people are celebrating, while others are reaping what they have sown.

In other news: The power to turn everything I touch into gold _sucks_.

Rutee
2008-06-02, 04:42 PM
That's a good point, but the Rogue is pretty settled. Actually, thinking back on fantasy in general, the Fighter tends to be the front man for the group, the leader, the one who is setting the quests and negotiating with the kings. So I'd think that if we were going down this road, the fighter should get the social skills and enhanced reputation (since he is not a hard-to-understand wizard type, a goody-goody priest, or an untrustworthy rogue) and be expected to be the primary talker. To do that would require cutting the feet out from under the rest; you'd have to really play up that people in general don't trust wizards or thieves and don't expect clerics to be concerned with anything but advancing their god's cause rather than worldly ones.
I thought about that, but ran into the brick wall of stereotypes (I think people expect their Fighters to be less.. I don't know. Roland-ish..) I'd be fine with that, though. Also, bards.


I'd like to see a class/archetype that's as different from the rogue, despite being a mundane meleeist, as clerics are (or can be) from wizards, despite being a primary caster. Of course, as part of that I'd like to see that distinction widened too.
Sure, but what should they learn? I think one of the big problems here is that DnD has a lot of classes, and until recently, challenges were designed in such a way as to reward a party of specialists, with generalists being unable to contribute to even-level things. Would you want to retain or lose that? Because without it, it becomes much, much easier, I think.

Talya
2008-06-02, 04:43 PM
Okay. Find a way to make flight viable without allowing Fighter's to remain stationary in the air round after round and to make air jumps.

Or Disintegrate. Or Time Stop, a complete iconic. Without magical-like actions, it's impossible.

They already did. It was called 3rd edition, a completely viable game system that works, despite a few minor flaws.

Frosty
2008-06-02, 04:45 PM
They already did. It was called 3rd edition, a completely viable game system that works, despite a few minor flaws.

Are you channeling Sir Giacomo today? I like 3.5, I really do. But I wouldn't go as far as to say 3.5 only has a few "minor flaws" to be honest.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 04:46 PM
They already did. It was called 3rd edition, a completely viable game system that works, despite a few minor flaws.

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

'Nuff said. You wouldn't believe how much I've needed that pic lately. Minor flaws? Uh-Huh.

Rutee
2008-06-02, 04:46 PM
Are you channeling Sir Giacomo today? I like 3.5, I really do. But I wouldn't go as far as to say 3.5 only has a few "minor flaws" to be honest.

There are none so blind as those who won't see. I wouldn't worry about her, hon.

Frosty
2008-06-02, 04:50 PM
There are none so blind as those who won't see. I wouldn't worry about her, hon.

Eloquent as always :smallsmile:

Where is that quote from btw, hon?

kamikasei
2008-06-02, 04:53 PM
Sure, but what should they learn? I think one of the big problems here is that DnD has a lot of classes, and until recently, challenges were designed in such a way as to reward a party of specialists, with generalists being unable to contribute to even-level things. Would you want to retain or lose that? Because without it, it becomes much, much easier, I think.

I don't have any idea what archetype should replace a Fighter. I just feel that perhaps Fighter is inherently too limiting as an archetype, compared to Rogue or Wizard or Cleric. There's no obvious thing that a Fighter should be able to do outside of combat by dint of being a Fighter, and that's the problem I'm talking about. I'm trying, basically, to suggest we need a fourth out-of-combat specialty to go with the four in-combat ones, and a replacement for Fighters that harmoniously marries it to full-BAB face-smashing.

I don't expect to answer the question here, it just struck me as worth raising.

(On the flip side, I'm inclined to think that Wizard is too general an archetype. This is particularly visible if you start trying to list things that Clerics should be able to do that Wizards can't.)

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 04:55 PM
'Nuff said. You wouldn't believe how much I've needed that pic lately. Minor flaws? Uh-Huh.

To be fair, it is easier to repair 3.5 than it is to turn 4e into something like 3.5

Rutee
2008-06-02, 04:58 PM
I don't have any idea what archetype should replace a Fighter. I just feel that perhaps Fighter is inherently too limiting as an archetype, compared to Rogue or Wizard or Cleric. There's no obvious thing that a Fighter should be able to do outside of combat by dint of being a Fighter, and that's the problem I'm talking about. I'm trying, basically, to suggest we need a fourth out-of-combat specialty to go with the four in-combat ones, and a replacement for Fighters that harmoniously marries it to full-BAB face-smashing.
The idea was raised that they should perhaps be the face man, an idea I can only deny on the grounds of "I don't know if we would be able to avoid calling them 'the hero', and I wouldn't want to exalt fighters any more then wizards", That aside, I can see the fighter being the face.

Still, that would leave the "Do we reward specialists, or generalists" question.


(On the flip side, I'm inclined to think that Wizard is too general an archetype. This is particularly visible if you start trying to list things that Clerics should be able to do that Wizards can't.)

Honestly, I think in an absolute state, I would prefer everybody had the Wizard's very, very general archetype. I just know you will never get most DnD players to swallow it.

Frosty
2008-06-02, 04:58 PM
To be fair, it is easier to repair 3.5 than it is to turn 4e into something like 3.5

Which I think many of us are, in fact, going to do. 3.75, here we come?

Charity
2008-06-02, 04:59 PM
Eloquent as always :smallsmile:

Where is that quote from btw, hon?

"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know. The proverb has been traced back in English to 1546

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 05:00 PM
To be fair, it is easier to repair 3.5 than it is to turn 4e into something like 3.5

Of course. But we must point out that that hole in the post was big enough to fit Solo's ego and Collin152's knowledge of Enchantment through, at the same time.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 05:03 PM
I don't have any idea what archetype should replace a Fighter. I just feel that perhaps Fighter is inherently too limiting as an archetype, compared to Rogue or Wizard or Cleric. There's no obvious thing that a Fighter should be able to do outside of combat by dint of being a Fighter, and that's the problem I'm talking about. I'm trying, basically, to suggest we need a fourth out-of-combat specialty to go with the four in-combat ones, and a replacement for Fighters that harmoniously marries it to full-BAB face-smashing.

I don't expect to answer the question here, it just struck me as worth raising.
Agreed, I would almost take the Marshal class and just dump it on the Fighter, and give him some out of combat auras that are useful.


(On the flip side, I'm inclined to think that Wizard is too general an archetype. This is particularly visible if you start trying to list things that Clerics should be able to do that Wizards can't.)
Agreed again. Why do you think I keep saying that they should have redone casters based on the Psion? Sure all of the things a RAW 3.5 wizard can do (well excluding some really broken ones) can be done by the wizard class. But no single wizard can do them all. Wizard Bob is focused on direct damage, he hasn't the faintest idea about how to use magic to charm a person. Wizard Joe is focused on mental manipulation, he hasn't the faintest idea about how to chuck a fireball. Both are wizards.

Talya
2008-06-02, 10:58 PM
'Nuff said. You wouldn't believe how much I've needed that pic lately. [I]Minor flaws? Uh-Huh.

Yes, Minor flaws. 3.5 doesn't need a lot of houseruling to make it perfect. It's far closer to perfection out of the box than 4.0 is, as it stands.

You could make 4e better if you changed the following:

Allow free multiclassing between classes.
Use vancian spellcasting.
Increase the spell list a lot, including illusions, enchantments, polymorphs, etc.
Give every class far more versatility, and don't give a **** about overlap. Don't worry excessivly about balance either. Those concepts are just constraining, irrelevant, and suck the fun out of a game.
Make melee more like TOB.
Give a feat or ability of some kind to move melee from strength to dexterity.
Move from 5 alignments to 9.
Add symetry in the monster manual. (I want to see specific outsiders and such for every alignment, plane, deity. i want to see metallic dragons.)
Remove dragonborn entirely. Add Gnomes back into Core.
Make tieflings optional. Add Aasimar as optional.
Make saves a defensive throw rather than an offensive roll. (This is important for a DM.)
Put in Prestige Classes. (Paragon Paths don't cut it.)
Put half-x templates back in.


I could go on and on, but in the end, it looks more like 3e than 4e.

A different point:
Oh, Rutee...one of your complaints I've seen you elaborate on was the difficulty in making a dexterity based melee character in 3.5. Yes, it can be done effectively, but it's convoluted and requires a bit of multiclassing cheese and could probably have been made easier and just as effective with a strength based character. I agreed with you on that. 3.5 isn't really friendly to taking that path, but it can be done.

I have noticed 4e doesn't fix this. In fact, it took an alternate approach altogether...there is no weapon finesse ability in 4e...AT ALL. There is absolutely no way to make dexterity based melee combat viable in 4e...because it just doesn't exist. Rather than fix it, they simply removed it.

yay for options.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 11:01 PM
Yeah, Talya... 4e isnt for you. Everything you just listed is everything they took out on purpose. :smalltongue:

Talya
2008-06-02, 11:02 PM
Yeah, Talya... 4e isnt for you. Everything you just listed is everything they took out on purpose. :smalltongue:

...Ya think?

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 11:27 PM
Yes, Minor flaws. 3.5 doesn't need a lot of houseruling to make it perfect. It's far closer to perfection out of the box than 4.0 is, as it stands.

You could make 4e better if you changed the following:

Made it exactly like 3e.

I could go on and on, but in the end, it looks more like 3e than 4e.

Wow, you really like 3e, don't you?

To address the individual points that I snipped for humor value:


Allow free multiclassing between classes.

I find the 4e multiclassing system to be well balanced and elegantly designed. It really feels like a true synthesis of classes, and I imagine as more multiclass feats are released with splatbooks (or are homebrewed), it will only get better.


Use vancian spellcasting.

I am so glad that Vancian spellcasting was removed. Essentially, 3e boils down to "If you play a Vancian spellcaster, your character's overall effectiveness will correlate very highly with the amount of time you spend in creating/maintaining that character. Oh, and also Vancian spellcasting is uber, so if you play anything else, it's suboptimal in a powerful campaign".


Increase the spell list a lot, including illusions, enchantments, polymorphs, etc.

Coming soon to a splatbook near you.


Give every class far more versatility, and don't give a **** about overlap.

Easily accomplished with a few simple houserules, if you really want more versatility.


Don't worry excessivly about balance either. Those concepts are just constraining, irrelevant, and suck the fun out of a game.

How does balance "suck the fun out of a game", unless you're playing to win? I find the balance of 4e a very pleasant development.


Make melee more like TOB.

You mean make 4e more like 3e.


Give a feat or ability of some kind to move melee from strength to dexterity.

Should be easy enough to homebrew.


Move from 5 alignments to 9.

There's no reason why you can't play with 9 alignments in 4e, if you prefer it. I happen to like the new alignment system. It's less confining. If I had a quarter for every time I've heard "What alignment is your character again? And you did what?", like it's a straitjacket.


Add symetry in the monster manual. (I want to see specific outsiders and such for every alignment, plane, deity. i want to see metallic dragons.)

Splatbooks.


Remove dragonborn entirely. Add Gnomes back into Core.

Gnomes are in 4e Core, as a playable PC race.


Make tieflings optional.

Tieflings are optional.


Add Aasimar as optional.

Should be easy enough to create Aasimar as a PC race.


Make saves a defensive throw rather than an offensive roll. (This is important for a DM.)

So you can fudge them? I find it better to be able to fudge offensive attacks from my monsters than have to screw PCs out of attacks or give them free hits.

Plus it lets the player roll more, which is good. The less rolling the DM has to do, the better.


Put in Prestige Classes. (Paragon Paths don't cut it.)

Any reason why you think they don't cut it?


Put half-x templates back in.

Yeah, because LA rocks.

Talya
2008-06-02, 11:50 PM
Wow, you really like 3e, don't you?

Yes.

To address "Made it exactly like 3e," I disagree. There's a few things from 4e I'd keep.

(1) Magic Items. I like how 4e does them, i like one's class features being more important than the gear they carry.
(2) Race design. While the race choices are not the best, the race design is awesome.



I find the 4e multiclassing system to be well balanced and elegantly designed.
And utterly inflexible. I like builds with 3-4 classes, including PRCs in them. I do not like taking 20 levels in a single class. Ever.



I am so glad that Vancian spellcasting was removed. Essentially, 3e boils down to "If you play a Vancian spellcaster, your character's overall effectiveness will correlate very highly with the amount of time you spend in creating/maintaining that character. Oh, and also Vancian spellcasting is uber, so if you play anything else, it's suboptimal in a powerful campaign".

You miss the entire purpose of vancian casting.

Vancian casting allows you to make magic godlike, and still be balanced. Because even batman can't just cast his mordenkainen's mansion whenever he wants and rest up if he wants to succeed. A smart DM in 3.x forced spell economy on his wizards by the number of daily encounters. It also kept them from being overly effective by being able to keep them guessing whether that spell should be used now or later. Basically vancian casting provided enough weakness to allow you to make magic really feel magic, rather than just a different type of sword-swinging.



How does balance "suck the fun out of a game", unless you're playing to win? I find the balance of 4e a very pleasant development.
See above. Focus on Balance causes the designers to make concessions to atmosphere and world-feel (which is all-important) to make sure nobody's feelings get hurt (which us utterly unimportant.)



Gnomes are in 4e Core, as a playable PC race.
No they aren't. I have the books. Gnomes are in 4e monster manual, as a highly optional player race. It explicitly states it takes a houserule (DM permission) to allow them.




Tieflings are optional.
No they aren't, they are core. It takes a houserule to remove them.




Should be easy enough to create Aasimar as a PC race.


Possibly.



So you can fudge them? I find it better to be able to fudge offensive attacks from my monsters than have to screw PCs out of attacks or give them free hits.

More important to fudge defenses. When your party encounters that BBEG early on and he's supposed to scare them to death, you don't want a lucky 20 ruining your storyline.


Plus it lets the player roll more, which is good. The less rolling the DM has to do, the better.

I don't think that really matters.



Any reason why you think they don't cut it?

Yes. They're a pale reflection of a PRC. You can also only take one of them.




Yeah, because LA rocks.

LA is an issue, but it's not unsurmountable.

Deme
2008-06-03, 12:17 AM
No they aren't, they are core. It takes a houserule to remove them.


that doesn't make them not optional.

Optional (op-shuh-nl)
–adjective
1. left to one's choice; not required or mandatory: Formal dress is optional.
2. leaving something to choice.

Whether or not they are used as a PC's race is wholly up to the player who may or may not be using them. If they were not optional, then the scenario would run as follows:
* gets out sock-puppets (Note: this is not intended to be insulting. I use sock-puppets for all hypothetical scenarios. I do, however, understand this may be misunderstood. Hence this warning) *

Player Sock: I wanna be a human wizard!

