PDA

View Full Version : Reasons for lack of versatility in 4e



Swordguy
2008-06-02, 10:24 AM
A while back, we had a discussion on Designers Intent vs Optimization. You can look through it here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49378). The reason I bring this up was because of something that I remembered from my OP in the thread.


here's an interesting and highly off-topic point I'd like to bring up regarding that. I have an uncle, Jon Pickens, who worked at TSR and WotC during the late 80's, 90's, and until just after 3.0 was released. I've asked him about play balance in 3.x several times, and he's got a great deal to say about it. The part of this that concerns us at this moment is this:

WOTC playtested D&D [3.x] under their own preconcieved notions about what D&D should be. A fighter SHOULD run up and hit things. A cleric SHOULD stay in the back and heal, unless the fighter goes down, and a Wizard SHOULD primarily be a blaster. They did this because that's how they had been playing for years. The same thing happened with the DM: when the BBEG got run at by the fighter, who starting whaling on him with a sharp object, the BBEG did not immediately Dimension Door away and ignore the fighter - the DM ran the encounter in a particular style that predicated this from happening. The "balance" in D&D 3.x is only supposed to work when the players take on the party roles that the WotC playtesters assigned them. In short, if you don't play the game the way the playtesters did...it's not ever going to balance! They didn't playtest for Batman, or Pun-Pun, or CoDzilla. The ideas behind an arcane caster (and I quote uncle Jon on this) "Why would anyone NOT want to do lots of hitpoints of damage? That's what mages are for."

Play the paradigm that WotC developed, or don't. Just understand that if you don't, then the game isn't going to balance the way you think it should.
....
Again, optimizers are playing D&D using a different perceptual paradigm than the playtesters were. To say in in a way that will tick a LOT of people off, optimizers really are (by the playtesters definition) "Playing D&D wrong".


The bolded part is the most important section of this. For all the talk about playing "any sort of D&D you want" and "unlimited adventure" in 3.x, WotC considered the game to still revolve around a traditional meatshield fighter, healy cleric, trap rogue, and blaster wizard stomping through a dungeon killing things and taking their stuff. What ended up happening, as well all know, is that the combination of extreme versatility and effectiveness inherent to magic in 3.x rendered non-magic classes essentially pointless, and the blasty magic that WotC loves so much simply pointless. The druid and cleric were better fighters than the fighter. The wizard with a couple of wands can render a rogue's trapfinding and lockpicking essentially obsolete. By common consensus, the "best" party was something close to "Batman Wizard, Druid, Beguiler, Artificer".

That's NOT the way WotC wants the game to be played. Among other things, it unfairly penalizes new players who think that Monks and Fighters are legitimate PC choices when you're in a group of veterans who're all playing casters, and makes WotC a target for "too easy!" complaints from players who are getting adventures balanced for a traditional party and going through those adventures with the "optimized" party mentioned above.

Therefore, WotC targeted what they saw was the largest problem with 3.x - the versatility and effectiveness of magic. IE, casters got hit by a nerf bat like a pair of handicappied yahoodies assaulted by Alex and droogs. The end goal of this nerfing was to essentially FORCE players to play the roles that WotC wanted you to play in the first place. PC versatility has been reduced so characters are simply unable to take over another party role. Each and every class is more or less pidgeonholed into a particular playstyle. Now, I'm aware that it opens up somewhat as Paragon Paths( (etc) come into play during late-game...but I think that the majority of games will be played, as they are now, in the level 1-10 region.

Whether this is a good or bad thing remains to be seen. However, I'm certain that forcing the players back to a particular playstyle (the WotC can reasonably forsee and playtest modules for) is a large portion of the reason behind the distinct lack of versatility in PC classes in 4e.

Saph
2008-06-02, 10:39 AM
That . . . explains a lot, actually.

- Saph

Matthew
2008-06-02, 10:41 AM
Don't forget the 'rules mastery' explanation. That's a doozy. WotC are with 4e supposed to be moving away from that paradigm.

Swordguy
2008-06-02, 10:46 AM
Don't forget the 'rules mastery' explanation. That's a doozy. WotC are with 4e supposed to be moving away from that paradigm.

I talked about that with Jon recently. I can't actually repeat what he said, because I don't want another board infraction...but suffice it to say that Mr. Cook is indulging in at least a little bit of Charlie Yankee Alpha there.

As such, I more or less discount Mr. Cook's explanation. No offense, but I'll trust a source that's out of the games industry and has no reason to lie to me over somebody who's trying to maintain their credibility in said industry after releasing a badly flawed product.

Charity
2008-06-02, 10:48 AM
In fairness I think it is much more difficult to make poor choices in 4e, and with the retraining much easier to fix.

Solo
2008-06-02, 10:49 AM
In fairness I think it is much more difficult to make poor choices in 4e.

Fixed it for you

Edea
2008-06-02, 10:56 AM
Elucidating thread.

Matthew
2008-06-02, 11:10 AM
I talked about that with Jon recently. I can't actually repeat what he said, because I don't want another board infraction...but suffice it to say that Mr. Cook is indulging in at least a little bit of Charlie Yankee Alpha there.

As such, I more or less discount Mr. Cook's explanation. No offense, but I'll trust a source that's out of the games industry and has no reason to lie to me over somebody who's trying to maintain their credibility in said industry after releasing a badly flawed product.

Fair enough.

Duke of URL
2008-06-02, 11:18 AM
I'd have to agree that the system was intentionally designed with a lack of versatility. It fits the business model of more emphasis on the miniatures and online components -- the fewer cases to cover, the easier it is to make your products completely support your players.

The $64,000 question is whether or not this lack of versatility a) holds, and b) truly has either positive or negative effect on the game. Only time will tell.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 11:45 AM
What happened is WotC decided to go from D&D primarily being an RPG, a combat heavy RPG with assumed roles and playstles but still an RPG, to being a tactical wargame.

4e is not an RPG in any traditional meaning of the term.

TheOOB
2008-06-02, 12:04 PM
4e is not an RPG in any traditional meaning of the term.

You mean it's not a game where you are playing a role? I would have never guessed.

Yes, D&D 4e is based on combat, and it has a very tactical war gaming feel to it. Thats always what D&D has been about, it's always been a tactical combat based RPG. Lets face it, most the old out of combat rules where down right abysmal (read 3.x diplomacy again). For out of combat it's usually better to just go with the flow and call for what seems to be an appropriate check when an important situation comes out then to have a bunch of in depth rules that only really apply to a few situations.

Matthew
2008-06-02, 12:07 PM
Lets face it, most the old out of combat rules where down right abysmal (read 3.x diplomacy again). For out of combat it's usually better to just go with the flow and call for what seems to be an appropriate check when an important situation comes out then to have a bunch of in depth rules that only really apply to a few situations.

That sounds like an AD&D Traditional Adventure Roleplaying Game philosophy...

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 12:14 PM
You mean it's not a game where you are playing a role? I would have never guessed.
Yes, you are playing a role. But you have next to no choice in that role. I can't think of any other RPG that forces you to play as strict a role as 4e.


Yes, D&D 4e is based on combat, and it has a very tactical war gaming feel to it. Thats always what D&D has been about, it's always been a tactical combat based RPG. Lets face it, most the old out of combat rules where down right abysmal (read 3.x diplomacy again). For out of combat it's usually better to just go with the flow and call for what seems to be an appropriate check when an important situation comes out then to have a bunch of in depth rules that only really apply to a few situations.
Agreed, 3e had a lot of messed up rules (mostly in out of combat but the incombat ones weren't much better) but they didn't enforce a role.

If you play a wizard in 4e then you are a blaster. If you play an evoker who manages to ban every school except evocation and divination you still have more potential roles you can fill (even restrained to core). You can blast, you can do battle field control, you can save or loose, you can protect, etc.

The same holds true for most classes.

Swordguy
2008-06-02, 12:22 PM
Yes, you are playing a role. But you have next to no choice in that role. I can't think of any other RPG that forces you to play as strict a role as 4e.


*shrug* I'm still portraying a character's personality and actions via an interactive social medium. I'm slightly more constrained when combat breaks out, but I still control that character's thoughts, emotions, and actions both in and out of combat. My role is really only pidgeonholed during combat - when we're sitting around the tavern afterwards I'm whoever I want to be. Really, we're getting into "what is an RPG to you?" territory here.

BTW, Tippy, do you post on Fark? I saw an EmperorTippy over there today...

Quellian-dyrae
2008-06-02, 12:23 PM
but I think that the majority of games will be played, as they are now, in the level 1-10 region.

I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't occur. I don't have the books, so I can't be sure, but judging from what I've seen, the entire game now has a general level of power that I would estimate to be roughly in the levels 3-11 range from 3e. Which I suppose is in some senses a good thing, as that does seem to be a popular level range.

'Course, my favorite place to start is level 12, so you can imagine why I'm rather annoyed at what I've been seeing thus far.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 12:56 PM
BTW, Tippy, do you post on Fark? I saw an EmperorTippy over there today...
Yeah, thats me. I mostly lurk though. What topic? Prolly best to take this to PM as its off topic.

Swordguy
2008-06-02, 01:07 PM
Yeah, thats me. I mostly lurk though. What topic? Prolly best to take this to PM as its off topic.



Submitter wasn't allowed past airport security at Heathrow Terminal 5, as my t-shirt had a picture of a gun on it. It was a picture of a Transformer holding a gun. The Sun is there (http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3641880)

That thread. I post as FightDirector over there.

Anyway, that's all I've got on that topic. Back to the topic at hand...



That sounds like an AD&D Traditional Adventure Roleplaying Game philosophy...

That's actually a very valid point. It feels like WotC's going "back to their (OK, TSR's) roots". I wonder how it'll turn out, remembering the elitism and general moving away from that game philosophy in the late 80s and early 90s.

InaVegt
2008-06-02, 01:09 PM
Yes, you are playing a role. But you have next to no choice in that role. I can't think of any other RPG that forces you to play as strict a role as 4e.

How about AD&D?

Reel On, Love
2008-06-02, 02:16 PM
Fixed it for you

Well, if you were a wizard or druid, sure. And I guess clerics don't get to prepare spells from a list of 4723694234 spells, all of which they know. The others are doin' just fine, chuggin' along with plenty of things to do in combat and as much or more non-magic stuff to do out of it than in 3E.


Edit: the idea that characters are straightjacketed into their roles is ridiculous. Just look at the classes. Fighters and Paladins are both Defenders. Paladins obviously have a side of Leader. Fighters have a side of Striker. Multiclass your Fighter into Warlord and now your Fighter has a side of Leader. Le Gasp!

There's variance within each role, and multiclassing lets you hybridize your roles.

Aquillion
2008-06-02, 02:31 PM
If you play a wizard in 4e then you are a blaster. If you play an evoker who manages to ban every school except evocation and divination you still have more potential roles you can fill (even restrained to core). You can blast, you can do battle field control, you can save or loose, you can protect, etc.

The same holds true for most classes.Uh, I think you mean most non-melee classes. A core fighter or Barbarian doesn't have many at all. Even adding splatbooks, a single-class fighter or Barbarian only has a few options, and most come down to one or two 'right' paths in a field of suck.

Still, I kinda wish they'd gone the ToB route and made fighters more versatile without limiting wizards quite so much.

Also, while nobody has really presented it in this thread, it's common enough to bring up, so: I disagree with the argument that it was necessary to keep the game fun. Characters do not have to be perfectly balanced in power; they have to be decently balanced in utility, with everyone having a role. Fighters sucked because even if you played normally into levels past 6 or so, their role started to drastically decline.

A 3rd edition rogue, though, actually worked really well -- sure, you could theoretically use magic to replace many of their powers, but for several reasons it doesn't generally happen. I've argued against this in other threads -- it's hard to replace constant 24/7 spot/listen/sense motive without fairly high-level magic, while using magical means to search every single room and corridor you encounter is going to burn a huge amount of resources and get old fast. Plus, things like sneak attack and move silently are optimized to work with wizards as a team rather than being replaced by them -- instead of invisibility rendering rogues obsolete the way you might expect, it just makes them more awesome.

They badly needed a way to hide and do other 'rogue things' in combat (beyond just sneak attacking), which 4th edition did provide, but despite that I think the 3rd edition rogue worked really well... and I think that's what they should've done with 4th-edition melee classes.