DM Sock: No! you will be a tiefling!

Player Sock: ...you said there were no race restrictions?

DM Sock: YOU'LL BE A TIEFLING AND YOU'LL LIKE IT, FOOL! *attacks other sock*

*puts puppets away*

except this would happen every time. No one could ever play a human, elf, half-elf, eldarin, dragonborn, dwarf, hafling, any MM-houseruled in race, or homebrewed race...if you meant you wished Tieflings were MM-based races, that were made to be houseruled in, that's a whole different story. One that does not require puppets, and as such is less fun...

JaxGaret
2008-06-03, 12:21 AM
Yes.

It was kind of a rhetorical question, but thanks for the confirmation :smallsmile:


To address "Made it exactly like 3e," I disagree. There's a few things from 4e I'd keep.

(1) Magic Items. I like how 4e does them, i like one's class features being more important than the gear they carry.
(2) Race design. While the race choices are not the best, the race design is awesome.

I agree with both. How would you go about implementing either of these in 3e?


And utterly inflexible. I like builds with 3-4 classes, including PRCs in them. I do not like taking 20 levels in a single class. Ever.

Any reason, besides personal preference?

Also, have you tried playing any multiclass characters in 4e? They're really fun to make and to play. I actually am quite impressed with the multiclassing rules.


You miss the entire purpose of vancian casting.

No, I didn't, I just have different preferences than you.


Vancian casting allows you to make magic godlike, and still be balanced.

And here it is. If magic is godlike, than non-casters can never compete. I prefer a balanced class system, rather than making everyone play Vancian casters or everyone play non-Vancian casters or everyone play non-casters for there to be balance.

And don't try and say that the 4e classes are all the same. If you've played them, you know that the play-feel is completely different from class to class.


Because even batman can't just cast his mordenkainen's mansion whenever he wants and rest up if he wants to succeed. A smart DM in 3.x forced spell economy on his wizards by the number of daily encounters. It also kept them from being overly effective by being able to keep them guessing whether that spell should be used now or later. Basically vancian casting provided enough weakness to allow you to make magic really feel magic, rather than just a different type of sword-swinging.

Yes, Vancian casters aren't invincible. Other Vancian casters can kill them.


See above. Focus on Balance causes the designers to make concessions to atmosphere and world-feel (which is all-important) to make sure nobody's feelings get hurt (which us utterly unimportant.)

Why does one lead to the other? You haven't explained that bit, you just assume it is so.


No they aren't. I have the books. Gnomes are in 4e monster manual, as a highly optional player race. It explicitly states it takes a houserule (DM permission) to allow them.

You are referring to this line from the MM:


A player should only use one of the following races to create a character with the permission of the Dungeon Master. The DM should carefully consider which monster races, if any, to allow as PCs in his or her campaign.

That doesn't sound "highly optional" or a "houserule" to me. It just means you have to ask the DM, which is pretty much just common sense.

Also, this paragraph:


Several of the monsters in the Monster Manual have racial traits and powers, not unlike the races presented in the Player’s Handbook. In general, these traits and powers are provided to help Dungeon Masters create nonplayer characters (NPCs). This information can also be used as guidelines for creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures, within reason. Note that these traits and powers are more in line with monster powers than with player character powers.

pretty obviously encourages the player to homebrew monster-as-PC races. Why would they say that if they didn't want you to play them?


No they aren't, they are core. It takes a houserule to remove them.

Quite true, no argument from me there. My previous statement that they were optional was based on DM fiat, and thus really not appropriate to the conversation.


Possibly.

Hey, I'll take a stab at it right now:

Aasimar

Ability Scores: +2 Wisdom, +2 Charisma
Size: Medium
Speed: 6 squares
Vision: Darkvision

Languages: Common, Celestial
Skill Bonuses: +2 Perception
Favor of the Heavens: You have Resist 5 Acid, Cold, and Lightning.

Daylight Aasimar Racial Power
You bring light to the darkness.
Daily
Minor Action Ranged 5
Effect: You cause the target to shed bright light. The light fills the target’s square and all squares within 12 squares of it. The light lasts for 5 minutes. Putting out the light is a free action. Creatures that take penalties in bright light also take them while within the radius of this magical light. Despite its name, this spell is not the equivalent of daylight for the purposes of creatures that are damaged or destroyed by bright light. If daylight is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a light-proof covering, the spell’s effects are blocked until the covering is removed. Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect. Daylight counters or dispels any darkness spell.

Woohoo! That was fun :smallsmile:

Also, no LA.


More important to fudge defenses. When your party encounters that BBEG early on and he's supposed to scare them to death, you don't want a lucky 20 ruining your storyline.

A lucky 20 isn't going to ruin your storytelling, because a crit isn't as devastating as it was in 3e.


I don't think that really matters.

Well then we differ in opinion there.


Yes. They're a pale reflection of a PRC. You can also only take one of them.

I suppose that is a problem for someone who loves to multiclass as much as possible. Perhaps multiclass Paragon path feats will be released or can be homebrewed.


LA is an issue, but it's not unsurmountable.

LA was one of the worst artifacts of 3e.

Dyrvom
2008-06-03, 04:39 AM
Focus on Balance causes the designers to make concessions to atmosphere and world-feel (which is all-important) to make sure nobody's feelings get hurt (which us utterly unimportant.)

...

More important to fudge defenses. When your party encounters that BBEG early on and he's supposed to scare them to death, you don't want a lucky 20 ruining your storyline.


You consider the feelings of players to be "utterly unimportant" and consider railroading to be "more important" than user friendliness. What kind of groups have you been playing with?

Reel On, Love
2008-06-03, 05:17 AM
Yes.

To address "Made it exactly like 3e," I disagree. There's a few things from 4e I'd keep.

(1) Magic Items. I like how 4e does them, i like one's class features being more important than the gear they carry.
Unfortunately, that's totally impossible for 3E.


And utterly inflexible. I like builds with 3-4 classes, including PRCs in them. I do not like taking 20 levels in a single class. Ever.
Why?


Vancian casting allows you to make magic godlike, and still be balanced. Because even batman can't just cast his mordenkainen's mansion whenever he wants and rest up if he wants to succeed. A smart DM in 3.x forced spell economy on his wizards by the number of daily encounters. It also kept them from being overly effective by being able to keep them guessing whether that spell should be used now or later. Basically vancian casting provided enough weakness to allow you to make magic really feel magic, rather than just a different type of sword-swinging.
Yeah, that was the theory behind 3.0 spellcasting. I think we all know just how bloody well that worked out for it.

"Lots of daily encounters" is not a balancing method. It grinds everybody else down, too (HP, class abilities like rage, etc), it doesn't always make *sense* given the context of the game, etc etc. You get what you've had so far--casters starting out with like two spell slots, and then winding up with more than they really need.


See above. Focus on Balance causes the designers to make concessions to atmosphere and world-feel (which is all-important) to make sure nobody's feelings get hurt (which us utterly unimportant.)
...
I'm sure glad I don't play in your games. I'm playing this game for fun. It doesn't matter how good my world is if Will the Monk over there feels like he can't do anything useful.


No they aren't. I have the books. Gnomes are in 4e monster manual, as a highly optional player race. It explicitly states it takes a houserule (DM permission) to allow them.
Oh noes! Now you know how, say, tiefling players have felt. The less popular choices go in the monster manual/rub the lotion on their skin or else they get the hose again.


More important to fudge defenses. When your party encounters that BBEG early on and he's supposed to scare them to death, you don't want a lucky 20 ruining your storyline.
Okay, screw this.

If "fudge saves, lol" is a viable solution for you, no wonder you're say "batman wizards aren't very effective in real games (because, of course, everybody plays with them)", you'll just fudge all the enemies' saves. That's not cool.

You chose to play a game where the outcome is determined by the dice. Don't make it a game where the outcome is determined by the dice, except when you feel like it. And if you do, tell players up front. "Hey, guys, my NPCs fail saves when I want to and have however much HP I feel like." Ugh.

Solo
2008-06-03, 05:20 AM
More important to fudge defenses. When your party encounters that BBEG early on and he's supposed to scare them to death, you don't want a lucky 20 ruining your storyline
If you want things to flow exactly according to your storyline, you should be writing a novel, not playing a game of DnD.

This stuff (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=780) will happen in a game. It is inevitable.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-03, 05:27 AM
"Lots of daily encounters" is not a balancing method. It grinds everybody else down, too (HP, class abilities like rage, etc), it doesn't always make *sense* given the context of the game, etc etc. You get what you've had so far--casters starting out with like two spell slots, and then winding up with more than they really need.
I just feel the need to quote this.

Giving spellcasters, especially wizards, all the options they had in 3rd edition makes exploiting the downsides of Vancian spellcasting, the limited amount of spells/day, the only option to balance a game. (If the spellcasters use their full potential.)

That enforces a specific style of play and, therefore, actually often leads to less versatility than 4e offers.

Talya
2008-06-03, 10:33 AM
I just feel the need to quote this.

Giving spellcasters, especially wizards, all the options they had in 3rd edition makes exploiting the downsides of Vancian spellcasting,


The DMs have more options in exploiting the limitations of vancian casting, than players had in exploiting the benefits of it.

What it boils down to, from what I can tell, is you guys like your tactical war games. You like warhammer and the like. Throw in an RP element, and you're playing tactical D&D.

That, for me, has never been the purpose of an RPG ruleset. RPG rulesets are just there to provide the structure for the storyline. Telling a highly-interactive, mutable story, with the players as the main characters, has always been first and foremost the most important aspect of the game. 4e limits you more in what the players in your story can and can't do, for the purpose of "balance." I don't give a **** about the balance in the ruleset...the game-rules aren't responsible for the balance, DM's are. I can deal with whatever balance issues you send my way. I care only about what options are available.

That said, monks in 3.x still suck too badly to be redeemed without a complete rewrite.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-03, 11:20 AM
The DMs have more options in exploiting the limitations of vancian casting, than players had in exploiting the benefits of it.
Without changing the rules (banning spells) or begging the casters to have mercy? :smallwink:
(No really, tell me. I've never DMed, so I don't exactly speak from experience, but mostly, it was either a higher encounter rate or houseruling. Oh, or encounters that were designed specifically to...give the casters a headache, to put it mildly.)

I mean, Vancian spellcasting alone didn't make 3rd Edition unbalanced. The power level of some spells was 'needed' for that.

But the vast differences between it and the power base of, say, fighters, gave rise to such problems.

Oh, and by the way, the DM shouldn't have to pay regards to balancing problems. It just gets in the way of the narrative and reduces his options. (A point that I will repeat ad nauseam later. :smallbiggrin:)



What it boils down to, from what I can tell, is you guys like your tactical war games. You like warhammer and the like. Throw in an RP element, and you're playing tactical D&D.
Well...you're wrong about me. :smalltongue: I have only ever played one of said tactical war games, which was Diskwars, a highly abstract and rather simple game.
I wouldn't even go near a Warhammer game.

My problem was more that you could do too much with spellcasting and not enough without it. At later levels, non-caster characters had significantly less opportunities to contribute.



That, for me, has never been the purpose of an RPG ruleset. RPG rulesets are just there to provide the structure for the storyline. Telling a highly-interactive, mutable story, with the players as the main characters, has always been first and foremost the most important aspect of the game. 4e limits you more in what the players in your story can and can't do, for the purpose of "balance." I don't give a **** about the balance in the ruleset...the game-rules aren't responsible for the balance, DM's are. I can deal with whatever balance issues you send my way. I care only about what options are available.
You see, I absolutely agree about your priorities here.
It's just that my personal experience tells me that imbalances can get in your way there.
If your characters don't have equal opportunities and/or the DM always has to keep the inherent balance issues of a system in mind, it hurts the flow of the game. If some characters are too powerful and have too many abilities at their disposal that they can access through simply memorizing a few divination, illusion and enchantment spells as well as teleportation, it limits the stories you can actually tell.

And it may even create some friction when the fighter of the group doesn't have the chance to contribute anything in and out of combat besides "5-foot-step and full attack" in combat and the occasional Intimidate check in social situations.

I mean, I'm primarily in it for the role-playing, meaning that I can live much better without combat encounters than without a story or opportunities to portray my character.
But if my character can't do something meaningful, I get bored quickly.
And, since challenges are a vital part of RPGs, or at least D&D, it also robs me of chances to play my character. Really, you can come up with some colorful depictions of full attacks, but eventually, you just run out of them.

4e accomplishes to give all characters their minutes in the limelight. Some are still more useful out of combat than others, yes, but the field has been leveled.


However, there are some problems that I see when it comes to the "options available" you mentioned.
These are mainly the low number of powers, the insignificance of feats and simplified skill system, as I mentioned before. (Or in another thread, I really don't know anymore.)
There also is the restrictiveness of class roles, which may or may not turn out to be an issue. It probably will be one, since there aren't many different builds for each class.
But, so far, I don't see these as minor issues getting in the way of roleplaying.
I mean, the class roles only have any significance in a battle, after all.

Oh, and I also don't think 3rd Edition was any better. Sure, casters (who can get rituals now) had some more options, but most classes didn't.
(I'd make an expeption for the skill system, though.)



That said, monks in 3.x still suck too badly to be redeemed without a complete rewrite.
Actually, I always thought the Swordsage was one of the better classes. :smallamused:

Indon
2008-06-03, 11:32 AM
Yeah, that was the theory behind 3.0 spellcasting. I think we all know just how bloody well that worked out for it.
Poor implementation of an idea (Giving Wizards access to 100% of the Wizard spell list with no restrictions, to include the full set of abilities to cover weaknesses) does not mean the idea is bad. It means the implementation is bad.

Talya
2008-06-03, 12:01 PM
Without changing the rules (banning spells) or begging the casters to have mercy? :smallwink:
(No really, tell me. I've never DMed, so I don't exactly speak from experience, but mostly, it was either a higher encounter rate or houseruling. Oh, or encounters that were designed specifically to...give the casters a headache, to put it mildly.)


Yeah, without those things. it just takes a firm DM, with the willingness to **** someone with a brick if they tried to go too munchkin.

Raum
2008-06-03, 12:36 PM
What it boils down to, from what I can tell, is you guys like your tactical war games. You like warhammer and the like. Throw in an RP element, and you're playing tactical D&D.Eh? Game mechanics, style, and storylines differ between D&D (all versions) and WFRP, but how does any version of D&D make for better role playing?


That, for me, has never been the purpose of an RPG ruleset. RPG rulesets are just there to provide the structure for the storyline. Telling a highly-interactive, mutable story, with the players as the main characters, has always been first and foremost the most important aspect of the game. I can’t think of any rules supporting the telling of stories. Most revolve around resolving some specific conflict. Can you name a few examples that provide structure to story telling?


4e limits you more in what the players in your story can and can't do, for the purpose of "balance." I don't give a **** about the balance in the ruleset...the game-rules aren't responsible for the balance, DM's are. You don’t care about balance, others may. Frankly I don’t care about balance as most appear to define it either. I do think fun should be balanced…just not necessarily power levels.

Getting past balance though, the game rules are responsible for your game play experience. They have to be, they’re the common denominator. It’s even more obvious when you play vastly different game systems with the same group / GM. Doing so highlights how the rules affect play experience.

Indon
2008-06-03, 12:43 PM
I can’t think of any rules supporting the telling of stories. Most revolve around resolving some specific conflict. Can you name a few examples that provide structure to story telling?

The stunt system in Exalted. Action point systems in both 3'rd and 4'th edition, and virtues in World of Darkness and Exalted.

And then there's what's probably my favorite, an obscure little ruleset in the very last, small chapter of the World of Warcraft D20 book - an entire chapter on the mechanics of communities, their interactions with each other, and with PC's and important NPC's. I would recommend getting that book even if you absolutely hate Warcraft, just for that chapter.

Talya
2008-06-03, 12:48 PM
I can’t think of any rules supporting the telling of stories. Most revolve around resolving some specific conflict. Can you name a few examples that provide structure to story telling?

I was referring to the way magic is limited to seem no better than mundane things in 4e. Magic isn't impressive in the slightest unless it is truly supernatural and it seems a spellcaster is tapping into vast cosmic power. The magic system specifically in 1e/2e/3e for all core spellcasters is far more versatile and enables it to do far more than it does in 4e, where it is scaled back and strictly defined.

Honestly, if you were going to do that to magic, I'd rather remove magic altogether, and go play Iron Heroes. If Magic is in a game, it needs to really seem magical!

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 01:03 PM
I was referring to the way magic is limited to seem no better than mundane things in 4e. Magic isn't impressive in the slightest unless it is truly supernatural and it seems a spellcaster is tapping into vast cosmic power. The magic system specifically in 1e/2e/3e for all core spellcasters is far more versatile and enables it to do far more than it does in 4e, where it is scaled back and strictly defined.

Honestly, if you were going to do that to magic, I'd rather remove magic altogether, and go play Iron Heroes. If Magic is in a game, it needs to really seem magical!

I think magic in 4th edition feels more magical because it takes effort. If you plan on depopulating a continent it should be a ritual that takes months to years, not six seconds on a whim.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-03, 01:22 PM
Yeah, without those things. it just takes a firm DM, with the willingness to **** someone with a brick if they tried to go too munchkin.
That depends on the - voluntary or not - restraint of the players, meaning that they don't use all the options that you demand.

Again, my problem primarily isn't one with Vancian spellcasting, although I dislike it, but with spells that are too powerful, due to whatever reasons.


I was referring to the way magic is limited to seem no better than mundane things in 4e. Magic isn't impressive in the slightest unless it is truly supernatural and it seems a spellcaster is tapping into vast cosmic power.
Well, why should magic be better than the study of swordplay, or the skills a rogue picks up?
What does 'supernatural' have to do with 'vast cosmic power'? Magic can have many sources, and you don't have to make it nigh omnipotent to give it a distinctive feel.
If you, however, want magic to be inherently more powerful, then you can look for that in books, or systems where everyone plays casters.


The magic system specifically in 1e/2e/3e for all core spellcasters is far more versatile and enables it to do far more than it does in 4e, where it is scaled back and strictly defined.
This is right, although it really isn't that strict.
I don't know, did you have the opportunity to look at some utility powers and rituals? If not, I could post some.

They're still fairly versatile, and certainly more so than what the martial classes get - although they can now learn rituals, too, something that should really help with villain design, if you ask me.

Also, the individual classes don't have the options they used to, but that doesn't say much about magic in general. For example, they might release enchanters and illusionists and such.
You don't get these options with the PHB, though, which is a little disappointing. Another controller besides the wizard would certainly have been nice to have.


Honestly, if you were going to do that to magic, I'd rather remove magic altogether, and go play Iron Heroes. If Magic is in a game, it needs to really seem magical!
But not overpowered! :smalltongue:

Raum
2008-06-03, 01:25 PM
The stunt system in Exalted. Action point systems in both 3'rd and 4'th edition, and virtues in World of Darkness and Exalted.

And then there's what's probably my favorite, an obscure little ruleset in the very last, small chapter of the World of Warcraft D20 book - an entire chapter on the mechanics of communities, their interactions with each other, and with PC's and important NPC's. I would recommend getting that book even if you absolutely hate Warcraft, just for that chapter.Should have clarified, but that was in response to Talya and looking for examples in D&D. To add a couple more to your list, Wushu rewards role play descriptions and Savage Worlds uses Tricks and Tests of Will.


I was referring to the way magic is limited to seem no better than mundane things in 4e. Magic isn't impressive in the slightest unless it is truly supernatural and it seems a spellcaster is tapping into vast cosmic power. The magic system specifically in 1e/2e/3e for all core spellcasters is far more versatile and enables it to do far more than it does in 4e, where it is scaled back and strictly defined.

Honestly, if you were going to do that to magic, I'd rather remove magic altogether, and go play Iron Heroes. If Magic is in a game, it needs to really seem magical!You're correct, 4e's magic is unimpressive compared to 3.x. But what does that have to do with structuring stories or role playing?

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 02:12 PM
Bah. Balance and versatility aren't in direct conflict with one another anyway. Versatility is easily added through more options, and balance becomes more difficult the more options are added, but mixing the two aren't impossible.

I'm definitely in the camp that feels that the core 3.x spellcasters (wizard/cleric/druid in particular) could do anything with the right spell, had access (or effective access) to all their spells, and never really sacrificed by choosing among their options. (The worst penalty they'd ever take is facing the day with a series of world-shattering powers, far beyond those of their allies, that didn't quite reflect their every whim.) It is intensely versatile and horrifically imbalanced. I'm not really seeing anyone defending casters' ability to affect the game above and beyond other classes while staying completely within the rules as intended; the best retort seems to be that "no reasonable DM" would allow the character to be played as the rules/designer's intent allow, which seems more telling than any case I could make.

The 4e wizard is the only Controller in the book. His power progression separates combat-related spells and utility spells into separate progressions, allowing players to choose fun/useful options without directly impeding their ability to choose spells they need when the bat guano hits the fan. Better yet, all the gadget-like spells are sequestered off into Rituals, where they can be learned and used at will, without affecting the wizard's power and abilities elsewhere.

What was lost? Notably, several spells that let the caster completely take over another role ("Move over Fighter, Divine Might/Polymorph is here!"), and the overall ability to know every spell in the game (though there's no limit on Rituals). Sure, the caster's less versatile therefore less powerful, but my question is: when one class can be anything it wants to be today, why are other characters choosing anything else?

I think the ability to tell your players "stop doing that" doesn't contribute much to the discussion about whether the game as written encourages actions that break the group dynamic. That, at least -- the ability for the players to contribute meaningfully and have fun -- is I want out of the idea of "balance."

Talya
2008-06-03, 03:16 PM
That depends on the - voluntary or not - restraint of the players, meaning that they don't use all the options that you demand.


No it doesn't. It just means you hit them with whatever they're least prepared for until they get the point.

Rutee
2008-06-03, 03:25 PM
No it doesn't. It just means you hit them with whatever they're least prepared for until they get the point.

I find it interesting that you insist that the casters are balanced mostly, but then go on to elaborate on just how much the casters need to get whacked until they understand they're not Gods. You also say that Magic should flat out be better, and that's hte only way magic should be, but never really elaborate on why the supernatural (The wizard) should be special, but not the superhuman (A fighter, particularly once they have some levels).

Read: You have argued that Fighters should suck when people say the game should be balanced, and that casters are balanced when people point out they roxxorz. WTF, yo?

Frosty
2008-06-03, 03:31 PM
*points to Rutee*

What she said.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 03:36 PM
Need someone with ranks in Perform (Exorcism) to purge Talya of vile spirits? It seems more and more necessary with each post, but I need the approval of other playgrounders to initiate the ritual.

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 03:38 PM
Need someone with ranks in Perform (Exorcism) to purge Talya of vile spirits? It seems more and more necessary with each post, but I need the approval of other playgrounders to initiate the ritual.

Approved.
oh, and *points to frosty* yeah.

Talya
2008-06-03, 03:38 PM
but then go on to elaborate on just how much the casters need to get whacked until they understand they're not Gods.


I have repeatedly said that the job of balancing is the DMs, not the rulesets. Casters are fine how they are. If a wizard is dominating your campaign, it's 100% the DM's fault. It's trivial to ensure that they do not. It's not hard, without houseruling, to make sure the melee types are just as useful as the wizard.

In the ideal scenario (which Azerimon said is always how it turns out anyway)...the wizard doesn't dominate play...they buff everybody else all to hell and turn them into gods. If your wizard is casting (beneficial) spells on your melee types, then it's already perfect.

Frosty
2008-06-03, 03:44 PM
Need someone with ranks in Perform (Exorcism) to purge Talya of vile spirits? It seems more and more necessary with each post, but I need the approval of other playgrounders to initiate the ritual.

H, I'm Frosty, and I approve of this message.

Reel On, Love
2008-06-03, 03:48 PM
I have repeatedly said that the job of balancing is the DMs, not the rulesets. Casters are fine how they are. If a wizard is dominating your campaign, it's 100% the DM's fault. It's trivial to ensure that they do not. It's not hard, without houseruling, to make sure the melee types are just as useful as the wizard.

Absolutely everything you've described (except fudging saves, which is wrong) in this regard is non-trivial. Making every opponent have high saves/touch AC/SR is certainly not trivial, nor is structuring your entire campaign so you almost always have 4+ encounters/day.

Skyserpent
2008-06-03, 03:55 PM
I have repeatedly said that the job of balancing is the DMs, not the rulesets. Casters are fine how they are. If a wizard is dominating your campaign, it's 100% the DM's fault. It's trivial to ensure that they do not. It's not hard, without houseruling, to make sure the melee types are just as useful as the wizard.

In the ideal scenario (which Azerimon said is always how it turns out anyway)...the wizard doesn't dominate play...they buff everybody else all to hell and turn them into gods. If your wizard is casting (beneficial) spells on your melee types, then it's already perfect.

You give players too much credit.

The IDEAL scenario is just that, an IDEAL, it's not something that everyone is capable of, hell, it's not even EVERYONE's ideal. The job of balancing IS the rulesets. The Wizard can dominate play, and do it VERY EASILY, with just a few spells the Wizard can eliminate just about every member of the party except the Cleric or the Druid, and even that's not so tough with the right preparation. The Wizard doesn't HAVE to dominate play, we know that, but he CAN, and that's too much power to place on one character. It's not entirely the DMs fault that HE allows it. The SYSTEM allows it. Why not just have the System disallow it if it's such a problem?

And it may not be HARD to optimize a melee type, but it sure as hell isn't obvious (Not without ToB at any rate).

Talya
2008-06-03, 03:55 PM
Absolutely everything you've described (except fudging saves, which is wrong) in this regard is non-trivial. Making every opponent have high saves/touch AC/SR is certainly not trivial, nor is structuring your entire campaign so you almost always have 4+ encounters/day.

Fudging saves is 'wrong'? The DM can't do wrong.

Sometimes, cinematically, you just can't have someone defeated yet. The players are supposed to lose. Let's use a computer RPG as an example:

In KotOR, when you encounter Darth Malak on the Leviathan, if you're not powerful enough to utterly wipe the floor with him, you haven't built your character right. However, the game does not actually let you beat him, no matter how superior you are. Call it fudged saves, or whatever, it's the DM's prerogative. It's not "cheating."

Anyway, the vast majority of 3.5 players never run into this legendary problem with caster domination. It's an invention of the internet, or bad DMing, take your pick.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 03:56 PM
Then, we proceed.

"Hear me, O vile fiends that corrupt this mind! Your words are riddled with inconsistencies, your points undefendable, your ideas a descent into madness. You have uncovered yourselves, and thus, I chastise you and bring the light of impartial judgement to thee!"

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9783/1202228010192aa2.png

"With your vile schemes, nothing has been accomplished! The only result has been to make good men question their faith in humanity."

http://kevinchiu.org/emote/facepalm.jpg

"There is but only one thing you haven't stooped low enough to do."

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2152/logicalfallacyny2.jpg


"And so, before we have to suffer another ill worded post, I command thee: By the great Power in the sky, leave this poor soul alone!"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Choco_chip_cookie.jpg


"There. 'Tis done. I have done the Holy Purge as best as I could. Now, we must pray for it to work, and for the recovery of our friend."

Rutee
2008-06-03, 03:59 PM
I have repeatedly said that the job of balancing is the DMs, not the rulesets. Casters are fine how they are. If a wizard is dominating your campaign, it's 100% the DM's fault. It's trivial to ensure that they do not. It's not hard, without houseruling, to make sure the melee types are just as useful as the wizard.

Why is balancing the job of the GM? Don't we have enough to do without fixing the mechanics on a basic level?

Azerian, just call on the power of St. Dogbert. He heals technology with his left paw, and banishes the demons of stupidity with his scepter.

Morty
2008-06-03, 04:00 PM
Anyway, the vast majority of 3.5 players never run into this legendary problem with caster domination. It's an invention of the internet, or bad DMing, take your pick.

And where do you get this "vast majority" from? Unless you, in some miraculous way, got to know more than 50% of D&D players then this information comes from... well, the internet.


Why is balancing the job of the GM? Don't we have enough to do without fixing the mechanics on a basic level?

I think there were a fallacy on this, but these days there's a fallacy for everything. In any case, it means implying that DM is an omnipotent, omniscent being who can see balance problems a mile away and take measures to counteract them without hurting the gameplay and storytelling.

Talya
2008-06-03, 04:01 PM
You give players too much credit.

The IDEAL scenario is just that, an IDEAL, it's not something that everyone is capable of, hell, it's not even EVERYONE's ideal. The job of balancing IS the rulesets.

No, it's not. This is not a wargame.


The Wizard can dominate play, and do it VERY EASILY, with just a few spells the Wizard can eliminate just about every member of the party except the Cleric or the Druid, and even that's not so tough with the right preparation.