Your fighter doesn't have to be absolutely as good as the mage in all respects; it's fine for the mage to be mysterious and powerful. Your fighter just has to do some things better than the mage, better enough (and things that matter enough) to create a fun role for everyone. Give fighters more ways to get good initative scores, make casting take more time, make it much much harder to cast with an enemy focusing on you, etc.

Trying to make everyone completely balanced at all times results in cookie-cutter classes... It's possible for a game to be "overbalanced", to the point where the things that make roles and options distinct start to suffer. They don't (and shouldn't) all be equal options; they just have to all be good options, which isn't the same thing at all.

Reel On, Love
2008-06-02, 02:41 PM
4e is not an RPG in any traditional meaning of the term.

Tippy, if you can't manage to roleplay in 4E, there's no helpin' ya.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 02:43 PM
Uh, I think you mean most non-melee classes. A core fighter or Barbarian doesn't have many at all. Even adding splatbooks, a single-class fighter or Barbarian only has a few options, and most come down to one or two 'right' paths in a field of suck.
That is why they should have been thrown out the window in 4e. ToB is one of the best books ever published for D&D. It's real sad that they didn't keep it.

The Warblade is a melee class. The Crusader is a melee class. The Swordsage is a melee class. The Fighter is an NPC idiot and the barbarian isn't much better.

Devils_Advocate
2008-06-03, 02:12 AM
I talked about that with Jon recently. I can't actually repeat what he said, because I don't want another board infraction...but suffice it to say that Mr. Cook is indulging in at least a little bit of Charlie Yankee Alpha there.

As such, I more or less discount Mr. Cook's explanation. No offense, but I'll trust a source that's out of the games industry and has no reason to lie to me over somebody who's trying to maintain their credibility in said industry after releasing a badly flawed product.
Well, frankly, "This is balanced on the assumption that players won't use it, at least not too often, even though there's no more of a limit placed on its use than on the use of the alternatives" sounds so dumb that it's kind of hard to believe that anyone actually believed that. Was powergaming actually a foreign concept to 3E's designers? I'm pretty sure it existed in 2E. The idea that players might pick options based on how effective they are seems like a fairly obvious concept. That the best way to test the effectiveness of an option is to run a character that makes frequent use of that option also seems pretty obvious. If you run a wizard who specializes in Enchanment but mostly casts Evocation spells, you've hardly really playtested Enchanters. You don't meaningfully playtest something by running it in an ass-backwards way.

I mean... If they accidentally created incentives to play the game "the wrong way", it pretty much follows that they didn't actually know what the hell they were doing, right?

And, here's the thing... If 3E's designers did include things like Glitterdust, Polymorph, Divine Power, and Righteous Might under the assumption that players wouldn't use them because direct damage and in-combat healing are teh roXXor...

Wouldn't that mean that they did intend to include "sucker" choices, and just in addition didn't understand how the system they designed worked well enough to realize which choices those actually were?

The basic notion that 3E was meant to be balanced just looks laughably implausible pretty much whatever way I look at it. For just one example, they theoretically could have set feat chains up so that Fighers could keep getting better and better feats in the same basic sort of way that Wizards automatically keep getting better and better spells. But they pretty blatantly didn't. It's just sort of hard to believe that they didn't mean for high-level and especially Epic spellcasters to have Real Ultimate Power but gave it to them anyway.

Matthew
2008-06-03, 08:52 AM
That's actually a very valid point. It feels like WotC's going "back to their (OK, TSR's) roots". I wonder how it'll turn out, remembering the elitism and general moving away from that game philosophy in the late 80s and early 90s.

Hard to guess really. I suppose you will end up with a fairly vocal group of people who concentrate on and highlight the negative aspects and outcomes of that philosophy in the context of 4e, whilst ignoring or marginalising the positive. That is pretty much the situation right now with D20.

Charity
2008-06-03, 08:55 AM
Ooo Matt does this make you a double grognard? Or a grognard2?

It seems every edition we go through the same gnashing of teeth and rending of garments... :smallsigh:

Sebastian
2008-06-03, 09:14 AM
For out of combat it's usually better to just go with the flow and call for what seems to be an appropriate check when an important situation comes out then to have a bunch of in depth rules that only really apply to a few situations.

By those standards, monopoly and chess are rpg systems.

Indon
2008-06-03, 09:18 AM
Tippy, if you can't manage to roleplay in 4E, there's no helpin' ya.

You know, back when I played Diablo II on Battle.net, I would roleplay.

I mean, it's an RPG, right? And I could roleplay just fine in D2.

Sebastian
2008-06-03, 09:23 AM
Your fighter doesn't have to be absolutely as good as the mage in all respects; it's fine for the mage to be mysterious and powerful. Your fighter just has to do some things better than the mage, better enough (and things that matter enough) to create a fun role for everyone. Give fighters more ways to get good initative scores, make casting take more time, make it much much harder to cast with an enemy focusing on you, etc.


You just described 2nd edition (which I love, personally)

I agree with you game balance, while important, should not be the first thing in a RPG.

Matthew
2008-06-03, 09:24 AM
Ooo Matt does this make you a double grognard? Or a grognard2?

Apparently, I don't even qualify as an ordinary grognard; I'm not old enough and don't have sufficient background in wargames. :smallwink: On the other hand, if we just use the term literally 'grognard' meaning 'grumbler', I could probably qualify. Of course, these days I am trying to say positive or constructive things, rather than just outright negative things.



It seems every edition we go through the same gnashing of teeth and rending of garments... :smallsigh:

It is pretty much a staple of edition change, it seems. Some people don't like change and other people don't like people who don't like change. :smallbiggrin:

I don't usually think much of change for the sake of change, but I think there is an argument that edition changes reinvigorate the market, which might be considered desirable in various ways. Of course, RPGs are my hobby, not my business, so I will just continue running the games I like to run and writing the material I like to write. Not that my likes and dislikes are static and unchanging, that is one of the reasons it is worth sharing them with a larger community.



By those standards, monopoly and chess are rpg systems.

What's so bad about that?

nagora
2008-06-03, 09:39 AM
How about AD&D?
Depends on what you mean by "role". AD&D's classes were much more clearly defined, and thus had solid identities, but they didn't push players into playing the character in any particular way, by and large. Also, the lack of a (badly thought-out) skill system and pages of tiresome combat options allowed a great deal of flexibility.

I'd admit, though, that the sort of people who designed 3ed were not all what I would call burdened with over-active imaginations (hello, Skip Williams) and found the lack of rules not inspiring but bewildering and they are not alone.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-03, 09:40 AM
...

I don't usually think much of change for the sake of change, but I think there is an argument that edition changes reinvigorate the market, which might be considered desirable in various ways. Of course, RPGs are my hobby, not my business, so I will just continue running the games I like to run and writing the material I like to write. Not that my likes and dislikes are static and unchanging, that is one of the reasons it is worth sharing them with a larger community.

That's pretty much true. Back when 3e was coming out for the first time, they also announced the OGL. Back then there was a ton of OGL material that flooded the market. Both independant publishers and established publishers were coming out with new DnD material. Over time there was a gradual decline as better products tended to succeed over less polished material (and I suspect 3.5x was something of a death blow to a couple indies, but that's mere hypothesis).

Now with the advent of 4e, I haven't seen as much OGL material, but I've noticed an increase in new games, from indie to major publishers. At least one publisher even advertised a time for a switch to their game instead of DnD. If you like 4e, great. If you don't, I'd recommend checking some of the indies out. There will be plenty that aren't so hot, but there's going to be a couple that are amazing. And just maybe, you'll encourage an indie to keep trying! ... brings a tear to me eye.

Back on topic, when I think on my 1st and 2nd editions, those weren't high on versatility either. The Fighter did one thing, fight. The Magic-User used magic. The Thief thieved. The Ranger ranged -- or um, something like that. In some ways, looking back, 3e seemed to be attempting to split the difference between a game with defined roles such as previous editions, and a game with high versatility that allows more choice. In my opinion, it's better to go one way or the other. Trying to fit all together in a neat package leads to trouble.

Indon
2008-06-03, 09:44 AM
What's so bad about that?

Nothing. In fact, Chess is much cheaper than D&D is. You could even houserule it for multiple players.

Edit: None of my friends ever seem to be in favor of combining multiple boardgames into single games, though. Interdimensional Risk (A Risk game featuring multiple Risk boards, well, interconnected) would be awesome.

nagora
2008-06-03, 10:00 AM
Nothing. In fact, Chess is much cheaper than D&D is. You could even houserule it for multiple players.

Edit: None of my friends ever seem to be in favor of combining multiple boardgames into single games, though. Interdimensional Risk (A Risk game featuring multiple Risk boards, well, interconnected) would be awesome.
That last one is essentially what I think the deities in AD&D are playing http://www.tww.cx/downloads/druids.pdf.

Matthew
2008-06-03, 10:06 AM
Back on topic, when I think on my 1st and 2nd editions, those weren't high on versatility either. The Fighter did one thing, fight. The Magic-User used magic. The Thief thieved. The Ranger ranged -- or um, something like that. In some ways, looking back, 3e seemed to be attempting to split the difference between a game with defined roles such as previous editions, and a game with high versatility that allows more choice. In my opinion, it's better to go one way or the other. Trying to fit all together in a neat package leads to trouble.

See, that's an interesting point, and I more or less agree, but perhaps for slightly different reasons. D20 tried to be all things to all people (not with any hope of success, perhaps, but that was the message many people received) and attempted to do so by creating a lot of rules that could be easily modified, but remain recognisably similar. People tended to create new feats, abilities, classes, races, etc..., but outright new rules seem to have been a minority concern.

AD&D/BD&D has very few rules, most of which govern combat. That means you either make up rules for immediate situations or you don't bother with rules for resolving various mundane things ("My character climbs the tree", "Okay, what now?"). Just about everything is mutable, except the bare bones of the rules. That sort of freedom of should be encouraged, in my opinion.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-03, 10:13 AM
True. In 1e and 2e, one tended to have to make up rules of things like, "I leap from the balcony of the tavern, down onto the assassins' table and kick their leader in the face!" 3e spent a lot of space trying to adjudicate any situation such as that, which would mean looking up rulls for the Jump skill, for possible attacks of opportunity, for surprise, all that. In some ways it felt a bit like 1st Edition Traveller, where each skill and activity had a rule that wasn't necessarily the same as other skills, which meant the game could easily be bogged down by rules referrals.

Behold_the_Void
2008-06-03, 10:20 AM
I thought the reason for most classes being damage-based was that they wanted to release the basic classes first before they moved on to more complex and potentially game-breaking classes that use more abstract abilities like enchantments and illusions.

Matthew
2008-06-03, 10:24 AM
True. In 1e and 2e, one tended to have to make up rules of things like, "I leap from the balcony of the tavern, down onto the assassins' table and kick their leader in the face!" 3e spent a lot of space trying to adjudicate any situation such as that, which would mean looking up rulls for the Jump skill, for possible attacks of opportunity, for surprise, all that.

For me, one of the chief advantages of the AD&D approach is that the group decides how realistic they want the game to be (or, perhaps more reasonably, the DM decides). Sure, you can ignore the rules in D20 to achieve the same effect, but then why bother having them in the first place? Exactly. :smallbiggrin:

Of course, that's a play style consideration. Many people want rules to explicitly govern those things, and that's fine as well.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 10:32 AM
For me, one of the chief advantages of the AD&D approach is that the group decides how realistic they want the game to be (or, perhaps more reasonably, the DM decides). Sure, you can ignore the rules in D20 to achieve the same effect, but then why bother having them in the first place? Exactly. :smallbiggrin:

Of course, that's a play style consideration. Many people want rules to explicitly govern those things, and that's fine as well.

Well, in fairness, it's also a group dynamic thing. I prefer to have a rules heavy system because:

a) My players like to argue with me.
b) My players like to look up and analyze the rules.

So, it's a trade off. As a DM I give up some design freedom and control in exchange for having a way to cut off arguments about how something was adjudicated without looking like a powerhungry jerk.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-03, 10:40 AM
I'm a simplicity type of guy, in that if someone wants to try something in a game, I like a basic rule that can be applied with little trouble and without a need to look up details in a book. It's easier to roleplay when you're not spending a large amount of time referring to rules. From what I've heard, 4e seems to be going in that direction, I'm not certain yes.