1. This game is not a PVP game. The wizard's ability to beat a fighter in combat is utterly irrelevant. If a wizard can't destroy any regular fighter head-to-head by upper levels, there's something wrong with the rules.

2. If the wizard is more powerful than the DM, then the problem is not the fault of the rules.


And it may not be HARD to optimize a melee type, but it sure as hell isn't obvious (Not without ToB at any rate).

I haven't even talked about optimizing melee types. They don't actually need to be that optimized. The much maligned single-classed paladin and Ranger/Fighter, or whatever else you choose, still contribute just fine. The DM can work with them.

Talya
2008-06-03, 04:03 PM
Why is balancing the job of the GM? Don't we have enough to do without fixing the mechanics on a basic level?

Go ahead and try that, without removing a single core spell from the game which are all essential to the flavor of the classes. The thing in 4e is not a wizard. It's a World-of-warcraft mage. Until you can weild godlike power with a thought, you're not a wizard in any game I've seen. And with that great power, comes the DM tailoring the encounters so you're still entirely reliant on your melee types...

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 04:06 PM
Go ahead and try that, without removing a single core spell from the game which are all essential to the flavor of the classes. The thing in 4e is not a wizard. It's a World-of-warcraft mage. Until you can weild godlike power with a thought, you're not a wizard in any game I've seen. And with that great power, comes the DM tailoring the encounters so you're still entirely reliant on your melee types...

Azerian, I think you're gonna run out of facepalms.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 04:06 PM
Go ahead and try that, without removing a single core spell from the game which are all essential to the flavor of the classes. The thing in 4e is not a wizard. It's a World-of-warcraft mage. Until you can weild godlike power with a thought, you're not a wizard in any game I've seen. And with that great power, comes the DM tailoring the encounters so you're still entirely reliant on your melee types...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/hitlercard1.jpg

Yeah, the MOREPIG/Mumorpeger analogy works like that.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 04:07 PM
Azerian, I think you're gonna run out of facepalms.

Don't worry, I have tons of ammo. I loaded up and took Extra Facepalm Capacity as my last feat.

kc0bbq
2008-06-03, 04:08 PM
Fudging saves is 'wrong'? The DM can't do wrong.

Sometimes, cinematically, you just can't have someone defeated yet. The players are supposed to lose. Let's use a computer RPG as an example:

In KotOR, when you encounter Darth Malak on the Leviathan, if you're not powerful enough to utterly wipe the floor with him, you haven't built your character right. However, the game does not actually let you beat him, no matter how superior you are. Call it fudged saves, or whatever, it's the DM's prerogative. It's not "cheating."

Anyway, the vast majority of 3.5 players never run into this legendary problem with caster domination. It's an invention of the internet, or bad DMing, take your pick.That is, and always was, and always will be, a horrible mechanic. That's hamfisted railroading and no player I would want to run for would take that. The DM should NEVER have an encounter where the PCs lose arbitrarily. Period.

It's terrible design, it's condescending, and poor form.

Chugga-chugga-chugga choo choo! Chugga choo choo! Pshhhhhh chufff chufff... chufff... wooooooooosh. "All aboard!"

Rutee
2008-06-03, 04:08 PM
Go ahead and try that, without removing a single core spell from the game which are all essential to the flavor of the classes. The thing in 4e is not a wizard. It's a World-of-warcraft mage. Until you can weild godlike power with a thought, you're not a wizard in any game I've seen. And with that great power, comes the DM tailoring the encounters so you're still entirely reliant on your melee types...

If you get to be Rand Al'thor, why can't I be Herakles?

Also, MOREPIG MEME.

Also, dodging the issue. If you're /supposed/ to be this godlike, why do you have to be reliant on this ordinary schlub?

Seriously, this makes no sense. If this were Mage: The Awakening your attitude would be far more sensible. It's /about/ Mages. Why should the Wizard (or any other single power archetype) be the best in Dungeons and Dragons?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 04:09 PM
If you get to be Rand Al'thor, why can't I be Herakles?

This (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards), of course.

I wanna be Marv or Gilgamesh, goddangit!

Morty
2008-06-03, 04:11 PM
So the game should be inherently imbalanced because casters should be just plain more powerful, but the DM can design everything so that casters are reliant on melee types? Doesn't that sort of hurt -or more likely utterly slaughter- logic and immersion when every single encounter is very conveniently made for warriors to have a chance to shine, even though mages are inherently more powerful? I think my reaction could be summarized by four panels in the second row of this (http://nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=060323) 8-Bit Theatre strip.
I wouldn't be so upset about that if it didn't ruin the credibility of all those who aren't fond of how 4ed wizards look.:smallannoyed:

Bleen
2008-06-03, 04:12 PM
This (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards), of course.

I wanna be Marv or Gilgamesh, goddangit!

can I be odysseus

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 04:13 PM
So the game should be inherently imbalanced because casters should be just plain more powerful, but the DM can design everything so that casters are reliant on melee types? Doesn't that sort of hurt logic and immersion when every single encounter is very conveniently made for warriors to have a chance to shine, even though mages are inherently more powerful? I think my reaction could be summarized by four panels in the second row of this (http://nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=060323) 8-Bit Theatre strip.
I wouldn't be so upset about that if it didn't ruin the credibility of all those who aren't fond of how 4ed wizards look.:smallannoyed:

Exactly.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u288/callmewingus/Silly%20Internets%20Pics/Facepalm.jpg

@Bleen: Yes, but you gotta be a Rogue. He's a Scoundrel.

Bleen
2008-06-03, 04:25 PM
@Azerian:Fine, but I get all the women, and before everyone else gets a chance.

Also, if you want your Wizards to get the schools they lost back, there's that thing called "homebrewing" if you don't wanna wait for splats. I actually plan to re-add Enchantment(For wizzies) and Conjuration(in two flavors, one for warlocks) myself if I ever get off my lazy butt, since I don't care for the flavor of the classes that are planned to get them.

Especially since 4e homebrewing is comically-easy and there's an entire forum of people who will yell at me to "get that balance right you idiot" over and over again until it's fine-tuned.

Oberoni Fallacy, I know, but all the crying I've heard about "lack of versatility" has been because they don't blow up mountains when they sneeze. And if I want that, I can play Exalted.

3.5 was only ever good for my gleeful, book-poring optimization. It still is, but I like rolling up a playable character's stats to take less than 4 hours sometimes. So that's why I have 4e.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 04:26 PM
Fudging saves is 'wrong'? The DM can't do wrong.

Sure he can. If your player knows you are intentionally breaking the rules to nerf his character he's going to have less fun. Whenever the group has less fun because of the DM's decision, the DM has done wrong.


Sometimes, cinematically, you just can't have someone defeated yet. The players are supposed to lose. Let's use a computer RPG as an example:

In KotOR, when you encounter Darth Malak on the Leviathan, if you're not powerful enough to utterly wipe the floor with him, you haven't built your character right. However, the game does not actually let you beat him, no matter how superior you are. Call it fudged saves, or whatever, it's the DM's prerogative. It's not "cheating."

You know, whenever video games take away an option to win from me like that, I get ticked. I'm sure other people do to.


Anyway, the vast majority of 3.5 players never run into this legendary problem with caster domination. It's an invention of the internet, or bad DMing, take your pick.

Flatly untrue. I have run into this problem both as DM and as player. It finds it's way into almost any game where the DM is not actually looking for it. What's more, the player of the caster is frequently unaware of it themselves and not doing it on purpose.


Go ahead and try that, without removing a single core spell from the game which are all essential to the flavor of the classes.

Sepia Snake Sigil is essential to the flavor of Wizards?


I'll be honest here Talya, I wouldn't want to game with you. Nothing personal but your expectations of the time and competence of the DM as a player are too high and your expectations of control as a DM are also more than I would want to tolerate.

Talya
2008-06-03, 04:37 PM
You know, whenever video games take away an option to win from me like that, I get ticked. I'm sure other people do to.



That is, and always was, and always will be, a horrible mechanic. That's hamfisted railroading and no player I would want to run for would take that. The DM should NEVER have an encounter where the PCs lose arbitrarily. Period.

Like i said, you guys are into the combat simulations, not the roleplaying. Roleplaying has a story. And you almost always kick the PCs asses with the BBEG at least once before they beat him. You can't just make him superpowerful, or you have a TPK and it's game over.

The game better feel like I'm in a (very long) movie/book, or I don't wanna play it. Cinematic feel > following the rules. The rules are just guidelines. The story is everything. That's why the DM > the Gods. And I play more games than I DM...that's how i want it to be played. To continue the game analogy, I want it to feel like KotOR, NWN, Mass Effect, or such. Games like oblivion bore me to tears. i don't want to wander around unsure of what I'm supposed to be doing investigating everything and going wherever I want. I like having options, I like having a goal, but if it feels like a sandbox, it sucks. Gimme a plot!

Rutee
2008-06-03, 04:39 PM
Like i said, you guys are into the combat simulations, not the roleplaying. Roleplaying has a story. And you almost always kick the PCs asses with the BBEG at least once before they beat him. You can't just make him superpowerful, or you have a TPK and it's game over.

Or maybe it's in character for them to want to win. Jeez, I agree with you in spirit and I still can't agree with you because you're making narrativists look bad. Just because they disagree with you doesn't mean they're automatically focused on winning.

Dark Tira
2008-06-03, 04:40 PM
Like i said, you guys are into the combat simulations, not the roleplaying. Roleplaying has a story. And you almost always kick the PCs asses with the BBEG at least once before they beat him. You can't just make him superpowerful, or you have a TPK and it's game over.

The game better feel like I'm in a (very long) movie/book, or I don't wanna play it. Cinematic feel > following the rules. The rules are just guidelines. The story is everything. That's why the DM > the Gods.
But one of the key points to an RPG is that what the players do has an impact on the story. Change that and you might as well just be reading a book.

Morty
2008-06-03, 04:41 PM
Like i said, you guys are into the combat simulations, not the roleplaying. Roleplaying has a story. And you almost always kick the PCs asses with the BBEG at least once before they beat him. You can't just make him superpowerful, or you have a TPK and it's game over.


Now, consider a situation where PC's aren't facing a villain straight out of book/movie/film/videogame. What then?

Talya
2008-06-03, 04:43 PM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/hitlercard1.jpg

Yeah, the MOREPIG/Mumorpeger analogy works like that.

It's a valid analogy. MMOs have to be concerned with balanced. They don't have a DM actively controlling every aspect of the play, and they never will.

I don't want my game to be mechanically "balanced" that way.


Now, consider a situation where PC's aren't facing a villain straight out of book/movie/film/videogame. What then?

If he's not the BBEG, you don't have a problem. If they are supposed to win the fight, baring some terrible game decisions, they likely will win the fight. If they aren't supposed to win the fight, narratively, it's highly unlikely they'll win the fight, but possible if it doesn't have a major effect on the storyline. If winning the fight means the campaign story is over in the third session, they aren't winning the fight, period.



But one of the key points to an RPG is that what the players do has an impact on the story. Change that and you might as well just be reading a book.


That, for me, has never been the purpose of an RPG ruleset. RPG rulesets are just there to provide the structure for the storyline. Telling a highly-interactive, mutable story, with the players as the main characters, has always been first and foremost the most important aspect of the game.

Reel On, Love
2008-06-03, 04:49 PM
If winning the fight means the campaign story is over in the third session, they aren't winning the fight. Period.

Ah-ha. A DM who can't trivially balance wizards (maybe because he doesn't want to throw four+ encounters of creatures with high touch AC, saves, and SR at the party every day) is a bad DM.
Meanwhile, a DM whose campaign story can end in the third session if the PCs get lucky and who therefore feels she has to take away player control (you might as well just tell them "don't bother casting these spells at him") is a fine DM.


It must be opposite day.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 04:50 PM
Like i said, you guys are into the combat simulations, not the roleplaying. Roleplaying has a story.

You are confusing Roleplaying with Acting. If the situation is predetermined then I might as well just be reading a script the DM handed to me. I like to roleplay because I have some say as to how the story turns out.


And you almost always kick the PCs asses with the BBEG at least once before they beat him. You can't just make him superpowerful, or you have a TPK and it's game over.

Yes you can. There are lots of ways. For one thing, don't your PC's ever run away? Mine do.

Also, just making a BBEG superpowerful doesn't mean that you need to actually kill the PC's if you beat them.In the game I'm currently getting to the climax of the BBEG (well one of them) kicked the PC's butts and then sent them out Gaesed to do his bidding.


The game better feel like I'm in a (very long) movie/book, or I don't wanna play it. Cinematic feel > following the rules.

See, I want my table top roleplaying expereince to feel like I'm playing a table-top roleplaying game and not like a book or a movie. I like cinematic moments but I don't want them shoved down my throat by the DM. Plenty of drama and cinema happens without needing to force it if you give your players a little credit.


If winning the fight means the campaign story is over in the third session, they aren't winning the fight. Period.

If the game world and narrative outline you have constructed is so flimsy as to be able to be shattered in the third session by random chance then you have done a very, very poor job as DM.


It must be opposite day.

It's not opposite day!

Talya
2008-06-03, 04:53 PM
Meanwhile, a DM whose campaign story can end in the third session if the PCs get lucky and who therefore feels she has to take away player control (you might as well just tell them "don't bother casting these spells at him") is a fine DM.




It's not taking player control away from the players to simply have the BBEG ignore their spells prior to a certain point. As a DM behind the screen, sure, you constantly roll dice anyway, whether needed or not. But it doesn't break verisimilitude at all if all of a sudden your spells/sword/etc. just do not work against a certain opponent - So long as there's a storyline reason for it explained later. It's always best if they think you're actually rolling to check the effect in the background, regardless.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 05:04 PM
It's not taking player control away from the players to simply have the BBEG ignore their spells prior to a certain point. As a DM behind the screen, sure, you constantly roll dice anyway, whether needed or not. But it doesn't break verisimilitude at all if all of a sudden your spells/sword/etc. just do not work against a certain opponent - So long as there's a storyline reason for it explained later. It's always best if they think you're actually rolling to check the effect in the background, regardless.

Oh, so if it doesn't fit your story, the PC's can't win?

Again...

http://blog.pucp.edu.pe/media/497/20070902-Facepalm1.jpg

What happened to the idea that says "D&D is a story told by EVERYONE, DM and Players"? If the players twist your story, you wing it. They are the protagonists, not pawns who must follow your wishes. Maybe, for example, that guy WASN'T the BBEG?

Might as well get a sign that says "Hopeless boss fights, don't waste wand charges", then.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 05:04 PM
It's not taking player control away from the players to simply have the BBEG ignore their spells prior to a certain point.