Matthew
2008-06-03, 10:43 AM
Well, in fairness, it's also a group dynamic thing. I prefer to have a rules heavy system because:

a) My players like to argue with me.
b) My players like to look up and analyze the rules.

So, it's a trade off. As a DM I give up some design freedom and control in exchange for having a way to cut off arguments about how something was adjudicated without looking like a powerhungry jerk.

Sure, I would have thought that was subsumed in play style , but I suppose I can see how dynamics may lead to compromise of play style. None of my players ever seem interested in having more than a cursory knowledge of the rules, an attitude which is strangely not transferred over to the other games we play.

That said, people love to argue about what the rule books say over on [I]Dragonsfoot (and I like to participate), but I think that's mainly a passtime. :smallbiggrin:



I'm a simplicity type of guy, in that if someone wants to try something in a game, I like a basic rule that can be applied with little trouble and without a need to look up details in a book. It's easier to roleplay when you're not spending a large amount of time referring to rules. From what I've heard, 4e seems to be going in that direction, I'm not certain yes.

Like many things in life, one man's simple isn't necessarily another's, but yeah, 4e is supposed to be easier to prepare and adjudicate than D20.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-03, 11:11 AM
...

Like many things in life, one man's simple isn't necessarily another's, but yeah, 4e is supposed to be easier to prepare and adjudicate than D20.

Well, I would take this as a good thing, having sat through 30-minute rules arguments between the DM and his wife. In general I like simplicity of play, though oddly I've loved the complexity of the 1st - 3rd edition caster classes. I'm such a hypocrite.

skywalker
2008-06-03, 11:14 AM
This thread is full of interesting, intelligent discussion. Way to rock guys:smallbiggrin:

See, that's an interesting point, and I more or less agree, but perhaps for slightly different reasons. D20 tried to be all things to all people (not with any hope of success, perhaps, but that was the message many people received) and attempted to do so by creating a lot of rules that could be easily modified, but remain recognisably similar. People tended to create new feats, abilities, classes, races, etc..., but outright new rules seem to have been a minority concern.Which I thought was an okay concept, it got people interested in d20, got them familiar with those rules as a framework, leading(Theoretically) to people being much more like to buy WOTC or OGL content. The problem, I find, is that it worked on me, and now I can't get into 4th edition because it's just enough difference to discourage me, but not enough "pop" to excite me. :smallsigh:

AD&D/BD&D has very few rules, most of which govern combat. That means you either make up rules for immediate situations or you don't bother with rules for resolving various mundane things ("My character climbs the tree", "Okay, what now?"). Just about everything is mutable, except the bare bones of the rules. That sort of freedom of should be encouraged, in my opinion. Have you ever considered moving to, or visiting the U.S.? If you have, might I recommend the great state of Tennessee? You seem like the type of person I would love to game with anytime.

Matthew
2008-06-03, 11:57 AM
Well, I would take this as a good thing, having sat through 30-minute rules arguments between the DM and his wife.

I agree.



In general I like simplicity of play, though oddly I've loved the complexity of the 1st - 3rd edition caster classes. I'm such a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy is a fundamental right of man. I think we all have double standards somewhere along the line. :smallwink:



Which I thought was an okay concept, it got people interested in d20, got them familiar with those rules as a framework, leading(Theoretically) to people being much more like to buy WOTC or OGL content. The problem, I find, is that it worked on me, and now I can't get into 4th edition because it's just enough difference to discourage me, but not enough "pop" to excite me. :smallsigh:

Yep, it can be quite seductive, really. I am similarly not seeing anything in the 4e previews or rulebooks that makes me go "Wow!", but I haven't played it yet either, so maybe I will feel differently once I have done that.



Have you ever considered moving to, or visiting the U.S.? If you have, might I recommend the great state of Tennessee? You seem like the type of person I would love to game with anytime.

Hey, thanks; I will keep that in mind if I ever do. :smallbiggrin:

nagora
2008-06-03, 12:17 PM
Hypocrisy is a fundamental right of man. I think we all have double standards somewhere along the line. :smallwink:

No, I'm the only one that gets to be a hypocrite, nobody else! :smallsmile:

Saph
2008-06-03, 01:20 PM
I thought the reason for most classes being damage-based was that they wanted to release the basic classes first before they moved on to more complex and potentially game-breaking classes that use more abstract abilities like enchantments and illusions.

Where exactly does this come from, by the way? Can someone attribute this to a quote from a WotC source, or is it just speculation?

(It doesn't make much sense in any case - how many people have had a 3.5 game ruined by illusion or enchantment spells? Enchantment was generally considered the second-most-droppable wizard school, right behind Evocation, and you could live without Illusion too.)

- Saph

Artanis
2008-06-03, 01:28 PM
I thought the reason for most classes being damage-based was that they wanted to release the basic classes first before they moved on to more complex and potentially game-breaking classes that use more abstract abilities like enchantments and illusions.
I thought the reason they gave everybody the ability to hurt things was because combat WILL happen. And if combat WILL happen, then having a craptastic non-combat class will be really, really boring when it does.

And being bored goes against the entire point of a game.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-03, 01:44 PM
It is pretty much a staple of edition change, it seems. Some people don't like change and other people don't like people who don't like change. :smallbiggrin:


May I butt in on a non-D&D related topic? The new edition of WH40K fails even to enrage /tg/, and that's saying something.

Matthew
2008-06-03, 02:11 PM
May I butt in on a non-D&D related topic? The new edition of WH40K fails even to enrage /tg/, and that's saying something.

There's a new edition? As in 5th edition? I dunno what "enrage /tg/" is, so you'll have to elaborate.

I know 4th edition literally copy pasted huge swathes of 3rd edition, as I read both a few years back. That was funny.

[edit]
Ahah! I see there's a new edition projected in thirty eight days time... War Hammer 40,000 (http://uk.games-workshop.com/warhammer40000/). You know, I seem to recall that the 41st Millennium was nearly over in the last edition timeline, so maybe this will finally be War Hammer 41,000...

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 02:14 PM
There's a new edition? As in 5th edition? I dunno what "enrage /tg/" is, so you'll have to elaborate.

I know 4th edition literally copy pasted huge swathes of 3rd edition, as I read both a few years back. That was funny.

"Enrage /tg/" means "Enraging the tabletop games section of 4chan".

Matthew
2008-06-03, 02:19 PM
"Enrage /tg/" means "Enraging the tabletop games section of 4chan".

Still drawing blanks here... "4chan?" I suppose I will go wikipedia it. So, what's the general thrust of what's being said?

1) Nobody cares about War Hammer 40,000 5e
2) Everybody is happy about War Hammer 40,000 5e
3) Everybody is resigned to War Hammer 40,000 5e
4) Something else

ghost_warlock
2008-06-03, 02:33 PM
May I butt in on a non-D&D related topic? The new edition of WH40K fails even to enrage /tg/, and that's saying something.

I've never played WH40K so I can't really comment much on that. How easy is it to make conversions between the two editions? Some systems seem to call every re-print, with a few typos fixed and maybe some new art, a "new edition." (I'm not saying that applies to WH40K.)

One thing I haven't seen much comment on, yet, is converting from 3e to 4e.

Back when 3e came out, and my group was doing conversions, we noticed that almost every character in 2e could be converted to 3e (Core only!) without losing much and usually with what appeared to be an increase in power and options. A few odd races and kits were excluded, but most of the stuff from the 2e class splatbooks could be ported to 3e via a combination of creative multiclassing and feat/skill choices.

Fighters, which seemed to be mostly about how high their % Strength was and their choice of weapon in 2e now had Core non-weapon profic...er 'skills' and, more-so, feats to individualize them (even if some feats eventually turned out to be bad investments).

Sneak Attack was, in all ways, superior to Backstab and the rogue skill suite was an impressive way to mimic the old percentile-based thief skill set while giving them other options as well. Oh, and feats!

The same goes for spellcasters - metamagic, actual rules for item creation, domains, flexible options for school specialization (no more pre-determined opposing schools), and bonus spells for high ability scores.

Converting a 2e character to 3e would leave you with virtually all the options you used to have and an assortment of new ones.

This simply doesn't seem to be the case when converting 3e to 4e, even if restricted to 3.x Core-only. A number of Core character classes are no longer present and some of the ones that are present seem to lack the choices their 3.x counterparts enjoyed - domains for clerics, school specialization for wizards, favored enemies for ranger(?).

Who came out ahead in this? Fighters, Paladins, and Marshals(?). Rogues and Rangers seem like they made out alright. Spellcasters got nerfed (which they may, admittedly, have had coming). Bards, Barbarians, Monks, and Druids got the axe with a disclaimer to 'wait for a splatbook.'

I guess my point is that 4e can be treated as a seperate system, a seperate entity, sure. But I'm sure I'm not the only player who would have liked to convert old, beloved 3e characters to the new system and, in many cases, this simply isn't possible.

To me, it seems like 4e is an incomplete product that WotC rushed into print.

I also find it interesting that Bard, Barbarian, and Monk will each likely be found in a different splatbook.

But, meh, enough of this.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 02:46 PM
Short story: You can't convert 3.5 to 4th.

Long one: It's not rushed. It was a decision specifically taken to delay the arrival of some things to test 'em more.

Not to mention, the devs realized that most of the classes you mentioned were:

A) Just a slightly different tack at one thing (barbs).

B) Completely gamebreaking (Druids, fascination bards).

C) A, for the moment, unsalvageable bunch of crap (Monk).

D) Difficult to implement without breaking the game (Summons, illusions, Bards in general).

4th is a completely new take on the idea of High fantasy. Revolutionary ideas are best taken with caution, and slowly and patiently matured. If you expected that everything 3.5 embodied was going to be in in 4th, it'd be no surprise that it seems like a rushed job.

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 02:47 PM
True. In 1e and 2e, one tended to have to make up rules of things like, "I leap from the balcony of the tavern, down onto the assassins' table and kick their leader in the face!" 3e spent a lot of space trying to adjudicate any situation such as that, which would mean looking up rulls for the Jump skill, for possible attacks of opportunity, for surprise, all that. In some ways it felt a bit like 1st Edition Traveller, where each skill and activity had a rule that wasn't necessarily the same as other skills, which meant the game could easily be bogged down by rules referrals.

I like this about 4e; things getting abstract, encapsulated mechanics makes it easier to improvise and stay reasonable.


AD&D/BD&D has very few rules, most of which govern combat. That means you either make up rules for immediate situations or you don't bother with rules for resolving various mundane things ("My character climbs the tree", "Okay, what now?"). Just about everything is mutable, except the bare bones of the rules. That sort of freedom of should be encouraged, in my opinion.

See my sig. :D They even give the example of swinging off a chandelier and kicking an ogre into a fire brazier.

Behold_the_Void
2008-06-03, 02:52 PM
Where exactly does this come from, by the way? Can someone attribute this to a quote from a WotC source, or is it just speculation?

(It doesn't make much sense in any case - how many people have had a 3.5 game ruined by illusion or enchantment spells? Enchantment was generally considered the second-most-droppable wizard school, right behind Evocation, and you could live without Illusion too.)

- Saph

I think someone mentioned it in the context of a quote from a WotC employee, but I haven't seen any direct backing. Honestly it makes sense, at least on the illusion level. I'm creating my own system at the moment and defining what exactly Illusions CAN do requires a good amount of effort.

Matthew
2008-06-03, 02:56 PM
See my sig. :D They even give the example of swinging off a chandelier and kicking an ogre into a fire brazier.

Unfortunately, I cannot see your sig at all, so I am not sure what you're pointing at. However, taking a blind shot, I will say that D20 gave almost the exact same example in the DMG. The point in the above reference was that the DM/Players can decide what's reasonable without resorting to number crunching of any sort.

Here we go, page 25 of the D20 D&D DMG:



A monk wants to jump up, grab a chandelier, and swing on it into an enemy. You rule that a DC 13 Dexterity check allows the monk to grab the chandelier and swing. The player asks if the monk can use his Tumble skill, and you let him. Ruling that the swing is somewhat like a charge, you give the monk a +2 bonus on the roll to see if his dramatic swinging attack succeeds.

Rutee
2008-06-03, 03:01 PM
By those standards, monopoly and chess are rpg systems.

Funny how those work better as RPGs then 3.X as written then, isn't it?

Indon
2008-06-03, 03:03 PM
Funny how those work better as RPGs then 3.X as written then, isn't it?

How so?

Because D&D, and other tabletop games, have systems and specific mechanics that facilitate roleplaying. Chess does not.

skywalker
2008-06-03, 04:11 PM
See my sig. :D They even give the example of swinging off a chandelier and kicking an ogre into a fire brazier.
Yes, besides agreeing with what Matthew said about examples and that sort of thing, I too cannot see your sig.

Whar'd it go?!

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 04:29 PM
Bah, didn't show up.

My favorite thing about 4th Edition is DMG Page 42. It's the answer to most everything.

EDIT: To fill in for the others, it's a table that lists appropriate DCs for all character levels based on whether you want the task to be easy/normal/hard, and provides appropriate damage values (if you're trying to improvise something that deals damage) based on whether it's a one-time event or you expect the players to keep doing it. This table pulls double-duty for monster creation, and triple-duties as a benchmark for new powers. It's the table that should have been in the previous additions (and might have, if anyone had ever bothered to set the systems up with balanced math to the point that such a table was possible in the first place).

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 04:35 PM
Bah, didn't show up.

My favorite thing about 4th Edition is DMG Page 42. It's the answer to most everything.

EDIT: To fill in for the others, it's a table that lists appropriate DCs for all character levels based on whether you want the task to be easy/normal/hard, and provides appropriate damage values (if you're trying to improvise something that deals damage) based on whether it's a one-time event or you expect the players to keep doing it. This table pulls double-duty for monster creation, and triple-duties as a benchmark for new powers. It's the table that should have been in the previous additions (and might have, if anyone had ever bothered to set the systems up with balanced math to the point that such a table was possible in the first place).

That said, I STILL have to make up things on the fly when the ranger tries for a ricochet shot. :smalltongue:

D'you think a -5 to AB would be enough to express how it's goddanged difficult to do those trick shots?

Matthew
2008-06-03, 04:35 PM
Bah, didn't show up.

My favorite thing about 4th Edition is DMG Page 42. It's the answer to most everything.

EDIT: To fill in for the others, it's a table that lists appropriate DCs for all character levels based on whether you want the task to be easy/normal/hard, and provides appropriate damage values (if you're trying to improvise something that deals damage) based on whether it's a one-time event or you expect the players to keep doing it. This table pulls double-duty for monster creation, and triple-duties as a benchmark for new powers.
Ha, ha. 42 is the answer to almost anything. Well, I think you might find certain Galactic Hitchikers who might well agree with you there. :smallbiggrin:

However, a table that assigns DCs sounds quite contrary to the concept of that was being discussed above. That said, perhaps it bears further investigation; I will take a look.

[edit]
Okay, so it's a Level Scaled Difficulty Class Table. The thing is (for me), I can reproduce the essentials of that in about three seconds:

Easy: 70%
Average: 50%
Hard: 30%

Job done. That's the AD&D 1e way of abstractly resolving tasks with a chance of failure.

Sebastian
2008-06-03, 04:51 PM
True. In 1e and 2e, one tended to have to make up rules of things like, "I leap from the balcony of the tavern, down onto the assassins' table and kick their leader in the face!" 3e spent a lot of space trying to adjudicate any situation such as that, which would mean looking up rulls for the Jump skill, for possible attacks of opportunity, for surprise, all that. In some ways it felt a bit like 1st Edition Traveller, where each skill and activity had a rule that wasn't necessarily the same as other skills, which meant the game could easily be bogged down by rules referrals.

Yes, but as you said 1e2e had quite few rules even for combat, but when 4e have pages and pages of powers and detailed rules for combat and then for things out of combat essentially say "oh, just make some stuff up and roll some dice" I think I have some right to say that IMHO it don't really help roleplaying. It is the old story to only have hammers as tools and everything looking like nails, when have detailed rules for combat and vague rules for anything else when you have a problem to solve what do you think would be your first approach?

Matthew
2008-06-03, 04:57 PM
It is the old story to only have hammers as tools and everything looking like nails, when have detailed rules for combat and vague rules for anything else when you have a problem to solve what do you think would be your first approach?

Heh, heh. That is a very common complaint by AD&D folk about D20's universal task resolution system. Personally, I am not necessarily on board with that line of thought, but it is an interesting criticism.

Merlin the Tuna
2008-06-03, 05:05 PM
I thought the reason for most classes being damage-based was that they wanted to release the basic classes first before they moved on to more complex and potentially game-breaking classes that use more abstract abilities like enchantments and illusions.As I recall, there were two major reasons for this. The first is that they wanted a consistent "health bar," as it were. By having all classes primarily damage based, contribution between party members is more consistent. This is related to the lack of save-or-dies; since everyone is working on the same scale, players are more clearly working together, and it's easier for the DM to see how the fight is progressing.

The other reason is that the 3.5 Wizard was basically designed as a guy who could be awesome at pretty much anything he wanted to be, which made actually making an Enchanter or Illusionist class pretty difficult to make. They elected to pare down the Wizard's design space beyond "Guy who is better than you."

Sebastian
2008-06-03, 05:14 PM
I thought the reason they gave everybody the ability to hurt things was because combat WILL happen. And if combat WILL happen, then having a craptastic non-combat class will be really, really boring when it does.

And being bored goes against the entire point of a game.

And combat will happpen because combat is the only thing all classes are good at. And classes are all good at combat because...

When the only tool you have is an hammer...

kc0bbq
2008-06-03, 05:19 PM
And combat will happpen because combat is the only thing all classes are good at. And classes are all good at combat because...

When the only tool you have is an hammer...Still no one defines why you can't do anything outside of combat. If you're saying in the hands of a terrible gaming group the system is nothing more than a combat generator, well, that's a universal truth.

Sebastian
2008-06-03, 05:32 PM
Heh, heh. That is a very common complaint by AD&D folk about D20's universal task resolution system. Personally, I am not necessarily on board with that line of thought, but it is an interesting criticism.

Actually I was thinking about 4e in general and skill challenges in particolar, maybe abstract is a better word than vague, d20 is not so vague, or abstract, skill have a number of details in form of modifiers to decide what is happening and how hard would be a certain check, you know that i.e. to climb a wall so and so would be a climb check DC x no matter what his your level, maybe not ultradetailed but detailed enough for me (and is easy enough to add more detail with optional rules (i.e level of succes/stunts/skill tricks/etc)
With skill challenge all seems a lot more arbitrary, a check will be easy, hard or normal which will be dependent on your level. So no matter your level there will always be walls hard to climb, even if they are the same walls of when you were 1st level.

Matthew
2008-06-03, 05:45 PM
Actually I was thinking about 4e in general and skill challenges in particolar,

Yes, I know, I was drawing a parallel with your "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."



maybe abstract is a better word than vague, d20 is not so vague, or abstract, skill have a number of details in form of modifiers to decide what is happening and how hard would be a certain check, you know that i.e. to climb a wall so and so would be a climb check DC x no matter what his your level, maybe not ultradetailed but detailed enough for me (and is easy enough to add more detail with optional rules (i.e level of succes/stunts/skill tricks/etc)
With skill challenge all seems a lot more arbitrary, a check will be easy, hard or normal which will be dependent on your level. So no matter your level there will always be walls hard to climb, even if they are the same walls of when you were 1st level.

It's six and two threes really. Every time you use dice or maths in an RPG to determine the outcome of an action, you are abstracting the resolution of that task.

What D20 has, as compared to 4e, is more math. This can be thought of as 'more detail', but in fact the system is so abstract that the detail is pure math, and takes little of the physics of the world into account. This has led to a lot of people taking the stance that the rules of the game are the physics of the imagined world, rather than an abstraction of that world.

Level Scaled DCs are a bit stupid, but they address a fundamental problem with the D20 system, which was that Level moved your skill up in 5% increments. Level shouldn't really be the determining factor in whether you can climb a wall or a tree, or whether you know something, or how skilled a horse rider you are. Some people disagree (perhaps you do, I don't know), and that's okay, but both views are valid.

That's one of the reasons why I consider it much easier to just say the following...

Very Easy: 90%
Easy: 70%
Average: 50%
Hard: 30%
Very Difficult: 10%

...and call it a day.

Some people prefer an intricate rule system to determine these percentages, and may even argue that it's more realistic or more fun that way; I don't agree, but then everyone has different opinions and preferences.

Rutee
2008-06-03, 05:48 PM
And combat will happpen because combat is the only thing all classes are good at. And classes are all good at combat because...

Because 90% of the rules are devoted to combat.

Are you new to Dungeons and Dragons, or did you fall for the part int he DMG where it lists that every style of game is easy and works wonderfully in DnD?

Talya
2008-06-03, 06:07 PM
Because 90% of the rules are devoted to combat.

Are you new to Dungeons and Dragons, or did you fall for the part int he DMG where it lists that every style of game is easy and works wonderfully in DnD?

I think it does. Heck, I'm playing in a game where i'm currently primarily attempting to advance the worship of a Goddess in a city where She has no following, and build a huge temple there. Uses a lot of elements you'd expect to see more in BoEF too, without actually officially using that book. Yes, we get into combat. But I'd say the playstyle is very, very different from what you think D&D works best with. And it's working, great.

Prophaniti
2008-06-03, 06:26 PM
Because 90% of the rules are devoted to combat.
90% of nearly any rules system are about combat or combat-related issues. That's what we want the rules to arbitrate for us, so it doesn't become a childrens game of 'I hit it.', 'Did not!', 'Did too!'. Social interaction and most roleplaying don't need hard and fast rules, though they can benefit from them.

Honestly, I don't care for 4E. This is because I feel that their quest for Balance has resulted in a bland and boring combat system, where everyone does exactly the same thing with different flavor text. Which is not what I'm after. My distaste is not because I feel the lack of out of combat rules will impact my roleplaying ability. Sure, some systems seem to encourage more roleplaying than others because of more detailed rules for it, but I've yet to see one that I'd say really discourages it.

And, for the record, D&D does support any play style, just as well as any other system does. Play style meaning roleplay vs hack'n'slash. It may not fit the kind of combat you want, for instance if you want a really gritty one where PCs die a lot and things are hard, D&D (3E and 4E at least) is probably not ideal. It will still work, but other systems (because of the combat rules, mind) will work better with less effort from the DM.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 06:28 PM
I think it does. Heck, I'm playing in a game where i'm currently primarily attempting to advance the worship of a Goddess in a city where She has no following, and build a huge temple there. Uses a lot of elements you'd expect to see more in BoEF too, without actually officially using that book. Yes, we get into combat. But I'd say the playstyle is very, very different from what you think D&D works best with. And it's working, great.

Yeah, Narrative Immersion games usually rock.

They're a very minor section of the games played every year.

Aquillion
2008-06-03, 06:46 PM
90% of nearly any rules system are about combat or combat-related issues.That's not really true. Most of the manuals for other games (the ones I've read, anyway), have one specific section devoted to "combat", some abilities, skills, or whatever in other sections that support combat, and... that's it.

D&D's intense focus on boot-down-the-door-and-grab-the-treasure goes pretty far beyond most of the other systems out there.

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 07:05 PM
That said, I STILL have to make up things on the fly when the ranger tries for a ricochet shot. :smalltongue:

D'you think a -5 to AB would be enough to express how it's goddanged difficult to do those trick shots?

Out of curiosity, I'll pose your question back to you: What odds of success would you expect for that shot? I find it pretty ridiculous myself, particularly if you're referring to inflicting damage on a moving target, then bouncing off and hitting a second, aimed target.


Okay, so it's a Level Scaled Difficulty Class Table. The thing is (for me), I can reproduce the essentials of that in about three seconds:

Easy: 70%
Average: 50%
Hard: 30%

Job done. That's the AD&D 1e way of abstractly resolving tasks with a chance of failure.

Anecdotally, players are usually frustrated by a system that provides advancement, yet scales difficulty to match advancement exactly. (Example: the character gains +1 to damage only to find that enemies now resist 1 more point of damage per attack.) The table, at least, rewards characters who spent feats and focused ability scores to be above-average at that ability, even for individuals of their level. You're right in that the table and a straight role are roughly equivalent, but the table at least provides some semblance of advancement (or even individual excellence). Incidentally, does DMs setting DCs for random tasks not listed in the books ever come down to more than deciding if it should be easy, typical, or very hard for someone of the PC's level?


And combat will happpen because combat is the only thing all classes are good at. And classes are all good at combat because...