Really? As a player, I'd feel that way.


As a DM behind the screen, sure, you constantly roll dice anyway, whether needed or not. But it doesn't break verisimilitude at all if all of a sudden your spells/sword/etc. just do not work against a certain opponent - So long as there's a storyline reason for it explained later.

I hate to break it to you, but it is rarely not obvious when a DM is messing with the results. Storyline reason or no, if it happened more than once and I didn't find out the reason pronto, I'd probably walk out of any game that did that. There are lots of ways to screw over a party when they simply must lose for the story line. Fudging the mechanics is probably the worst possible option because your players will begin to wonder why they need to bother rolling dice in the first place if they could just tell the DM what they want to do and get the same results: whatever the DM wants to happen.


It's always best if they think you're actually rolling to check the effect in the background, regardless.

Right, because if they knew you were keeping them from doing things they should have been able to do they'd be ticked. Just like I mentioned above...

Skyserpent
2008-06-03, 05:04 PM
Anyway, the vast majority of 3.5 players never run into this legendary problem with caster domination. It's an invention of the internet, or bad DMing, take your pick.

I can see how fudging saves is conducive to a good STORY, but not to a good GAME.

YES TALYA, Dungeons and Dragons is a GAME. and AS a game the system should be balanced and user-friendly enough to be playable however anyone wants to play it. The Wizard is utterly superior to the Fighter in 3.5, that is NOT CONDUCIVE TO GOOD GAMEPLAY. I'm not saying you can't have a good game, but what I AM saying is that having any one class be clearly superior to another is just bad GAME DESIGN.

If I'm DMing and I want the villain to win, he'd better damn skippy be genuinely stronger than the Players. It ruins a sense of real challenge if I have to CHEAT , (i.e. lie to my players about what I rolled or how his stats added up) in order to make the players lose. If that has to happen then the game isn't built right. Genuine skill is required of both the DM and the players in 4e. ALL of the players.

your issue with the system is one of realism, not FUN. It's REALISTIC for a Wizard to ream the fighter at every turn because he can reshape reality, or if it's not realistic it's easy to rationalize because Wizards are FICTIONAL, we have no idea how powerful they may or may not be, so we can make them as godlike as we want. This doesn't mean they SHOULD BE. Godmoders aren't fun to have in your party, and not every character is happy knowing that the spellcaster has to hold back so that you don't feel bad.

The game may not necessarily be a PVP game, but it sure as hell CAN be. Why the hell not? The party should respect each other as equals, and that's a lot easier to do when when all the party members are equally powerful. The DM shouldn't have to make specific concessions because ONE GUY decided to play a Wizard or a Druid. The game should just be WELL DESIGNED enough to handle it. Your opinion is such that the DM should be able to get past the design flaws of the system and manage the game anyway, we just want the system to not HAVE these design flaws.

Reel On, Love
2008-06-03, 05:10 PM
It's not taking player control away from the players to simply have the BBEG ignore their spells prior to a certain point. As a DM behind the screen, sure, you constantly roll dice anyway, whether needed or not. But it doesn't break verisimilitude at all if all of a sudden your spells/sword/etc. just do not work against a certain opponent - So long as there's a storyline reason for it explained later. It's always best if they think you're actually rolling to check the effect in the background, regardless.

Yes, it is. You're basically saying "okay, guys, the BBEG will fail saves and die when I'm good and ready." That's no different from telling the barbarian "oh, you don't crit, that'd do too much damage" or otherwise taking player control away and deciding what happens on your own. You're not playing out the fight with D&D anymore; the boss just dies whenever you feel like. Dammit, if I wanted that, I'd play a freeform game. I occasionally do.
Heck, it's not even a freeform game--in a freeform game I expect that. In D&D, you say you're still rolling dice--you're lying to your players. If you're going to do that, at least have the freakin' courtesy to tell them "don't bother wasting important resources on this guy for a few rounds, he's going to make all his saves."

If you're going to use dice as the resolution mechanism, then use them. Don't just use them "except when I don't feel like it."

It's bad DMing. It might be good storytelling--frankly, it probably still isn't--but it's bad DMing. For all your words about how "the DM can't cheat", that doesn't mean everything the DM does is right, and doing this is bad.

You've also avoided the point that if your campaign is capable of coming apart at the seams during the third session, you're doin' it wrong. Somehow, that's not bad DMing?

Frosty
2008-06-03, 05:15 PM
Talya, do you DM often? I ask this in the most neutral way possible.

Talya
2008-06-03, 05:16 PM
I can see how fudging saves is conducive to a good STORY, but not to a good GAME.

Yes, but it's not really a tactical wargame. It's a roleplaying game. The only purpose of the rules is to prevent people from arguing like 10 year olds over who shot who first.


YES TALYA, Dungeons and Dragons is a GAME. and AS a game the system should be balanced and user-friendly enough to be playable however anyone wants to play it. The Wizard is utterly superior to the Fighter in 3.5, that is NOT CONDUCIVE TO GOOD GAMEPLAY. I'm not saying you can't have a good game, but what I AM saying is that having any one class be clearly superior to another is just bad GAME DESIGN.

I disagree. The disconnect here is I don't think everyone should be equal in power. Some should be clearly superior. However, the superior ones should still be reliant on the others. Everyone should have an essential spot in the party, and that's how it is in 3.5, unless your DM is a twit.



If I'm DMing and I want the villain to win, he'd better damn skippy be genuinely stronger than the Players. It ruins a sense of real challenge if I have to CHEAT , (i.e. lie to my players about what I rolled or how his stats added up) in order to make the players lose. If that has to happen then the game isn't built right. Genuine skill is required of both the DM and the players in 4e. ALL of the players.

Why? I don't care how I beat them. I'm not attempting to "win." I'm telling a story. I don't give a **** about that. I'm not proving my skill. I don't need to. I'm the DM, I rank higher than God. If I want to give you a chance to win (99% of the time), you'll have that chance. If you don't, it's just inefficient to bother doing it all tactical-like. And utterly irrelevant. This isn't a tactics/strategy/wargame the vast majority of the time.



your issue with the system is one of realism, not FUN. It's REALISTIC for a Wizard to ream the fighter at every turn because he can reshape reality, or if it's not realistic it's easy to rationalize because Wizards are FICTIONAL, we have no idea how powerful they may or may not be, so we can make them as godlike as we want. This doesn't mean they SHOULD BE. Godmoders aren't fun to have in your party, and not every character is happy knowing that the spellcaster has to hold back so that you don't feel bad.

He doesn't. If your DM is is on his toes, the wizard isn't dominating the play regardless of his great power at high levels.



The game may not necessarily be a PVP game, but it sure as hell CAN be.
Most certainly. And if the fighter plans to kill the wizard in your party, he better make sure the wizard thinks he's friendly, then CDG him in his sleep. (Or wait until he's out of useful spells, or backstab him when he's down to 2 hit points, etc.)


Why the hell not?

Aragorn was never Gandalf's equal, yet he respected him just the same.

I simply don't like the "balanced" model of magic. If you're using magic, wizards better eventually gain immense power the likes of which nobody else ever dreams of, or i'd rather not see magic in the game at all. Magic needs a reason to exist.

By the way, I normally play melee characters in games, apart from a sorceress who's ended up being all sorts of fun for RP reasons. And if my sword is as useful as your magic, then I have no respect for you. If you're a magic, you better prove that magic is something I should bother respecting. Because if that foppish wizard just a finger waggling pansy who studied for decades to learn to do something I can just swing a stick at and get the same job done, he's a moron not worth my time.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 05:24 PM
I'm the DM, I rank higher than God.

The rest was awful, but this one is so bad a simple JPG won't do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzjbV-yTomY

Seriously. If the DM is snotty enough to think himself god, then it's time for the group to leave in search of another DM.

kc0bbq
2008-06-03, 05:26 PM
Everyone should have an essential spot in the party, and that's how it is in 3.5, unless your DM is a twit.Until they face the BBEG, in which case none of them have an essential spot in the party, because they could go all out and lose no matter what or have a picnic and lose no matter what.



Aragorn was never Gandalf's equal, yet he respected him just the same.

I simply don't like the "balanced" model of magic. If you're using magic, wizards better eventually gain immense power the likes of which nobody else ever dreams of, or i'd rather not see magic in the game at all. Magic needs a reason to exist.
Gandalf didn't really have any immense power that he actually used. What did he do? He whacked at a Balrog with a sword. The only real magic he ever showed was changing the cosmetic affect of a rush of water.

The only one who exhibited power like you'd want was Tom Bombadil, and he was the world's greatest flake.

Talya
2008-06-03, 05:30 PM
You've also avoided the point that if your campaign is capable of coming apart at the seams during the third session, you're doin' it wrong. Somehow, that's not bad DMing?

I disagree entirely with everything you said. But I'll only bother dealing with this last one:

Why is that bad DMing? What if the BBEG at that point is a flimsy, weak, sickly man who has just betrayed the party and is incredibly vulnerable, but you need him to survive without being a total badass? What if the BBEG is actually no more powerful than the party but currently has some great mystical protection upon him that adventure will eventually go on a quest to undo? There's a million storyline reasons why it might be possible, without DM intervention, for the campaign to come apart at the seams early on. Creativity is endless, and you should never let the rules stifle it.

There is no "Bad DMing" if it fits into the storyline and doesn't break verisimilitude for the players. They can't see how the dice was rolled, and if it's not something you do habitually, they'll never suspect a thing. There's a reason the DMs have always had that screen, you know...


Talya, do you DM often? I ask this in the most neutral way possible.

I wouldn't say often, no. I've DMed three or four campaigns in different systems over the last couple decades, but I prefer not to, unless I suddenly have a great idea for a campaign. I've had nothing but compliments on my campaigns, though. I've played 1e AD&D, Palladium (Rifts/other), Marvel (TSR), Star Wars (West End d6), 3.5e, SW Saga Edition, and Exalted 2e. I've only DMed 3 of those rulesets. To be fair, I think i like 4e better than Palladium. Damn, those rules sucked, and we played them a long time. I might even like the character design better than AD&D...but 3.5 is certainly my favorite of them both to play and DM. (Exalted is a blast, so far, but we've only played 3 sessions.)

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 05:32 PM
Yes, but it's not really a tactical wargame. It's a roleplaying game. The only purpose of the rules is to prevent people from arguing like 10 year olds over who shot who first.

Yep. That's correct. Do you know why we need rules to keep people from arguing who shot who first? It's because both 10 year olds want to be telling the story at the same time. The rules exist to allow each player to contribute to the overall story without anyone arguing or getting annoyed. When one player, even the DM, breaks the rules to control the story, they have cheated the other players out of the portion of the story they expected, and accepted by following the rules, to be able to tell.


I disagree. The disconnect here is I don't think everyone should be equal in power. Some should be clearly superior. However, the superior ones should still be reliant on the others. Everyone should have an essential spot in the party, and that's how it is in 3.5, unless your DM is a twit.

Do you have a hat for that? I'd like a twit hat. I'm thinking dunce cap that says
T
W
I
T
in glued on sparkly letters.


Why? I don't care how I beat them. I'm not attempting to "win."

You are if you think that you, even as DM, have sole control over the story. The story going the way you want is 'winning'.


I'm not proving my skill.

That's right, you are cheating to control more of the game. And cheating after being given the largest share of control over the game at the start even.


He doesn't. If your DM is is on his toes, the wizard isn't dominating the play regardless of his great power at high levels.

If your DM is on his toes and not cheating, he has probably had a conversation with the player of the Wizard long before high levels about the potential balance problems and how to deal with them and keep everyone happy. If your DM is lazy and doesn't want to work with the other players, your wizard will just fail and doing things and not know why.


Magic needs a reason to exist.

How about:
To inspire a sense of the fantastic in the game world? or;
To give physically weak people a way of being powerful without being strong? or;
To help justify what all the fantasy creatures are doing running around?


By the way, I normally play melee characters in games, apart from a sorceress who's ended up being all sorts of fun for RP reasons. And if my sword is as useful as your magic, then I have no respect for you. If you're a magic, you better prove that magic is something I should bother respecting. Because if that foppish wizard just a finger waggling pansy who studied for decades to learn to do something I can just swing a stick at and get the same job done, he's a moron not worth my time.

You can swing a stick and stop time? Or cause a choking cloud of green vapor to form? Or raise the dead? Or open a rift to the other side of the world? Or shoot a lightning bolt out of your... you get the point. A wizard can still do all of those things in 4e.



The only one who exhibited power like you'd want was Tom Bombadil, and he was the world's greatest flake.

Now now, Sauron did. Morgoth did. Of course... they were the bad guys... perhaps there's a lesson in that someplace.

Talya
2008-06-03, 05:35 PM
Until they face the BBEG, in which case none of them have an essential spot in the party, because they could go all out and lose no matter what or have a picnic and lose no matter what.


Man you guys are making a huge deal out of a little thing.

Should the DM fudge rolls? Absolutely, if she wants to and it fits. That's all there is to it. I believe you're all entirely wrong on this. The DM is constrained to no rules whatsoever. I want the DM to maintain iron control over the setting, I want to know I'm not going to be a sudden victim of circumstance at the whim of the dice (at least the whim of the DM is serving a purpose), I want to play a storyline, using the dice for occasional support, not for deciding everything that happens. If you think every scenario you ever run into should be winnable, then no, you don't want to game with me. But frankly, I don't want to game with you either, because i don't like your style.

I've never had a single complaint about mine.

Reel On, Love
2008-06-03, 05:35 PM
Talya what is this fetish you have for insisting every DM who does anything differently from you is a brain-dead moron?

No, balancing the party is NOT easy. You've been asked for examples of how a DM can consistently make every party member equally useful. The only thing you gave was a dragon encounter in which the casters' spell selection was the problem.

Only using enemies with high touch AC and saves isn't viable, because that's a very small subset of all enemies. Giving every enemy Hexblade 3/Rogue 2 or something and a high CHA isn't viable, because your players will be able to tell and it'll be stupid. "So... every NPC and monster we fight has these particular class levels. Uh-huh."

So, tell us about this magical method that makes encounter balancing easy despite the fact that the fighter can hit things, while the druid is two fighters and a spellcaster and the wizard casts ridiculous spells.

Rutee
2008-06-03, 05:37 PM
Talya would have a point about Roleplaying being storytelling if she would realize it's in fact not the only way to roleplay.