...because the PHB explains: You're roleplaying an adventurer. Dangerous things happen around them; otherwise it wouldn't be much of an adventure. Playing the guy who frequently gets into danger, cries, curls up, gets stabbed, and promptly dies, sucks. If you want to portray a character that doesn't get thrown into significant battles, perhaps you shouldn't use a system that explains on its first page that you're creating a heroic adventurer. Or, at the very least, limit your complaints that it doesn't suit your needs.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 07:08 PM
Out of curiosity, I'll pose your question back to you: What odds of success would you expect for that shot? I find it pretty ridiculous myself, particularly if you're referring to inflicting damage on a moving target, then bouncing off and hitting a second, aimed target.


No, that shot would be aimed at a wall and should rebound TO the target. Who is stationary. The odds go up by quite a bit with that.

Matthew
2008-06-03, 07:14 PM
Anecdotally, players are usually frustrated by a system that provides advancement, yet scales difficulty to match advancement exactly. (Example: the character gains +1 to damage only to find that enemies now resist 1 more point of damage per attack.) The table, at least, rewards characters who spent feats and focused ability scores to be above-average at that ability, even for individuals of their level. You're right in that the table and a straight role are roughly equivalent, but the table at least provides some semblance of advancement (or even individual excellence). Incidentally, does DMs setting DCs for random tasks not listed in the books ever come down to more than deciding if it should be easy, typical, or very hard for someone of the PC's level?

Well, part of deciding whether a task is easy, average or hard is taking into account the character (usually not his level, though you could add that to the percentage if you really wanted and thought it appropriate). A wheezy old Mage might find climbing a wall hard, whilst an unencumbered Fighter might not even need to roll. The problem that D20 created for itself is a problem that can be entirely negated by not advancing skills by level (or at the very least not in 5% increments).

Character resource management or 'character building' is a problem in and of itself (in my opinion).

Talya
2008-06-03, 07:17 PM
Yeah, Narrative Immersion games usually rock.

They're a very minor section of the games played every year.

Huh. I don't think I could really stand to play anything else. :)

Rutee
2008-06-03, 07:17 PM
I think it does. Heck, I'm playing in a game where i'm currently primarily attempting to advance the worship of a Goddess in a city where She has no following, and build a huge temple there. Uses a lot of elements you'd expect to see more in BoEF too, without actually officially using that book. Yes, we get into combat. But I'd say the playstyle is very, very different from what you think D&D works best with. And it's working, great.

And I'm sure something else will work far better for that style of game (Of course, you'll get into specifics about how you 'need' some specific spell because the entire plot hinges on it, and insist that something that does similar wouldn't work, or that the plot couldn't actually work differently at all)

DnD is /the/ kick down the door, loot the room game. Period. Anyone bitching about how 4e suddenly turns it into that /did not read the 3.0 rulebook and materials/. I bet 2e and 1e are the same in this regard.


90% of nearly any rules system are about combat or combat-related issues. That's what we want the rules to arbitrate for us, so it doesn't become a childrens game of 'I hit it.', 'Did not!', 'Did too!'. Social interaction and most roleplaying don't need hard and fast rules, though they can benefit from them.
Uh, no. They really aren't. I'm sorry, but if you look at other games, you will find that they really don't devote 90% of their page space to combat. Hell, WoD is popular! Go look /that/ up. Changeling, among that line is maybe 20% combat, and that's counting competitive dreamweaving.

Prophaniti
2008-06-03, 08:16 PM
Uh, no. They really aren't. I'm sorry, but if you look at other games, you will find that they really don't devote 90% of their page space to combat. Hell, WoD is popular! Go look /that/ up. Changeling, among that line is maybe 20% combat, and that's counting competitive dreamweaving.
Well, my personal experience is limited to d20, Dark Heresy, some GURPS, and a little bit of Shadowrun, all of which have roughly the same mix of rules for combat vs non combat. This Dreamweaving sounds similar to Shadowrun's Matrix net which, while not strictly combat-oriented, is something peculiar to the 'verse, so I usually exclude it from the count of non-combat rules.

By non-combat rules I mean rules for non-violent physical efforts like climbing a cliff or balancing on a beam (can be used in combat, but then what can't if you really want to?), or social rules like bluffing or diplomacy (same story). I would also throw in rules for trade goods, cities, transportation, and anything similar in here.

Artanis
2008-06-03, 08:22 PM
And combat will happpen because combat is the only thing all classes are good at. And classes are all good at combat because...

When the only tool you have is an hammer...
That's not what I mean and you damn well know it.


The very fact that there are rules for combat means that unless you go REAL far out of your way to avoid it, sooner or later, you'll end up fighting. When you're fighting, the guys who play non-combat characters get to sit around bored out of their minds. And then when combat is over and the non-combat characters get to shine, the people playing combat characters will be bored out of their minds.

When half your players are going to be bored senseless no matter what you do, it's a Very Bad Thing.

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 08:23 PM
No, that shot would be aimed at a wall and should rebound TO the target. Who is stationary. The odds go up by quite a bit with that.

I guess it'd be up to the Rule of Cool, then: do you want to reward or penalize the player for his thinking? For a more rule-based example, d20 Modern has the Skip Shot feat, which lets characters do so (thereby ignoring the target's cover) at a penalty of -2 on the attack and a reduction in damage by one die (since guns are all 2dX weapons).

Rutee
2008-06-03, 10:24 PM
Well, my personal experience is limited to d20, Dark Heresy, some GURPS, and a little bit of Shadowrun, all of which have roughly the same mix of rules for combat vs non combat. This Dreamweaving sounds similar to Shadowrun's Matrix net which, while not strictly combat-oriented, is something peculiar to the 'verse, so I usually exclude it from the count of non-combat rules.
Dark Heresy has maybe 50% combat rules, tops, unless you count the entirety of all career paths and Talents (Which would be strange, since while they advance combat, that's hardly the only thing they do). Don't have the other two in front of me, but why /wouldn't/ setting specific things count? And come to think of it, I think I gave too high a number for Changeling, since almost every Contract I've looked at is for out of combat, in terms of obvious uses (Though the MacGuyver Clause would certainly be entertaining to use for.. well pretty much anything)


By non-combat rules I mean rules for non-violent physical efforts like climbing a cliff or balancing on a beam (can be used in combat, but then what can't if you really want to?), or social rules like bluffing or diplomacy (same story). I would also throw in rules for trade goods, cities, transportation, and anything similar in here.
I'm including everything involved heavily in dungeon crawling. Stealth isn't, since on a thematic level it's not terribly involved, but Trapfinding would be, f'rex.

Person_Man
2008-06-04, 09:36 AM
That is why they should have been thrown out the window in 4e. ToB is one of the best books ever published for D&D. It's real sad that they didn't keep it.

Agreed.

I'm just now reading through the 4E books, and it will be a few months before I actually play it, unless I can find a new group in the DC area that isn't desperately clinging to their 3.5 books. But I'm just baffled that they didn't base 4E entirely around the ToB - every class gets maneuvers (or powers, or whatever you want to call them) which they get from lists of specific disciplines. If you multi-class, your manifester level is = manifester level in base class + 1/2 levels in all other classes. How awesome would that have been?

Prophaniti
2008-06-04, 09:58 AM
I'm including everything involved heavily in dungeon crawling. Stealth isn't, since on a thematic level it's not terribly involved, but Trapfinding would be, f'rex.

That's not really fair criteria, since many rpgs don't have a typical 'dungeon crawl' as the 'default' setting. What makes sense is to look at how detailed or complicated the actual combat rules are (the ones that tell you how to hurt people) vs the ones that are not directly involved in combat (generally not used to hurt people). Also, we're just talking about the percentage of the rules sections here, right? Not percentage of pages in the whole book. Because a lot of the books, including Dark Heresy and Shadowrun, have pages and pages of setting background and info. The D&D books, core at least, are pretty light on that, since its assumed you'll design your own setting or buy the books for a premade one.

And, minor nitpick, stealth can be a huge deal in combat.

Talya
2008-06-04, 10:10 AM
But I'm just baffled that they didn't base 4E entirely around the ToB - every class gets maneuvers (or powers, or whatever you want to call them) which they get from lists of specific disciplines. If you multi-class, your manifester level is = manifester level in base class + 1/2 levels in all other classes. How awesome would that have been?


I would have loved that. ToB rocks.

Rutee
2008-06-04, 10:33 AM
That's not really fair criteria, since many rpgs don't have a typical 'dungeon crawl' as the 'default' setting.
This denies that DnD is the kick down the door, loot the room RPG because...?



And, minor nitpick, stealth can be a huge deal in combat.

So what? So's the MacGuyver Clause, Charm Person, invisibility, etc. That doesn't mean they're primarily combat tools (Though then again, almost all of invisibility's rules relate to what it does in combat, so..)

Prophaniti
2008-06-04, 10:51 AM
This denies that DnD is the kick down the door, loot the room RPG because...?I never denied it. I'm just saying that since we're comparing percentage of combat rules, we need to have a fair basis of comparison. I'm using rules that are directly used to hurt people as that basis, which does not include most 'dungeon crawl' utility rules.


So what? So's the MacGuyver Clause, Charm Person, invisibility, etc. That doesn't mean they're primarily combat tools (Though then again, almost all of invisibility's rules relate to what it does in combat, so..)

I said it was a minor nitpick. I still don't count stealth rules as combat rules. And how does 'turns off if you perform a hostile action' make up most of the invisibility rules? Anything further it says is merely to clarify what counts as a hostile action.

Talya
2008-06-04, 10:56 AM
The basic reason is most things don't need complex rules. Combat is complicated, it requires a lot more empirical definition than out of combat things. A simple set of skills and a few ability score checks are all you usually need to handle out of combat "mechanics." Most of it simply isn't that mechanical.

Prophaniti
2008-06-04, 11:17 AM
Well, yeah, that's what I meant when I made the (deliberately) exaggerated statement that most RPGs are 90% combat rules. With some notable exceptions, the combat section of the rule book is the most complex, and the longest dedicated explicitely to rules. (the sections detailing skills, feats, powers, weapons and so forth are catalogues of options, not explanations of how a rule works. That's what I mean, in case there's any confusion.)

Matthew
2008-06-04, 11:24 AM
Well, yeah, that's what I meant when I made the (deliberately) exaggerated statement that most RPGs are 90% combat rules. With some notable exceptions, the combat section of the rule book is the most complex, and the longest dedicated explicitely to rules. (the sections detailing skills, feats, powers, weapons and so forth are catalogues of options, not explanations of how a rule works. That's what I mean, in case there's any confusion.)

Okay, not to be contrary (well kind of not), but 50% of just about every D&D PHB has been Spells. Now, we might say "spells are for combat" and that might be true, but seriously, 130 pages of 320 are devoted to magic. The combat section is 30 pages; feats and equipment take up 15 pages each.

Similarly, 90 pages of the DMG are devoted to magic items. Magic is the dominant thing in the core rules (excluding monsters, which are basically piles of combat statistics).

Friv
2008-06-04, 11:32 AM
Well, yeah, that's what I meant when I made the (deliberately) exaggerated statement that most RPGs are 90% combat rules. With some notable exceptions, the combat section of the rule book is the most complex, and the longest dedicated explicitely to rules. (the sections detailing skills, feats, powers, weapons and so forth are catalogues of options, not explanations of how a rule works. That's what I mean, in case there's any confusion.)

You should see the social combat section in Exalted. :smalltongue:

More seriously, a lot of systems go into detail on how to manage skill checks for every one of twenty or thirty skills, listing difficulties, examples, and opposition, and then give combat about ten or twenty pages (or less, in some games). The result is that the bulk of the rules aren't about fights, and the game assumes that a fight will not necessarily happen in a given session (or story, or even campaign). This is not the default assumption of D&D, by a long stretch.

Prophaniti
2008-06-04, 11:38 AM
Okay, not to be contrary (well kind of not), but 50% of just about every D&D PHB has been Spells. Now, we might say "spells are for combat" and that might be true, but seriously, 130 pages of 320 are devoted to magic. The combat section is 30 pages; feats and equipment take up 15 pages each.

Similarly, 90 pages of the DMG are devoted to magic items. Magic is the dominant thing in the core rules (excluding monsters, which are basically piles of combat statistics).

Yeah, I know. But again, the 130 pages of spells are not counted as a 'rules' section, because they do not describe how a rule works. Only the first 3-4 pages there, the ones that go over the how of spellcasting, are the ones I would count. Same with the magic items section. I would count the pages for creating magic items, as well as the ones discussing how they are affected by attacks and such, but I wouldn't count the pages of different specific items.

Matthew
2008-06-04, 12:01 PM
Yeah, I know. But again, the 130 pages of spells are not counted as a 'rules' section, because they do not describe how a rule works. Only the first 3-4 pages there, the ones that go over the how of spellcasting, are the ones I would count. Same with the magic items section. I would count the pages for creating magic items, as well as the ones discussing how they are affected by attacks and such, but I wouldn't count the pages of different specific items.

Let's count up pages of actual rules, then. I, for one, would be interested to see the outcome.

Prophaniti
2008-06-04, 12:04 PM
Let's count up pages of actual rules, then. I, for one, would be interested to see the outcome.

Well, I happen to have my Dark Heresy manual in my pack at work, but the rest will have to wait till I get home... and then some. Just moved and there's no shortage of chores to consume my time. Hurray for a slow day at work with a computer in front of the the whole time! Only reason I'm able to post at all today, really.

Rutee
2008-06-04, 12:09 PM
Okay, not to be contrary (well kind of not), but 50% of just about every D&D PHB has been Spells. Now, we might say "spells are for combat" and that might be true, but seriously, 130 pages of 320 are devoted to magic. The combat section is 30 pages; feats and equipment take up 15 pages each.
Evocation, Abjuration, Conjuration, and Necromancy are almost completely combat based, as are their counterpart spells in the Cleric list. Many Transmutation, Divination, Illusion, and Enchantment spells are as well.

Matthew
2008-06-04, 12:28 PM
Well, I happen to have my Dark Heresy manual in my pack at work, but the rest will have to wait till I get home... and then some. Just moved and there's no shortage of chores to consume my time. Hurray for a slow day at work with a computer in front of the the whole time! Only reason I'm able to post at all today, really.

Ha, ha. Okay, well, I am willing to wait and see. It's be interesting to see how it compares of Star Wars D6, Shadow Run, WHFRP, etc... I have a bunch of different RPGs hereabouts, so once I can see the criteria, we can measure up and see what's what.

Prophaniti
2008-06-04, 12:40 PM
First rough count of Dark Heresy book: ~55 pages of actual rules, ~22 of which were directly related to combat, as in they had little to no application outside of it. So ~50% for that one.

Matthew
2008-06-04, 04:25 PM
Okay, I am still a bit hazy about the criteria, but I will give it a go:

RuneQuest (Core Rules, 128 Pages)

Title Page: 1
Introduction: 2
Creating a Character: 13
Skills: 14
Equipment: 13
Combat: 18
Magic: 17
Cults: 5
Adventuring: 10
Experience: 11
Creatures: 18
Index: 2
Character Sheets: 4

Swordguy
2008-06-04, 04:39 PM
Well, frankly, "This is balanced on the assumption that players won't use it, at least not too often, even though there's no more of a limit placed on its use than on the use of the alternatives" sounds so dumb that it's kind of hard to believe that anyone actually believed that. Was powergaming actually a foreign concept to 3E's designers? I'm pretty sure it existed in 2E. The idea that players might pick options based on how effective they are seems like a fairly obvious concept. That the best way to test the effectiveness of an option is to run a character that makes frequent use of that option also seems pretty obvious. If you run a wizard who specializes in Enchanment but mostly casts Evocation spells, you've hardly really playtested Enchanters. You don't meaningfully playtest something by running it in an ass-backwards way.

I mean... If they accidentally created incentives to play the game "the wrong way", it pretty much follows that they didn't actually know what the hell they were doing, right?

And, here's the thing... If 3E's designers did include things like Glitterdust, Polymorph, Divine Power, and Righteous Might under the assumption that players wouldn't use them because direct damage and in-combat healing are teh roXXor...

Wouldn't that mean that they did intend to include "sucker" choices, and just in addition didn't understand how the system they designed worked well enough to realize which choices those actually were?

The basic notion that 3E was meant to be balanced just looks laughably implausible pretty much whatever way I look at it. For just one example, they theoretically could have set feat chains up so that Fighers could keep getting better and better feats in the same basic sort of way that Wizards automatically keep getting better and better spells. But they pretty blatantly didn't. It's just sort of hard to believe that they didn't mean for high-level and especially Epic spellcasters to have Real Ultimate Power but gave it to them anyway.

Sorry to take so long getting back to you. The thread drifted into an area I didn't care about, and only on a re-read of the thread did I notice this.

In any case, this was touched upon in the original thread I linked to in the OP. Essentially, the idea was to give people some options besides direct damage/combat healing - not to replace them. I think it was Dan_Hemmens who had it right when he said (paraphrased): "Even if you're a cleric of the God of Smashing Things Good with Hammers, you're still expected to play the party healer".

I got ahold of one of the spell lists for the playtesters.

Mage Armor, True Strike, Magic Missile, Melf's Acid Arrow, Glitterdust Invisibility, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Dispel magic, Suggestion, Tongues, Hold Person, Haste, Minor Globe of Invulnerability, Ice Storm, Improved Invisbility, Rainbow Pattern, Dismissal, Feeblemind, Cone of Cold, Teleport, Globe of Invulnerability, Greater Dispelling, Analyze Dweomer, Legend Lore, True Seeing, Chain Lightning, Disintegrate, Banishment, Spell Turning, PW: Stun, Delayed Blast Fireball, Prismatic Spray, Finger of Death, Plane Shift, Teleport w/o Error, Prismatic Wall, Protection from Spells, Polymorph any Object, Prismatic Sphere, PW: Kill, Meteor Swarm, Wish


Look at those spells. They clearly indicate a definite bias toward blasting.

They playtested the game with an eye toward furthering the gamestyle paradigm they had established (and that made D&D famous) in the 1970's. They saw that the game was playable and reasonably balanced when using THAT PLAYSTYLE (which they tell you over and over to use in the various books), saw that there were some extra options for casters, saw that It Was Good, and called it a day. While they were certainly aware that powergamers existed, from what I understand the philosophy was that 1) DM should handle that by talking to the offending player, or 2) players should be mature enough not to do it. They trusted the players to police themselves.

Clearly, that didn't work.

Ergot, 4th edition, where your ability to powergame is (thus far) SEVERELY reduced because you can't take on multiple roles (and have their respective powers interact in broken way) very easily at all.

Prophaniti
2008-06-04, 05:42 PM
Heh, yeah, we are a bit off topic here, huh? Like WAY off topic... it was fun though.
I think it was Dan_Hemmens who had it right when he said (paraphrased): "Even if you're a cleric of the God of Smashing Things Good with Hammers, you're still expected to play the party healer".
God this is so true. My party freaks whenever I decide to play a War Priest, despite the fact that every time I have, no one has died because of late/no heals from me.
1) DM should handle that by talking to the offending player, or 2) players should be mature enough not to do it. They trusted the players to police themselves.

Clearly, that didn't work. Worked fine for our group...

Most of us run the roles we want, have plenty of options to keep us from getting bored, and never have wizards or druids stealing all the action while we twiddle our thumbs. 3.5 works pretty well for us. Sure we have a powergamer, and he has run some powerful casters, I don't think that player would be happy playing 4E, he lives for digging up fun rules to exploit. Honestly, though, the most overpowered/broken characters we've seen have been melee specialists, though admitedly one did do that by stacking magical buffs. I had to make a couple of spell interaction rulings, such as Fuse Arms dispelling and canceling Girallon's Blessing instead of allowing you to get a free STR buff out of it.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-06-04, 07:31 PM
Um, I don't know if anyone else noticed, but 3.5e isn't versatile at all.

What it is is a huge haystack of wrong choices with a few needles of right choices (CoDzilla, Batman wizard, etc.) buried in that haystack. When you can do thousands of things, but only a tiny handful are really any good, is that versatility or just a giant trap for beginners and an absurd playground for optimizing powergamers? And when an entire class (monk) is unable to fill any meaningful role in the game at all, is its existence really adding to versatility? Or is it just wasted ink and pages?

I don't know what 4e is yet, but 3.5e isn't versatile at all, and it's barely even playable as written once you know what can really be done. Whatever 4e is, I think 3.5e books are best as kindling.

Prophaniti
2008-06-04, 08:11 PM
No, the haystack, to continue the analogy, is composed of lots of adequate choices with a few rusty needles (poor choices) and a few shiny coins (overpowered choices).

And yes, the monk as written is not a good mechanical choice. We know this. Please leave the dead monk-horse alone and stop kicking it.

Versatility (as in adaptable to many roles or applications) is the name of the game with 3.5, I mean, that's what everyone's complaining about with the Batman Wizard and CoDzillas! They're saying the classes are too versatile! 4E hardlines every class into a specific role, which is pretty much the opposite definition of Versatile. Its good to know words, isn't it?

Reel On, Love
2008-06-04, 08:17 PM
Swordguy, I see like nine blasting spells on that list.

I also see PAO, Finger of Death, Feeblemind, Prismatic Wall, and other good spells. They must have noticed those.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-06-04, 08:37 PM
No, the haystack, to continue the analogy, is composed of lots of adequate choices with a few rusty needles (poor choices) and a few shiny coins (overpowered choices).

And yes, the monk as written is not a good mechanical choice. We know this. Please leave the dead monk-horse alone and stop kicking it.

Versatility (as in adaptable to many roles or applications) is the name of the game with 3.5, I mean, that's what everyone's complaining about with the Batman Wizard and CoDzillas! They're saying the classes are too versatile! 4E hardlines every class into a specific role, which is pretty much the opposite definition of Versatile. Its good to know words, isn't it?

The point is not whether wizards, clerics and druids are versatile; that they are is common knowledge. The point is that the 3.5e system as a whole clearly is not, save in the sense that you have many ways to gimp yourself and only a few to be worthwhile in any game that features even one optimized character.

As for how many choices are "rusty needles," you're just picking nits. I'd argue that most of the total choices available, including all feats and all classes in the equation, are rusty needles, but I'm not going to waste time and effort listing pages of useless feats and classes to try to justify that, and even if I did, I doubt you'd pay much attention. "It's good to know words, isn't it?" is not the kind of phrase someone who's open to reasoned discussion uses.

Regardless, the point is that if anyone optimizes at all competently (I don't mean by making Pun-Pun or a Cheater of Mystra -- a druid 20 or a wizard 20 is optimal enough) in 3.5e, everyone else who isn't equally optimal is just redundant. "Be total crap," "be passable," or "be so great no one else who isn't just like you matters" are all choices, yes, but in a game where everyone would like to have fun and be important, they're not choices that make for a good gaming system.

I've been skimming the 4e rules. Looks kind of fun, a little like Tome of Battle revisited? I'll have to try a game.

Prophaniti
2008-06-04, 08:53 PM
*snip to save space*I've played 3.x for a long time now, since it came out, with multiple groups. Most of the characters I run could be best described as 'adequate'. I'm not personally much of a powergamer. I have yet to have my 'adequate' characters sidelined, made irrelevant, made redundant, or not matter by an optimized character, and I've played with some pretty heave powergamers. The only time this happens is when the DM does it to me through situational encounters. We don't even use a lot of houserules.

If you honestly have these problems when you play 3.5, someone is being a total jerkass. But, hey, maybe 4E will solve those problems for you and let you have an enjoyable game with the jerkass who's ruining your 3.5 games. If it does I sincerely hope you have fun playing it and never look back. Sorry about the snarky comment earlier, I was kind of being a jerkass myself. I just know 4E is not (so far) the system I want to play. It's too restricting and bland in the combat, and I've disliked the majority of the changes they've made since the first announcement.

I'm gonna stick with 3.5 (unless its my turn to DM, in which case we'll be trying new things for a while) and continue to enjoy it. I get to go home now and see my wife and baby girl after a 13 hour day (which probably accounts for my suddenly good mood), so Goodnight, and enjoy your 'streamlined'(:smallamused:) 4E.

JaxGaret
2008-06-04, 09:07 PM
enjoy your 'streamlined'(:smallamused:) 4E.

I will, thank you :smallbiggrin:

JaxGaret
2008-06-04, 09:23 PM
I've played 3.x for a long time now, since it came out, with multiple groups. Most of the characters I run could be best described as 'adequate'. I'm not personally much of a powergamer. I have yet to have my 'adequate' characters sidelined, made irrelevant, made redundant, or not matter by an optimized character, and I've played with some pretty heave powergamers. The only time this happens is when the DM does it to me through situational encounters. We don't even use a lot of houserules.