Should the DM fudge rolls? Absolutely, if she wants to and it fits. That's all there is to it. I believe you're all entirely wrong on this. The DM is constrained to no rules whatsoever. I want the DM to maintain iron control over the setting, I want to know I'm not going to be a sudden victim of circumstance at the whim of the dice (at least the whim of the DM is serving a purpose), I want to play a storyline, using the dice for occasional support, not for deciding everything that happens. If you think every scenario you ever run into should be winnable, then no, you don't want to game with me. But frankly, I don't want to game with you either, because i don't like your style.
You would be the worst GM ever, but you tie with people as fundamentally wrong about it as you. The GM is constrained by the rule of social contract. They only have unlimited power if they /do not use it/, because in exercising it as flippantly as you advocate, you irritate the players, and it's not like players can't learn to GM.

FoE
2008-06-03, 05:40 PM
Move from 5 alignments to 9.

Blech. The old alignment system was so confusing. I'm glad alignment is simplified in 4E and largely irrelevant except as a role-playing tool.


Remove dragonborn entirely. Add Gnomes back into Core.

Gnomes were like taller halflings and shorter dwarves. Honestly, I'm glad they're gone as a core race.


Make tieflings optional. Add Aasimar as optional.

What? Tieflings as a core race ROCK. And aasimar ... well, I doubt those are going to be in. Anyways, the way angels have been re-designed, it doesn't look like aasimar are even a possibility.

But really, how many people played aasimar versus tieflings? I can't count how many people I have seen play the former, because I have never seen people play the former.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 05:40 PM
The DM is constrained to no rules whatsoever.

The DM is constrained by the social contract at the table. Those are rules. They may not be written but they are rules.

I'm glad that your players are ok with your style. It means that in your game, you aren't doing anything wrong. Either that, or you are and they don't want to cause trouble.

Now, about that hat....

Reel On, Love
2008-06-03, 05:42 PM
I disagree entirely with everything you said. But I'll only bother dealing with this last one:

Why is that bad DMing? What if the BBEG at that point is a flimsy, weak, sickly man who has just betrayed the party and is incredibly vulnerable, but you need him to survive without being a total badass? What if the BBEG is actually no more powerful than the party but currently has some great mystical protection upon him that adventure will eventually go on a quest to undo? There's a million storyline reasons why it might be possible, without DM intervention, for the campaign to come apart at the seams early on. Creativity is endless, and you should never let the rules stifle it.
It's bad DMing because you're creating the situation. It's trivial to change a plot so that the PCs can't undo it entirely, at level 3. If your plot depends on the PCs not doing something they're perfectly capable of doing, or on you not rolling low, then it needs work.
But instead of working on the story, you prefer to use DM fiat to limit player options. You're saying "this doesn't fit with my story, so no." It's railroading in its purest form. There's a reason people don't like railroading.


There is no "Bad DMing" if it fits into the storyline and doesn't break verisimilitude for the players. They can't see how the dice was rolled, and if it's not something you do habitually, they'll never suspect a thing. There's a reason the DMs have always had that screen, you know...
There sure is. You're lying to your players and giving them false expectations. It's reasonable for them to expect that the game will, in fact, follow the rules laid out. Changing those rules on a whim is bad DMing. If it's going to be OK with everyone, you should have no problems telling them first and not even bothering to pretend to roll (i.e. lying to your players).

Indon
2008-06-03, 05:45 PM
Should have clarified, but that was in response to Talya and looking for examples in D&D. To add a couple more to your list, Wushu rewards role play descriptions and Savage Worlds uses Tricks and Tests of Will.

And Talya's list is good, too. Polymorph. Geas. Wish. Powerful storytelling tools which can streamline a game, allowing for a DM to introduce effects without having to construct them whole-cloth.

And completely gone in 4'th edition, because 3'rd edition players assumed that if it's in a book, a player has full right to (ab)use it.

And yet, just as 4'th edition willfully strips players of options that are still given to NPC's (See: Templates), they completely remove things that would be problematic for the players to have, rather than giving them the same restriction (You Will Never See: Wish).

kc0bbq
2008-06-03, 05:47 PM
Now now, Sauron did. Morgoth did. Of course... they were the bad guys... perhaps there's a lesson in that someplace.Not in LOTR. Lots of people did cool stuff in the good old days when elves were evles and Ents had their womenfolk.

Gandalf was specifically mentioned.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 05:50 PM
Not in LOTR. Lots of people did cool stuff in the good old days when elves were evles and Ents had their womenfolk.

Gandalf was specifically mentioned.

My bad, I thought we were talking about Middle Earth in general. That, and I was trying to use it to hint at something about styles of play... nevermind. I suck at being subtle.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 05:52 PM
And Talya's list is good, too. Polymorph. Geas. Wish. Powerful storytelling tools which can streamline a game, allowing for a DM to introduce effects without having to construct them whole-cloth.

And completely gone in 4'th edition, because 3'rd edition players assumed that if it's in a book, a player has full right to (ab)use it.

And yet, just as 4'th edition willfully strips players of options that are still given to NPC's (See: Templates), they completely remove things that would be problematic for the players to have, rather than giving them the same restriction (You Will Never See: Wish).

Well, Indon, if it's in the player's handbook, then yes, the idea is that players should use it unless it has a "not for PC use" tag. Kinda obvious, that.

Talya
2008-06-03, 05:53 PM
Talya what is this fetish you have for insisting every DM who does anything differently from you is a brain-dead moron?

They certainly are if they then complain that 3.5 isn't balanced. It's not supposed to be balanced. You're the DM, that's your job.



No, balancing the party is NOT easy. You've been asked for examples of how a DM can consistently make every party member equally useful.

I wouldn't think about doing so, ever. On any given encounter, nobody should be equally useful. However, over the long haul, yes, a DM can make most party members useful enough on a regular basis that they're all perceived to be needed, barring an awful character design. Heck, even the halfling monk in our party was useful enough up to level 11ish (when the player quit cause he had no time)...and monks legitimately suck.



Only using enemies with high touch AC and saves isn't viable, because that's a very small subset of all enemies. Giving every enemy Hexblade 3/Rogue 2 or something and a high CHA isn't viable, because your players will be able to tell and it'll be stupid. "So... every NPC and monster we fight has these particular class levels. Uh-huh."

So, tell us about this magical method that makes encounter balancing easy despite the fact that the fighter can hit things, while the druid is two fighters and a spellcaster and the wizard casts ridiculous spells.

Mixed encounters are good, making sure the wizard doesn't know what their vulnerabilities are so they've gotta pick their spells more carefully. But my favorite are just using lots and lots of weaker enemies. Heck, even without immunity, wizards have a limited number of spells. Keep 'em spread out, and attack in large numbers. That alone limits what a spellcaster can do. Yeah, they can end any one of the threats quickly enough, but there are a couple dozen more. You might manage to take two out of the fight at once for a while, kill another outright with a save or die, take another one out with a save or suck, but the melee type is doing the same thing every turn, too, so how exactly are you better? You'd do far better buffing the melee types and...oh...wait. Now the melee types are the recipient of your power, and they're dominating play. And wizards have very few spell slots, and you're going to be facing another 3 encounters like this through the day. If you really wanted to frustrate the wizard, make it lots of monks! (flavored as ninjas, you can never do wrong sending large groups of ninjas at the party.) They're relying on numbers, so their individual inability to do a lot of damage doesn't matter, but they've still got high saves, possibly have SR (depending on your level or their race), and a high touch AC. Monks are lousy PCs, but awesome mooks.

kc0bbq
2008-06-03, 05:57 PM
I want to know I'm not going to be a sudden victim of circumstance at the whim of the dice (at least the whim of the DM is serving a purpose), I want to play a storyline, using the dice for occasional support, not for deciding everything that happens. I'm a huge fan of Noblisse, Amber DRPG, and other games where you don't even use *any* random number generator. That doesn't mean my players aren't allowed to play unless it follows my rigid, no win scenarios, and in those games no roll is going to screw things up. Cleverness is rewarded, even if that means my story needs a major detour. I'm not tied to any die rolling at all. But if I decide to use them I abide by them if at all possible. Fudging is there to fix mistakes and unfair situations, not to make a situation unfair.

There's a bright line between hamfists and elegance.

You want absolute linearity. You only need one person for that. You can't look at a game that would follow the same path whether or not the players are there and say it's a good RPG.

Talya
2008-06-03, 05:57 PM
You're saying "this doesn't fit with my story, so no." It's railroading in its purest form. There's a reason people don't like railroading.



I disagree entirely. All campaigns need a little bit of "railroading." Without it, you end up with sandbox play. I usually hate sandbox play. I want to be a little bit railroaded on occasion. Without it, an actual coherent story isn't possible. Very occasionally, the story needs to be on rails.


You want absolute linearity. You only need one person for that. You can't look at a game that would follow the same path whether or not the players are there and say it's a good RPG.

I love how suggesting DM-fiating one fight in a multi-year campaign once in a while can be good, turns into "you want absolute linearity" in these discussions.

Raum
2008-06-03, 05:59 PM
Fudging saves is 'wrong'? The DM can't do wrong.'cough' ok...if you wish to think so.


Sometimes, cinematically, you just can't have someone defeated yet. The players are supposed to lose. So don't roll. Don't kid yourself and your players into thinking it's a game and they have a chance when it's a cut scene and they don't.


Anyway, the vast majority of 3.5 players never run into this legendary problem with caster domination. It's an invention of the internet, or bad DMing, take your pick.You've probably seen people complain of various classes being underpowered. List those on one side leaving the powerful classes on the other. Which side are the full casters on? Which side is the monk / fighter / samurai / whatever on? If the weak side is predominately classes with little or no magic, is it because those classes are weak (the stated complaint) or because casting classes are overpowered in comparison?

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 06:00 PM
They certainly are if they then complain that 3.5 isn't balanced. It's not supposed to be balanced. You're the DM, that's your job.

It's supposed to be balanced. When WotC was marketing the product, they said it was going to be balanced.



Mixed encounters are good, making sure the wizard doesn't know what their vulnerabilities are so they've gotta pick their spells more carefully.

So much for all those skill points in Knowledge: x.


But my favorite are just using lots and lots of weaker enemies. Heck, even without immunity, wizards have a limited number of spells. Keep 'em spread out, and attack in large numbers. That alone limits what a spellcaster can do.

Earthquake. Bye minions. Any reasonably wizard will keep large area effects prepared too.


If you really wanted to frustrate the wizard, make it lots of monks! (flavored as ninjas, you can never do wrong sending large groups of ninjas at the party.)

How could I guess that the soloution would come down to Ninjas... I prefer pirates.

You know, I seem to be talking into the wind here. I havent' gotten a reply to anything I've written to Talya in while. I think I'll stop bothering. Damn... I wanted that hat too.

Talya
2008-06-03, 06:04 PM
Earthquake. Bye minions. Any reasonably wizard will keep large area effects prepared too.



1. It's really only an 80' radius spread.
2. It affects your own party, too.
3. It generally allows saving throws.
4. It's not actually a wizard spell.


Talya would have a point about Roleplaying being storytelling if she would realize it's in fact not the only way to roleplay.




Excuse me? I'm not the one suggesting that 4e is better than 3.5 in every way and that 3.x (most people's favorite system for most of the last decade) is utterly useless and unplayable for balance reasons. It's you guys that can't accept that 3.5 is completely fine for many people, and even better than 4e. It's inconceivable to you that someone might consider combat-balance within the rules as a bad thing, because obviously, your way is the only right way.

Indon
2008-06-03, 06:19 PM
Well, Indon, if it's in the player's handbook, then yes, the idea is that players should use it unless it has a "not for PC use" tag. Kinda obvious, that.

Apparently, the players should use it unless it has been removed from the game entirely, when it comes to things that might facilitate storytelling, and to do otherwise would be unbalanced. Except, of course, for when that isn't the case.

But don't take my word for it. See what's in the dungeon master's guide, or more accurately, what's not there.

I'd like to further point out that everything in the 3.5 DMG (which, by your logic, wasn't written for players, right?) that wasn't explicitly noted as "DM Approval explicitly required" was also assumed to be fair game for any PC. Ditto for every book Wizards' has published.

Well, except for sometimes when things that did explicitly require DM approval were still assumed to be fair game for PC's, like magic item creation guidelines or any custom epic magic.

You know, looking over my words I'm starting to understand why Wizards decided to just remove a number of awesome storytelling tools just so that players won't whine about it: because precedent shows, if it's powerful enough players will just ignore any warnings you put on it and pretend like they have full and proper access anyway.

Raum
2008-06-03, 06:20 PM
Like i said, you guys are into the combat simulations, not the roleplaying.Why do you think they're mutually exclusive?


Roleplaying has a story. I'd say "Roleplaying creates a story." Specifically, creates the story as a group. If there's a preset story or if the DM is the only one allowed to affect the story outcome, it's not a game!


And you almost always kick the PCs asses with the BBEG at least once before they beat him. Err, why? That only happens in stereotyped fiction. The entire Rocky series was like that...it got boring.


You can't just make him superpowerful, or you have a TPK and it's game over.So why's he beating them if he's not powerful? All you're doing is giving them a 'Plot Immunity' feat...sounds like a broken feat to me. Divine Metamagic is harder to break!


The game better feel like I'm in a (very long) movie/book, or I don't wanna play it. Cinematic feel > following the rules. The rules are just guidelines. The story is everything. That's why the DM > the Gods. I'd rather play a game. If it's story hour let me know so I can put away the dice. I can enjoy it as well...as long as I'm not be lied to about it.


And I play more games than I DM...that's how i want it to be played. To continue the game analogy, I want it to feel like KotOR, NWN, Mass Effect, or such. Games like oblivion bore me to tears. i don't want to wander around unsure of what I'm supposed to be doing investigating everything and going wherever I want. I like having options, I like having a goal, but if it feels like a sandbox, it sucks. Gimme a plot!In the game you've described, you don't have options. Choice was removed when the BBEG gained the Plot Immunity feat. Where's the options then?

Sandbox is only one style of GMing, it's a pretty extreme one at that. You appear to prefer the other extreme - a railroad. Have you considered looking at some of the other methods of GMing? Both Goal driven and Plot driven campaigns allow for a story to be created without needing heavy handed modification of game play results.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 06:21 PM
Apparently, the players should use it unless it has been removed from the game entirely, when it comes to things that might facilitate storytelling, and to do otherwise would be unbalanced. Except, of course, for when that isn't the case.

But don't take my word for it. See what's in the dungeon master's guide, or more accurately, what's not there.

I'd like to further point out that everything in the 3.5 DMG (which, by your logic, wasn't written for players, right?) that wasn't explicitly noted as "DM Approval explicitly required" was also assumed to be fair game for any PC. Ditto for every book Wizards' published.