If you honestly have these problems when you play 3.5, someone is being a total jerkass. But, hey, maybe 4E will solve those problems for you and let you have an enjoyable game with the jerkass who's ruining your 3.5 games. If it does I sincerely hope you have fun playing it and never look back. Sorry about the snarky comment earlier, I was kind of being a jerkass myself. I just know 4E is not (so far) the system I want to play. It's too restricting and bland in the combat, and I've disliked the majority of the changes they've made since the first announcement.

I'm gonna stick with 3.5 (unless its my turn to DM, in which case we'll be trying new things for a while) and continue to enjoy it. I get to go home now and see my wife and baby girl after a 13 hour day (which probably accounts for my suddenly good mood), so Goodnight, and enjoy your 'streamlined'(:smallamused:) 4E.


True, Doomsy, very true on most counts. The jarring flaws in the 'realism' of D&D's combat is one of the reasons I loved Dark Heresy so much when I picked it up. Wonderfully lethal in comparison, which makes people a lot more careful about their in-game choices. I find this helps RP a lot. Why, Dark Heresy saw our first game session EVER where they resolved the situation with no combat (though they did ambush one guy and knock him out). We'd never see that in our D&D games. If I presented the party with an exact copy of the situation in D&D, they'd have gone in weapons drawn and fought it to the bloody end.

I'm seriously considering adapting the system to a fantasy setting so we can do fantasy without defaulting to hack'n'slash. Not that there's anything wrong with hack'n'slash, but after years of the same approach, I'm ready for a change.

Your party never, ever walks away from a battle, or talks their way out of it?

Yeah, we play totally different styles of games. Walking in swords drawn in every situation in my games would get a party killed. Violence isn't the solution to every problem.

That's one of the reasons why I see 4e's balance as much preferable to 3e's imbalance.

Rutee
2008-06-04, 09:27 PM
Yeah, we play totally different styles of games. Walking in swords drawn in every situation in my games would get a party killed. Violence isn't the solution to every problem.

That's one of the reasons why I see 4e's balance as much preferable to 3e's imbalance.

:smallconfused:
I don't see the correlation here..

JaxGaret
2008-06-04, 09:29 PM
:smallconfused:
I don't see the correlation here..

The correlation is that in a game where the PCs always win, it doesn't matter what builds the players create, because the DM will always let them win. Thus, balance is struck via the DM, not via the game rules.

If you don't play that way, then 3e's imbalance sticks out like a sore thumb.

Cainen
2008-06-04, 09:48 PM
Except that wasn't what was said - the point was that a different style of game required a different playstyle.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-06-04, 10:56 PM
Actually, the point seemed to be that 3.5e doesn't break if you play a hack-and-slash, kick-in-the-door style. That actually isn't true, as you can easily break kick-in-the-door with 3.5e, but if it were true, it would really only point to how 3.5e's imbalances force you into one kind of very one-dimensional playstyle.

And they do, at that: they force you to either play the way the playtesters envisioned, or they force you to make optimal choices in order to keep up. That's not variety as I understand variety; it's a broken system with a ton of traps and a handful of rigidly defined "right" choices. Wretchedly poor design.

Oh, and apology accepted, Prophaniti. We all have our moments. :smallsmile:

kleinfehn
2008-06-04, 11:05 PM
This kind of reminds me a bit of 1st addition, where most spells took a long time get prepared, and the fighters and clerics are trying to hold back (insert creature here) so the Wizard can get off a fireball. At least, that is how it goes for us usually.

Question: In 4th addition, are the hit tables and AC for Fighters and Clerics different or not really? Assuming they have the same dexterity and type of armor and weapons. Because in 1st addition they only major difference fighting wise a cleric is to a fighter is that their hit tables are lower and they can't use sharp weapons.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-05, 01:09 AM
This kind of reminds me a bit of 1st addition, where most spells took a long time get prepared, and the fighters and clerics are trying to hold back (insert creature here) so the Wizard can get off a fireball. At least, that is how it goes for us usually.

Question: In 4th addition, are the hit tables and AC for Fighters and Clerics different or not really? Assuming they have the same dexterity and type of armor and weapons. Because in 1st addition they only major difference fighting wise a cleric is to a fighter is that their hit tables are lower and they can't use sharp weapons.

From what I understand, everyone uses the same 'hit table' regardless of class. A wizard and a fighter have the same base chance to hit an opponent before ability scores, feats, and powers come into play.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-05, 01:29 AM
Actually, the point seemed to be that 3.5e doesn't break if you play a hack-and-slash, kick-in-the-door style. That actually isn't true, as you can easily break kick-in-the-door with 3.5e, but if it were true, it would really only point to how 3.5e's imbalances force you into one kind of very one-dimensional playstyle.

And they do, at that: they force you to either play the way the playtesters envisioned, or they force you to make optimal choices in order to keep up. That's not variety as I understand variety; it's a broken system with a ton of traps and a handful of rigidly defined "right" choices. Wretchedly poor design.

Oh, and apology accepted, Prophaniti. We all have our moments. :smallsmile:

First, I don't buy that 3e breaks under kick-in-the-door style. I've played plenty of games that were little more than a series of hack and slash challenges and the only thing that ever brought that to a halt was the need to rest for the night. Even in 4e you eventually run out of healing surges and dailies.

At the same time, 3e 'imbalance' does not railroad you into a unidimensional playstyle. I've also played games where combat was a last-resort and skill checks were the only reason to ever pick up the dice.

Seriously, playstyle is 50% DM creativity and 50% player involvement in 3e. If you feel the system isn't versatile, you're being railroaded by either your DM or yourself.

If you want to play a Batman wizard, you can. However, there's nothing stopping you from playing a pirate on the seven seas (or seven skies in Eberron). You can play a scoundrel catburglar, seeking to fill your pockets with loot ganked from nobles (and trying to stay ahead of the city guards as you do so). You can play a paladin demon hunter who storm the Abyss. Practially any fantasty-based archetype is well within the reach of 3e.

As far as making poor feat choices, consult your DM before taking them. I've never understood why people have problems with this when character creation and development should involve both the player and the DM. Make the DM aware of the concept you want to play, make sure it fits with the campaign, and ask for advice in how to make it happen.

Every campaign should start with the entire group sitting down, going over the type of campaign they're going to play, and figure out what archetypes and roles everyone wants to play. If you join an already-in-progress game, make sure you figure out the roles the other players are covering and adjust your concept if needed so you don't overlap or outshine. Cooperate.

Every once in a while you'll come across an asshat player who refuses to do this; who wants to steal the spotlight. But that's the player's fault, not the system's. I'm sure, before long, people like this will find ways to break the 'balance' of 4e - there's always going to be asshats like this who'll 'break' a system no matter how idiot-proof the designers try to make it.

Devils_Advocate
2008-06-05, 02:50 AM
In any case, this was touched upon in the original thread I linked to in the OP. Essentially, the idea was to give people some options besides direct damage/combat healing - not to replace them. I think it was Dan_Hemmens who had it right when he said (paraphrased): "Even if you're a cleric of the God of Smashing Things Good with Hammers, you're still expected to play the party healer".
So, they either didn't regard it as only natural for players to use the most effective options most frequently, or they didn't understand what the most effective options were. Right.


Look at those spells. They clearly indicate a definite bias toward blasting.
Well, around 1/5 are direct damage, while a true Batman wizard has nearly none, but I see about as many save-or-lose spells, several defensive buffs, plus haste (which was infamously, stupidly good in 3.0) and polymorph any object (which... c'mon).

So, they should have seen how effective those were.


(which they tell you over and over to use in the various books)
They do? Could you give examples? Do they actually say that in the core books? I definitely wouldn't even know where to look for it.

It was hard to miss the discussion of party roles in the 4E PHB, though.


While they were certainly aware that powergamers existed, from what I understand the philosophy was that 1) DM should handle that by talking to the offending player, or 2) players should be mature enough not to do it.

They trusted the players to police themselves.
So, they expected that the DM and players would try to work out how to break the game, so they could avoid it?

Because that's what's required to balance 3E. It's possible to create an overpowered character by accident. Someone can play a druid with the Natural Spell feat who uses Wild Shape to turn into powerful animals, and be surprised that he winds up pwning the hell out of things just by playing his class in the obvious way.

Meanwhile, you have to optimize the crap out of Monks and Fighters for them to keep up with other characters.

Not to mention that precisely because ECL and CR don't accurate measure power or difficulty, it's up to a gaming group to figure out what standard they even want to balance things to.

Basically, if you're saying that they left it up to the DM and players to actually balance the game, I agree. I just think that that's something that it's reasonable to expect the game's designers to have done. And they didn't make it easy for a group to balance things, either. Character options range from "all but useless" to "game breaking", with way too much stuff near each end of the spectrum. Playing a game shouldn't require disregarding a significant amount of it content. That content should have been removed before release so that the players can use the game without having to sift through a bunch of crap.

Swordguy
2008-06-05, 03:38 AM
The wizard, would, for example, memorize 2 Fireballs, 1 Lightning Bolt and 1 Dispel Magic, if he had 4 spells to memorize at 3rd level. While only about 1/5th of the spells on there are direct damage, it's a fairly significant portion of the direct damage spells in the game.

A combat might go "Delayed blast fireball, fireball, lightning bolt...screw it! Finger of Death!". The save-or-die wasn't the first thing that was resorted to, because the playtesters were used to dealing direct damage and considered that the correct way to play.


So, they expected that the DM and players would try to work out how to break the game, so they could avoid it?

No. They expected a player who found a game-breaking spell or effect to not use it. Or, if they must use it, use it only in dire need. There's an Evil Overlord quote that's relevant:

"I will be neither chivalrous nor sporting. If I have an unstoppable superweapon, I will use it as early and as often as possible instead of keeping it in reserve."

This is how gamers think. The D&D playtesters thought the opposite - you shouldn't trot it out to solve every single problem right off. We're having the same issue with AEG (the publishers of Legend of the 5 Rings RPG and CCG) who recently introduced an effect that allowed a low-level mage to teleport anyone within 100' of him up to 600' in ANY direction with no way to avoid the effect (see the problem with that one?). When asked "WTF were you THINKING?!" the response was basically: "Well, it's legal...but you shouldn't do it unless you REALLY need to."

The same thought process was in the D&D guys. Even if something's broken, they expected you not to abuse it unless/until the situation got dire. Which is how things like the crazy spells got there - the playtesters never cast them in any real quantity, and only did it when blasting didn't work.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-06-05, 03:51 AM
First, I don't buy that 3e breaks under kick-in-the-door style.

I don't quite understand why you wouldn't buy it.

Do you think a Batman wizard or a druid with Natural Spell can't completely and overwhelmingly outperform a fighter or a monk in "kick in the door" play? Do you think a Leap Attacking Shock Troopering or a Spiked Chain Tripping fighter won't completely and totally, to a ridiculous degree and in every conceivable way other than maybe initiative checks outperform a Two-Weapon Fighting Finesse fighter?

ghost_warlock
2008-06-05, 04:50 AM
I don't quite understand why you wouldn't buy it.

Do you think a Batman wizard or a druid with Natural Spell can't completely and overwhelmingly outperform a fighter or a monk in "kick in the door" play? Do you think a Leap Attacking Shock Troopering or a Spiked Chain Tripping fighter won't completely and totally, to a ridiculous degree and in every conceivable way other than maybe initiative checks outperform a Two-Weapon Fighting Finesse fighter?

I don't buy it because it simply isn't true.

First of all, not every wizard in 3e will be Batman, not every druid will be Druidzilla, and not every fighter takes Shock Trooper. These are certainly options for these classes, but they're not ones everyone uses. Maybe your group plays this way, in which case I feel sorry for you, but mine certainly doesn't and I know other groups don't either (read through some of the Play-by-Post threads and count the Batmans, Druidzillas, and Shock Troopers). Many groups are perfectly able to handle KitD, and many other playstyles, without resorting to ubercheese.

Your argument is akin to saying "Johnny pokes me in the eye every time I try to play kick-in-the-door, so 3e can't handle kick-in-the-door." Thou shalt not blame the system for the sins of the player. No matter the system, somebody's eventually going to find a way to cheese - whether on purpose or by accident.