Well, except for sometimes when things that did explicitly require DM approval were still assumed to be fair game for PC's, like magic item creation guidelines or any custom epic magic.

You know, looking over my words I'm starting to understand why Wizards decided to just remove a number of awesome storytelling tools just so that players won't whine about it: because precedent shows, if it's powerful enough players will just ignore any warnings you put on it and pretend like they have full and proper access anyway.

Finally you understand, young Padawan. Why d'you think munchkins love the Saint template? If you need polymorphism or Wish spells, or the like, make them Fiat spells. Unlike players, DM's are only constrained by their imagination.

Ned the undead
2008-06-03, 06:27 PM
Remeber that 4e isn't even out yet! There is still time for the numerous expansion books to be written and published which will increase your options.

Raum
2008-06-03, 06:30 PM
And Talya's list is good, too. Polymorph. Geas. Wish. Powerful storytelling tools which can streamline a game, allowing for a DM to introduce effects without having to construct them whole-cloth.Err, you think those spells encourage better role playing?! How? I'm also not sure how they're "storytelling tools."

An ability doesn't encourage role playing. Neither does the lack of an ability. For mechanics to encourage role play, they have to provide a benefit when role playing which you wouldn't receive otherwise. Every spell you listed does the same thing whether role played out or simply stated out of character.

Cainen
2008-06-03, 06:31 PM
because obviously, your way is the only right way.

The irony of this statement is a little more than amusing, but I do agree with the sentiment. I just prefer not to get screwed because someone else won't agree with me.

Also, I'm of the mind that grinding the game to the halt because the dice said so is one of the worst things that could possibly happen - had I actually enforced what the dice did, and forgotten that I was in control of what happened to the PCs, they would've died due to crits from saw-wielding medbots. Or crits from plasma rifle-wielding Mutons. Or crits from... well, you get the idea. It's not fun to stop a game where it stands because the dice are being stupid, and the same goes for the GM.

Talya
2008-06-03, 06:36 PM
Why do you think they're mutually exclusive?

I think combat balance, while it may not be mutually exclusive to storytelling, severely limits it. Part of what's needed for combat balance is strongly limiting the options players have. The more variables you allow, the greater the potential for breaking balance. Yet those same variables allow greater flexibility in telling the story.


I'd say "Roleplaying creates a story." Specifically, creates the story as a group. If there's a preset story or if the DM is the only one allowed to affect the story outcome, it's not a game!

I disagree with "preset story" statement. There's always a preset story...it's the entire concept behind canned adventures you purchase. If I'm DMing, I'm going to be making my own "canned adventure." However, I agree with you that the players should be able to affect the outcome. In fact, my comments about 4e apply even more from a player perspective (with me playing) than they do as a DM (although they still apply both ways.)



Err, why? That only happens in stereotyped fiction.

Hello? We're playing a game in a traditional fantasy setting with elves, dwarves, and orcs, and you're complaining about stereotyped fiction?


Sandbox is only one style of GMing, it's a pretty extreme one at that. You appear to prefer the other extreme - a railroad.

Once again....I love how suggesting DM-fiating one fight early in a multi-year campaign once in a while can be good, turns into "you want extreme railroading" in these discussions.

Raum
2008-06-03, 06:37 PM
I disagree entirely. All campaigns need a little bit of "railroading." Without it, you end up with sandbox play. I usually hate sandbox play. I want to be a little bit railroaded on occasion. Without it, an actual coherent story isn't possible. Very occasionally, the story needs to be on rails.Completely untrue. There are more choices to GMing than 'sandbox' or 'railroad'. What is true when following the other path is that the story isn't decided up front. It's decided by player action as resolved by the rules. In other words, a game.

Talya
2008-06-03, 06:40 PM
Remeber that 4e isn't even out yet!

It isn't? Then why do I have...oh. yes. Nevermind.


Completely untrue. There are more choices to GMing than 'sandbox' or 'railroad'. What is true when following the other path is that the story isn't decided up front. It's decided by player action as resolved by the rules. In other words, a game.

I'll have to disagree with you. You do a fair bit of both in the game, but ultimately, any time the DM does something at all without giving the players a choice, it's a bit of railroading, even down to choosing what they're going to encounter.

And last time I checked, Knights of the Old Republic was a game,(the best game I ever played) and had a preset story. You could affect it, but you couldn't deviate that far off the story path. You had lots of choices, but ultimately, you were going to be pulled into a sith/jedi civil war and discover that you were Revan. Obviously, with DM involvement you can allow a lot more freedom than that computer game allowed and still keep the story intact, but the basic story still would remain the same.

Raum
2008-06-03, 06:55 PM
I think combat balance, while it may not be mutually exclusive to storytelling, severely limits it. Part of what's needed for combat balance is strongly limiting the options players have. The more variables you allow, the greater the potential for breaking balance. Yet those same variables allow greater flexibility in telling the story.How do extra abilities (variables if you will) allow you to role play better?


I disagree with "preset story" statement. There's always a preset story...it's the entire concept behind canned adventures you purchase. If I'm DMing, I'm going to be making my own "canned adventure." This may well be the source of our differences regarding GM styles. I don't use canned adventures. Neither purchased or created. I don't know what the outcome of the story will be ahead of time, player actions decide that. They may even completely change the story if they're unexpected. Yet I don't run sandbox campaigns.

My campaigns are built around two things, what the antagonists are attempting to accomplish (Plot), and what the PCs' are attempting to accomplish (Goals). I don't need both, either will do. I can also switch between the styles relatively seamlessly. This allows me to drive a Plot via BBEG actions which may be modified by PC reactions. It also allows the PCs to pursue their own, potentially separate goals. As an example, my current campaign has four current threads, three are plot driven (antagonists acting and causing the PCs to react) while one is goal driven (PCs actions causing me / the antagonists to react). I don't know the end outcome of any of the four. I won't till it's been played out. :)


However, I agree with you that the players should be able to affect the outcome. In fact, my comments about 4e apply even more from a player perspective (with me playing) than they do as a DM (although they still apply both ways.)

Hello? We're playing a game in a traditional fantasy setting with elves, dwarves, and orcs, and you're complaining about stereotyped fiction?Why should using traditional races require using traditional plots? They're separate issues.


Once again....I love how suggesting DM-fiating one fight early in a multi-year campaign once in a while can be good, turns into "you want extreme railroading" in these discussions.I said they're two extreme styles. I didn't say your campaign was one or the other because of one action.

Edit:
I'll have to disagree with you. You do a fair bit of both in the game, but ultimately, any time the DM does something at all without giving the players a choice, it's a bit of railroading, even down to choosing what they're going to encounter.See comments above on GM styles.

Indon
2008-06-03, 06:57 PM
Unlike players, DM's are only constrained by their imagination.

Actually, I'm constrained by not wanting to waste my time writing up things when I have ready access to a system that already has rules for them.

Which is why subtractive system modification is a bad idea for a tabletop: You're ultimately trying to take tools away from people who are in no way obliged to let you do so. At best, you can give them enough new things that they'll be convinced to let you take things from them. At worst, you will fail horribly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion).

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 07:02 PM
Actually, I'm constrained by not wanting to waste my time writing up things when I have ready access to a system that already has rules for them.

Which is why subtractive system modification is a bad idea for a tabletop: You're ultimately trying to take tools away from people who are in no way obliged to let you do so. At best, you can give them enough new things that they'll be convinced to let you take things from them. At worst, you will fail horribly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion).

What write up? Wish does what you want it to do. Polymorph will do what you say. No need to write down.

You're not getting it. You just need to answer player questions. That's it. Maybe you're thinking of something else?

Indon
2008-06-03, 07:04 PM
What write up? Wish does what you want it to do. Polymorph will do what you say. No need to write down.

If I didn't want consistent, persistent rules, I could tell a freeform, interactive story, at which point I wouldn't need to bother with any tabletop system, now would I?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 07:09 PM
If I didn't want consistent, persistent rules, I could tell a freeform, interactive story, at which point I wouldn't need to bother with any tabletop system, now would I?

*Sigh* Some people don't get what "On the fly" means, apparently.

Indon
2008-06-03, 07:12 PM
*Sigh* Some people don't get what "On the fly" means, apparently.

No, I do. I'm perfectly capable of running entire campaigns without preparation, or even without explicit rules (the aforementioned freeform, interactive stories).

But that's not why I DM Dungeons and Dragons. If I'm DM'ing Dungeons and Dragons, I want the exact opposite of having to do that.

Edit: I want a persistent world with a logical framework for characters to interact in without my having to perform unnecessary work, so that I can spend more time establishing a coherent and vivid setting to make a better game.

Oslecamo
2008-06-03, 07:15 PM
I disagree entirely. All campaigns need a little bit of "railroading." Without it, you end up with sandbox play. I usually hate sandbox play. I want to be a little bit railroaded on occasion. Without it, an actual coherent story isn't possible. Very occasionally, the story needs to be on rails.


I agree with you in this point. The best D&D DMs are the ones who manage to make the players feel like they're indeed inside a story(not a movie mind you) and that it's by their efforts that the plot advances. You give them questions and they try to answer them as best as possible.

However, right now it seems players don't want to be in a story anymore. They want to be in a movie and look cool and do cool stuff, whitout any convicinbg reason behind it. Just like in most movies, plot is cut to the minimum possible in trade of big flashy battles.

Like someone said, most people wouldn't have minded if the Iron man movie was Tony and the Iron monger mauling each other for one hour.

Talya
2008-06-03, 07:19 PM
I agree with you in this point. The best D&D DMs are the ones who manage to make the players feel like they're indeed inside a story(not a movie mind you) and that it's by their efforts that the plot advances. You give them questions and they try to answer them as best as possible.

However, right now it seems players don't want to be in a story anymore. They want to be in a movie and look cool and do cool stuff, whitout any convicinbg reason behind it. Just like in most movies, plot is cut to the minimum possible in trade of big flashy battles.

Like someone said, most people wouldn't have minded if the Iron man movie was Tony and the Iron monger mauling each other for one hour.

Ha...good points.

Of course, I sometimes want the best of both worlds. I'd have liked to see the entire Iron Man movie as is, but with another 15-30 minutes of Ironman battle footage. ;)

Rutee
2008-06-03, 07:28 PM
MAn you guys are too much. It's not just enough that the game's played your way, but the story style and aesthetic has to be one you like, or it's not Roleplaying?

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 07:31 PM
Fudging saves is 'wrong'? The DM can't do wrong.
(...)
Call it fudged saves, or whatever, it's the DM's prerogative. It's not "cheating."


I'm telling a story. I don't give a **** about that. I'm not proving my skill. I don't need to. I'm the DM, I rank higher than God.

Yikes.

I mean, at this point I get the idea... Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards) is a core design conceit of yours. You seem to believe that the unlimited power of magic is a core design tenet of the game world, and allowing PCs to use that magic comes with the social contract that they won't make every other PC feel like useless dirt (and in particular, that the DM will enforce said contract). Fourth Edition doesn't share that goal, and you feel like something important is missing.

That's great, but the tone you're using... it's a little frightening, to be honest.

Skyserpent
2008-06-03, 07:31 PM
Ha...good points.

Of course, I sometimes want the best of both worlds. I'd have liked to see the entire Iron Man movie as is, but with another 15-30 minutes of Ironman battle footage. ;)

Ironman, Exalted, all of these allow for awesometastic movie-like battles, but it sounds like a lot of people are thinking that if we put a bunch of system focus INTO these awesome battles we're clearly sacrificing storytelling options. If the players are good enough to kill the villain than by all means the villain should die. But if the villain is genuinely stronger than the players they have to fight SMARTER rather than stronger, and that's where, I feel, the 4e system really shines

In 3.5 most battles are decided by character build, in 4e most battles are decided by tactical choices. This is the central feeling I'm getting, and I kind of like it. There were issues in 3.5, they were fixable issues, but they were part of the system. It's not too much work to have fun in 3.5, I know, I've spent the last few years running awesome campaigns and having a hell of a time.

But maybe it's because I had a lot of players who loved PvP, that could be my bias, but I like a nice balanced system where players can go head to head, and then find a common goal, know eachothers tactics inside and out and operate as a wholly effective team. 3.5 could do this, but with the caveat that the classes were NOT balanced for PvP and thus the characters needed to play differently.

This is okay with some people, but sometimes, it's fun just to have a bunch of awesome and balanced characters beating the snot out of villains and unraveling their evil plot.

Awesome combat can go with awesome stories. Wizards advertised combat because it's tough to advertise something that the Consumers make themselves.

JaxGaret
2008-06-03, 07:34 PM
Not in LOTR. Lots of people did cool stuff in the good old days when elves were evles and Ents had their womenfolk.

Actually, Sauron kicked some serious butt in the first part of the first movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGHDE2ew3lA

That was badass.

That was I'm-the-BBEG-and-I'm-going-to-personally-melee-your-front-lines-thank-you-very-much.

Talya
2008-06-03, 07:37 PM
MAn you guys are too much. It's not just enough that the game's played your way, but the story style and aesthetic has to be one you like, or it's not Roleplaying?

You said that, not anyone else here.

Rutee
2008-06-03, 07:39 PM
Actually, Sauron kicked some serious butt in the first part of the first movie.

That was badass.

That was I'm-the-BBEG-and-I'm-going-to-personally-melee-your-army-thank-you-very-much.
But he also lost once the heroes got to him. LotR is just not very high powered fantasy like DnD is. Which.. you know, is fine, just I dunno why you're using DnD rather then E6 or maaaybe hackmaster (Or am I thinking Rolemaster?) if you wanna emulate it. You sure as hell don't use Wizards, whom are ground breakingly powerful comparatively.


You said that, not anyone else here.
You directly stated Roleplaying is sheerly narrativist, and denigrating story styles you don't like.

Thrawn183
2008-06-03, 07:48 PM
I'd like to throw out my take on the invincible foe "railroading" controversy.

In one of your examples the BBEG was supposed to start out weak and vulnerable, but you didn't actually want him to die too early in the campaign. The problem is that if he has what is essentially invincibility, than clearly he wasn't actually weak and vulnerable. It basically means that the entire premise of the story you're trying to tell is a lie. If you want somebody to survive, than have them make efforts to not be detected while they are weak. Essentially, have them roleplay it instead of just fiating it.

I understand the problems inherent in trying to make an encounter come off the way you had hoped. I just don't think lying to players is an acceptable way of doing it.

Cainen
2008-06-03, 07:48 PM
Hackmaster is a murderous parody RPG. Rolemaster's the one with a ton of pages and more of a focus on realism.

Talya
2008-06-03, 07:51 PM
You directly stated Roleplaying is sheerly narrativist, and denigrating story styles you don't like.

No, I didn't. You stated I said that, o great queen of the strawman.

Rutee
2008-06-03, 08:00 PM
No, I didn't. You stated I said that, o great queen of the strawman.

Well, first off, you godwined by levelling the strawman claim (And badly).

Second, Don't you know we're recording this stuff?


Like i said, you guys are into the combat simulations, not the roleplaying. Roleplaying has a story. And you almost always kick the PCs asses with the BBEG at least once before they beat him. You can't just make him superpowerful, or you have a TPK and it's game over.


That, for me, has never been the purpose of an RPG ruleset. RPG rulesets are just there to provide the structure for the storyline. Telling a highly-interactive, mutable story, with the players as the main characters, has always been first and foremost the most important aspect of the game.


As a DM behind the screen, sure, you constantly roll dice anyway, whether needed or not. But it doesn't break verisimilitude at all if all of a sudden your spells/sword/etc. just do not work against a certain opponent - So long as there's a storyline reason for it explained later.


Why? I don't care how I beat them. I'm not attempting to "win." I'm telling a story. I don't give a **** about that. I'm not proving my skill. I don't need to. I'm the DM, I rank higher than God. If I want to give you a chance to win (99% of the time), you'll have that chance. If you don't, it's just inefficient to bother doing it all tactical-like. And utterly irrelevant. This isn't a tactics/strategy/wargame the vast majority of the time
This wasn't quite the same, but claiming that if you're not telling a story, you're playing a Tac-RPG is close.


There is no "Bad DMing" if it fits into the storyline and doesn't break verisimilitude for the players. They can't see how the dice was rolled, and if it's not something you do habitually, they'll never suspect a thing. There's a reason the DMs have always had that screen, you know...


Ha...good points.
In reference to one Oslecamo's many diatribes against what amounts to "fun", for a different value of his own..

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 08:10 PM
Strawman

http://www.marcusleatherdale.com/images/adivasi/fullsize/adivasi_49_fs.jpg


HAI THAR.

And...

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b60/timmyab1/Epic_fail_guy.gif

HAI GUIS.

Seriously, people. You have the internet to supply you with forum ammo, use it. I'm not gonna play Arms dealer forever.

Talya
2008-06-03, 08:13 PM
First of all, Godwins relates to comparing one to hitler/nazis. Strawman is nothing to do with godwin's law.

This is the definition of a strawman argument.


A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Now, you said:


You directly stated Roleplaying is sheerly narrativist, and denigrating story styles you don't like.

That is a gross misrepresentation of my position. Then you pretend to support it by quoting me. And yet nowhere in my quoted posts, nor in Oslecamo's posts, do I say that roleplaying is sheerly narrativist, nor do I denigrate story styles I don't like. Try again. I do draw a differentiation between combat simulation and roleplaying, and provide a partial definition of roleplaying, but that's not saying anything of the sort of the position you are arguing against. You are making a strawman argument.

Rutee
2008-06-03, 08:22 PM
On the GitP Forums, claiming a STrawman is a Godwin, because nobody can be bothered to do it right.

Second, misrepresentation? Your position, and many of the arguments I *just now quoted*, operate by taking Roleplaying as a purely narrativist exercise for granted. You would then state "A DM can not screw up if he acts for narrativist reasons". While you did not state the former as an absolute, you /do/ state the latter as an absolute, and the latter can only be absolutely true if the former is (Because it is only an acceptable motive from a narrativist standpoint). Thus, your posts implicitly state that only Narr. is fine, even though you didn't state it out loud.

Crow
2008-06-03, 08:24 PM
You know, looking over my words I'm starting to understand why Wizards decided to just remove a number of awesome storytelling tools just so that players won't whine about it: because precedent shows, if it's powerful enough players will just ignore any warnings you put on it and pretend like they have full and proper access anyway.

Now that I have my core books, I am beginning to think the same thing. I don't know how many groups really had huge problems with some of the things you mention, but from the whining and abuses I've seen on this board and others, I can't really blame WotC.

Now onto a seperate issue;

The thing I am worried about now though is that things are so balanced in 4e (too the point where it feels a little stale to me, but I'm not all the way through the books yet) that it almost seems inevitable that when splatbooks do come out, it's going to unbalance things as badly (or worse) than with what happened in 3.5.

As to versatility, one of the things I have noticed here since people have seen the books, is that people keep saying things to the effect of "Well when they come out with this splatbook, you'll be able to play this concept." While it is great for WotC because they will sell more books, isn't it a little sad that so many people feel that their choices are so limited, that when the books aren't even officially released yet, people are already needing to buy supplements? What does this say for the system?

On a positive note, I am happy to see some things being left to DM discretion in the new edition (there isn't some rule I need to know for every conceivable situation), but I haven't made it through the Adventuring chapter yet, so I could be wrong. Also, has anybody found anything about tracking? I might have missed it...is it under one of the skills?

Talya
2008-06-03, 08:32 PM
On the GitP Forums, claiming a STrawman is a Godwin, because nobody can be bothered to do it right.

Second, misrepresentation? Your position, and many of the arguments I *just now quoted*, operate by taking Roleplaying as a purelynarrativist exercise for granted. You would then state "A DM can not screw up if he acts for narrativist reasons". While you did not state the former as an absolute, you /do/ state the latter as an absolute, and the latter can only be absolutely true if the former is (Because it is only an acceptable motive from a narrativist standpoint). Thus, your posts implicitly state that only Narr. is fine, even though you didn't state it out loud.

If you remove the words I've highlighted in red, you have my position. I'd also list that a DM can't screw up if the majority of his or her players are still having fun. The basic point is, DMs have carte blanche to do it however they want, so long as it works. There is no "wrong" way to DM, so long as the enjoyment by your player group is there.

Now, as for the words I've highlighted in blue: This is a major fault of yours on this forum. You like to assume "tone" you cannot hear and read between the lines and put words into people's mouths. I don't know if it irritates anyone else, but when you reply to me, please do not do this. It makes me want to reach into the screen and smack you.

If I paid much credence to the "tone" I perceive in your posts, I'd report most of them to a moderator. However, I give you the benefit of the doubt.

Raum
2008-06-03, 09:01 PM
I'd also list that a DM can't screw up if the majority of his or her players are still having fun. The basic point is, DMs have carte blanche to do it however they want, so long as it works. There is no "wrong" way to DM, so long as the enjoyment by your player group is there.One of the issues I have with this type of declaration has already been stated - the GM should be playing and having fun as well. Preferably not at the other players' expense. But there's a far more insidious issue. Does the GM also decide who gets to play? I ask because I've seen a lot of advice which boils down to "kick them out" when a player's style of game didn't match the GMs.

If you have both "the GM can't screw up as long as players are having fun" and "the GM will eject anyone not playing their way" then what you really have is an arbitrary "suck it or leave". It's no longer about ensuring the players have fun, it becomes ensuring they play by the GM's fiat. Just food for thought.

JaxGaret
2008-06-03, 09:01 PM
Now that I have my core books, I am beginning to think the same thing. I don't know how many groups really had huge problems with some of the things you mention, but from the whining and abuses I've seen on this board and others, I can't really blame WotC.

Nor can I. They basically took the D&D community at large's biggest gripes with 3e, and attempted to completely eliminate as many of them as they could to the best of their ability.


Now onto a seperate issue;

The thing I am worried about now though is that things are so balanced in 4e (too the point where it feels a little stale to me, but I'm not all the way through the books yet) that it almost seems inevitable that when splatbooks do come out, it's going to unbalance things as badly (or worse) than with what happened in 3.5.

As to the stale point: have you played the game yet? The playfeel of each class is very different IMO. It's one of those cases where it sounds bad and it reads bad, but then you try it, and everything sort of starts clicking into place, and you really have a lot of fun with it. At least, that was my experience with playing 4e - and I was initially quite skeptical about a lot of what I heard about it.

On the balance issue: Core 3e was unbalanced, whereas core 4e is balanced. It is yet to be seen if splatbooks unbalance 4e, but I'd be willing to bet that they don't. At least, not nearly to the extent that even core 3e was broken.


As to versatility, one of the things I have noticed here since people have seen the books, is that people keep saying things to the effect of "Well when they come out with this splatbook, you'll be able to play this concept." While it is great for WotC because they will sell more books, isn't it a little sad that so many people feel that their choices are so limited, that when the books aren't even officially released yet, people are already needing to buy supplements? What does this say for the system?

Well, if the splatbooks are as good as the core books, they're going to be a great addition to the 4e library, opening up lots of options for characters to take. It's just core, after all. There's no way to fit everything in there, or even try, and little reason to put all the best stuff in core, anyway. I'm happy with what I see, and if they keep up this kind of quality, I will continue to be happy.


On a positive note, I am happy to see some things being left to DM discretion in the new edition (there isn't some rule I need to know for every conceivable situation), but I haven't made it through the Adventuring chapter yet, so I could be wrong.

Try playing through some encounters, if you haven't already, and definitely keep reading the books. It'll take a bit to get used to everything new in the ruleset, but so far I'm liking a lot of what I see.


Also, has anybody found anything about tracking? I might have missed it...is it under one of the skills?

It'll be a skill challenge. The PHB mentions "In another skill challenge, you might use Nature checks and Perception checks to track cultists through a jungle".

Skill Challenge mechanics are in the DMG, Chapter 5.

Rutee
2008-06-03, 09:51 PM
INow, as for the words I've highlighted in blue: This is a major fault of yours on this forum. You like to assume "tone" you cannot hear and read between the lines and put words into people's mouths. I don't know if it irritates anyone else, but when you reply to me, please do not do this. It makes me want to reach into the screen and smack you.

The irony of this statement in the same breath as "I would report you to a moderator" aside, I assume very little. It's hardly my fault that your arguments go back to an axiom you won't state out loud because it would be even less agreeable. Or that you phrase those arguments as absolutes. It takes serious guts to accuse someone else of constructing a straw man when you did it for them.

Helgraf
2008-06-03, 10:26 PM
1. It's really only an 80' radius spread.
2. It affects your own party, too.
3. It generally allows saving throws.
4. It's not actually a wizard spell.




Excuse me? I'm not the one suggesting that 4e is better than 3.5 in every way and that 3.x (most people's favorite system for most of the last decade) is utterly useless and unplayable for balance reasons. It's you guys that can't accept that 3.5 is completely fine for many people, and even better than 4e. It's inconceivable to you that someone might consider combat-balance within the rules as a bad thing, because obviously, your way is the only right way.

Except that hasn't been the argument you've been making for the last five pages. Your argument is "the DM better steamroll all balance issues by him or herself, no matter how heavy-handed it has to be in order to make sure the 'book' (not game, book - I could quote you several times to support this conclusion) work out the way 'it's supposed to'.

And that's patent BS. The DM is not the reason the gameworld exists. Hell, the DM is the backseat. The control panel is back there yeah, but the fact of the matter is, player actions can and will upset your little china clockworks. And frankly, just saying "oh, no, it didn't work" invalidates all the effort the players put into the story.

But it's alright to stomp on the players' hard work as long as the mythical story ends like it was foreseen, right?

You know, I'll play oldbie. I've been playing RPGs since I was 8 (yeah, that means for 26 years now.) and running games since I was 14.

We are only _just now_ concluding a campaign that has been running for almost 15 years - a campaign the players enjoyed so much that when I had to move to Florida, one of them took the DMing helm and kept the campaign going. A game that started in 2nd Ed, shifted into the Skills & Powers set, changed into 3rd edition, converted to 3.5, and hit (heavily house-modified, because the natural balance in it is total ****) Epic - and kept going to the point the average party member is now 30th to 31st. And only now, finally, has the game reached a point where the GM wants to wrap it up _as an RPG_. And you know what? The players danced off where I thought they were going, killed off important NPCs, achieved wraparound ways of getting to their goals that hosed my plans as DM a number of times. The game featured heavy urban involvement in city politics, church politics, guild politics, power-scheming, title-earning, family-making, and several other heavy roleplay plots _in addition_ to things like monster invasions, cults, magical oddities, artifact retrieval (and subsequent hiding of same), and elements you'd probably expect in a more "wargamey" sort of RPG.

Did I ever invalidate their actions because they "threatened my story"

HELLS NO.

I let them have their victories. In the worst case scenario, I ended a session early. Once. Out of all the times their cleverness sidestepped somethign I'd planned, I only ever needed to call it early once to figure out how things would have changed based on their success or failure. The game had - and has, and will continue to have

Yeah, that's right. Success or failure. I had a save the world plotline that required each of the players' characters to do something - they had free reign about how to accomplish it, means, methodology, what have you. And then one of them died and chose not to be raised. So I worked in his new character later in the session. And that "problem"? It became the basis of one of the meta-plots of a spinoff game I ran that occured 100 years afterward.

If the players, through cunning planning, dumb luck, good roleplaying, or what have you, outthink or defeat a villian of mine, I keep going. And I've had glowing reviews of my games on just about every occasion; old players, new players, drop-in players who are friends just visiting. Everyone enjoys themselves and the game still chugs along.

So frankly, it's plainly obvious to me that forcing outcomes as a requirement of good gaming is bullcrap.

And frankly, I very very seriously doubt I will have _any_ problems replicating the social / roleplaying aspects of my games in 4.0, whatsoever. Knowing this, that leaves the more mechanics focused combat system. And frankly, from everything I've seen so far, I'm in approval.

But I must be some sort of twit DM.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-03, 11:21 PM
As to versatility, one of the things I have noticed here since people have seen the books, is that people keep saying things to the effect of "Well when they come out with this splatbook, you'll be able to play this concept." While it is great for WotC because they will sell more books, isn't it a little sad that so many people feel that their choices are so limited, that when the books aren't even officially released yet, people are already needing to buy supplements? What does this say for the system?
Buy D&D books? Why would you do that? About 2 of them so far have been worth the money (ToB and EPH).

Skyserpent
2008-06-03, 11:47 PM
Buy D&D books? Why would you do that? About 2 of them so far have been worth the money (ToB and EPH).

I liked Players Handbook 2...

Eldariel
2008-06-04, 12:09 AM
Dungeonscape and PHBII both offer decent money value too. Then again, I guess that's what the 'about' was about. Still, I wouldn't say it was that grim.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-04, 12:11 AM
Dungeonscape and PHBII both offer decent money value too. Then again, I guess that's what the 'about' was about. Still, I wouldn't say it was that grim.

Yeah, those were alright. They wouldn't feel like wasted money.