If your group is having trouble handling these classes, there's plenty other classes in 3e you can use. Try a party with a duskblade, an archivist, a warlock, and a swashbuckler (if you have a 5th slot, use a scout). This party should be more than capable of KitD - and should also be a lot of fun. :smallsmile:

To give another example of the flexibility of 3e D&D, a while ago I constructed (with a tad of Homebrewing in the skills - I ported in a few from d20 Modern/Space) a Red Dwarf-meets-Firefly psionic Space Opera campaign. Various wands/dorjes work great for emulating laser weapons (think of the wand itself as a clip/battery). Artificers make fantastic riggers. The captain of the vessel was - get this - a psionic version of a bard. If you look around here, or maybe try a search, you might be able to find a few of the threads I posted while working this campaign. I called it Psi-Fi - and my players at the time loved it.

Edit: Okay, found some of it. :smallsmile:
Initial concept discussion thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19390)
Details thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10898)
Muse (psionic bard) thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11004)
Machinist (psionic artificer) thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11003)

Charity
2008-06-05, 05:17 AM
So 3e isn't broken because you can ignore the broken bits (in some cases entire classes) and it is flexible because you can homebrew stuff.

That is astonishing, by your definitions no game is broken and all games are infinately versatile...

I understand that you like 3e, that your preference is for 3e style mechanics, but denying 3e's quite well understood flaws is not adding credance to what you say.

Matthew
2008-06-05, 08:17 AM
So 3e isn't broken because you can ignore the broken bits (in some cases entire classes) and it is flexible because you can homebrew stuff.

That is astonishing, by your definitions no game is broken and all games are infinately versatile...

I understand that you like 3e, that your preference is for 3e style mechanics, but denying 3e's quite well understood flaws is not adding credance to what you say.

Thing is, though, is any game truly unbroken or do they all fail to some extent or another? Will 4e truly be unbreakable, or will it just be one more in a long line of failures? Is the 'perfect' system an illusion?

SamTheCleric
2008-06-05, 08:21 AM
Thing is, though, is any game truly unbroken or do they all fail to some extent or another? Will 4e truly be unbreakable, or will it just be one more in a long line of failures? Is the 'perfect' system an illusion?

No system will ever achieve the "perfection" we all seek... as long as there are people out there who intend to break the system, the system will be broken somehow.

That applies to life, actually. If we had a perfect crime free society, we wouldn't need police... but because people intend to break the law, we always need to be policed. etc.

Matthew
2008-06-05, 08:31 AM
So, then, it is always a matter of degree and preference. There are going to be things about 4e that some people prefer to D20 and there are going to be things about D20 that people prefer to 4e. All this stuff about versatility is just masking the real underlying issue.

Indon
2008-06-05, 08:32 AM
So 3e isn't broken because you can ignore the broken bits (in some cases entire classes) and it is flexible because you can homebrew stuff.

I'm going to make a couple statements, and I'd like to see who agrees and who disagrees:

-The easiest kind of houserule is an exclusion of a feature that is modular in the system.

-The most difficult kind of houserule is fabrication of a feature outside of a system's customization guidelines.

Matthew
2008-06-05, 08:34 AM
-The easiest kind of houserule is an exclusion of a feature that is modular in the system.

-The most difficult kind of houserule is fabrication of a feature outside of a system's customization guidelines.

This is true for some people and not true for others. I am one for whom it is not true. I find it much more difficult to remove skills and feats from D20 than add them to AD&D.

We've had this discussion a lot in the past, it seems some people are wired one way and others are wired another. It's the same deal as THAC0; some people find the concept of taking away one number from another to find a value to roll on a die really hard, others cannot comprehend the difficulty.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-05, 08:35 AM
So, then, it is always a matter of degree and preference. There are going to be things about 4e that some people prefer to D20 and there are going to be things about D20 that people prefer to 4e. All this stuff about versatility is just masking the real underlying issue.

Correct, and very astute.

People have every right to like whatever they want and are encouraged to do so. If you want to "stick" with 3.X... have fun. You want to play 4e? Have fun. I mean, if you want to play any other system that had some shaky rules... (In Nomine, Deadlands, Battletech)... have fun!

The goal... in every system... is to have fun. Why begrudge people of having fun?

Indon
2008-06-05, 08:42 AM
This is true for some people and not true for others. I am one for whom it is not true. I find it much more difficult to remove skills and feats from D20 than add them to AD&D.

I would say that most skills are not modular (But most feats are).

A modular feature is something that is easily interchangable with something else. Races, for instance, are modular in 3'rd edition - you can play any race with any class. However, races were not often modular in AD&D - because by removing a race (Human) you could restrict entire classes as well (Paladin).

As such, skills in 3'rd edition are not generally modular, because they're often tied intimately to class capabilities (Example: Spellcraft for spellcasters, or Tumble for rogues). Feats, on the other hand, are usually modular, with the exception of those feats which come as part of a non-interchangable package (example: Endurance, which the Ranger gets at 1'st level).

Would you still describe yourself as having difficulty restricting something which is almost by definition easy to restrict, given that clarification?

ghost_warlock
2008-06-05, 08:50 AM
So 3e isn't broken because you can ignore the broken bits (in some cases entire classes) and it is flexible because you can homebrew stuff.

That is astonishing, by your definitions no game is broken and all games are infinately versatile...

I understand that you like 3e, that your preference is for 3e style mechanics, but denying 3e's quite well understood flaws is not adding credance to what you say.

I never denied that 3e had flaws, just that not everyone who uses the system exploits them. Because of the wealth of material based on the system, you can play the game just fine while never encountering Batman. At the same time, even people who have seen Batman in action have the option to play the game, and have fun, using other classes. In this case, I guess you could simplify and call that simply ignoring a flaw, but I prefer to think of it as acknowledging the reality that no system is ever going to be perfect so you should just use whatever workarounds you need to play what's fun.

3e's biggest flaw is also it's biggest strength - virtually any concept you can come up with, 3e can bring it to life. There are obvious exceptions - effective Dex-based fighters, monks in general, etc. And some of these options are poor or overpowered. It is, fundamentally, a high-magic fantasy system and spellcasters are, unfortunately for some players, going to triumph. This sort of game is not ideal for everyone, sure. Meanwhile, I wouldn't expect 3e to emulate a gritty, low-to-no-magic Wild West or or Space Opera setting. But 3e isn't GURPS and doesn't pretend to be. At the same time, the Core 3e system gave players options they'd never had in any previous edition of the game. Everything you can do with 4e you can do with 3e, and almost all of that can be done with Core 3e alone. You'll need some splat for some of it, I'll admit.

The truth is, 3e supplies tools enough that Kick-in-the-Door style games are perfectly playable without ever running into issues with Batman, CoDzilla, or Shock Troopers. It doesn't "break" that style of gaming.

People played 3e and enjoyed themselves for years and now it's like they're suddenly saying "Oh, I played it...but I hated every minute of it because it was soooooo brokkken!" What. Ever. :smallsigh:

As for my homebrew, most of it was simple re-fluffing. The only mechanics that underwent any massive changes were converting the bard and artificer to a power point system and swapping some skills/feats from d20 modern.

Homebrew isn't fix for a 'broken' system. But whining about how broken 3e is while people are, even before the official release date, homebrewing rules fixes for 4e is pretty ridiculous. (Examples: minions, superior weapons, and junk feats; and I haven't hung around Homebrew much so there may be others).

Some people have said that the detractors of 4e are just afraid of change. Meanwhile, I can mudsling back that 3e bashers are just getting high on the New Car Smell.

What good does saying either of these things do? None at all other than pissing off and ostracising our fellow gamers. It's sad that the release of a new system is turning brother against sister, and gamer against gamer.

The fact is, the majority of the people who post in these forums played and loved 3e D&D for years. Many likely felt it was "teh best systms EVAH!" Now, because they think they see a system they like better, something new and shiny, they've begun demonizing 3e and people who prefer 3e. 3e lovers, full of equal amounts of NEEEEERRD RAAAAAGE retailiate in kind. It's also possible, I'll admit, that the 3e'rs may have started the ball rolling with a "4e - wut iz dis crap?" thread. I have no way of knowing becuase I was on a sabbatical from these boards when WotC announced its intentions to release the new system and only began posting again recently.

It's all a load of hooey and I'd appreciate it if more people would just wake up, keep an open mind about this, and realize that their choice of system is likely all about personal preference.

3e - high magic, insane amounts of splat, unshamedly caster-biased, doesn't hold your hand to prevent stupid mistakes.
4e - lower magic, more tactical, more class-balanced, tries to be idiot-proof.


We've had this discussion a lot in the past, it seems some people are wired one way and others are wired another. It's the same deal as THAC0; some people find the concept of taking away one number from another to find a value to roll on a die really hard, others cannot comprehend the difficulty.

Honestly, I could go either way with THAC0 - I don't really care if I add or subtract so long as I'm trying for the same thing every time I roll. This question came up more than a few times when playing 2e for my group: "am I trying to roll under this number or roll higher?"

My biggest beef with 2e was probably, as dumb as this may sound, percentile Strength. I could never figure out why the system had such a massive, pardon my language, hard-on for Strength. I played a lot of rogues, druids, and wizards in those days and I was always wondering "where's my percentile Dex/Wis/Int?"

I've never really gotten into Hackmaster, though. :smalltongue:

Matthew
2008-06-05, 08:57 AM
I would say that most skills are not modular (But most feats are).

Okay.



A modular feature is something that is easily interchangable with something else. Races, for instance, are modular in 3'rd edition - you can play any race with any class. However, races were not often modular in AD&D - because by removing a race (Human) you could restrict entire classes as well (Paladin).

You just erase the sentence "Paladins must be human", the DMG discusses doing just that. THe D20 DMG discusses doing the reverse (restricting Classes to certain Races). It's very easy.



As such, skills in 3'rd edition are not generally modular, because they're often tied intimately to class capabilities (Example: Spellcraft for spellcasters, or Tumble for rogues). Feats, on the other hand, are usually modular, with the exception of those feats which come as part of a non-interchangable package (example: Endurance, which the Ranger gets at 1'st level).

Okay.



Would you still describe yourself as having difficulty restricting something which is almost by definition easy to restrict, given that clarification?
I would say it's still easier to add three feats than exclude three hundred.

I'm not being facetious here (or I am trying not to be), but basically you have two camps:

1) "It is easier to add things to a simple system than remove things from a complex system."

2) "It is easier to remove things from a complex system than add things to a simple system."

The specifics of those two viewpoints can be argued back and forth, but in the end one is true for one person, and the other is true for another (from their perspective, which depends quite what and how much they want to change).



Honestly, I could go either way with THAC0 - I don't really care if I add or subtract so long as I'm trying for the same thing every time I roll. This question came up more than a few times when playing 2e for my group: "am I trying to roll under this number or roll higher?"

It's certainly true that few people have problems with the D20 method.



My biggest beef with 2e was probably, as dumb as this may sound, percentile Strength. I could never figure out why the system had such a massive, pardon my language, hard-on for Strength. I played a lot of rogues, druids, and wizards in those days and I was always wondering "where's my percentile Dex/Wis/Int?"

Heh, heh. The 1e Cavalier had percentiles for every stat... I agree, though, I am not a big fan of the AD&D Attribute Tables, I prefer the BD&D ones. Luckily (and because of the independent systems in AD&D), you can substitute the tables with just about no affect on other areas of the game [i.e. you don't have to adjust any Monster statistics to compensate, though you may have to modify the occasional NPC for whom it matters].

AKA_Bait
2008-06-05, 09:06 AM
Is the 'perfect' system an illusion?

Not to get all Cartesian and phlisophical here but yeah, it's an illusion. We are imperfect little medium sized mammals. Creating anything that is truly perfect, if whatever that is can actually be identified, is quite beyond us.


So, then, it is always a matter of degree and preference. There are going to be things about 4e that some people prefer to D20 and there are going to be things about D20 that people prefer to 4e. All this stuff about versatility is just masking the real underlying issue.

Well, perhaps not. If we start from the premise that all systems are flawed we might be able to figure out which system is more flawed. The problem then really becomes what aspects of the theoretical 'perfect' system our value structure (or set of ordered preferences) rate higher than others.


Feats, on the other hand, are usually modular, with the exception of those feats which come as part of a non-interchangable package (example: Endurance, which the Ranger gets at 1'st level).

You also forgot those feats which are prerequisites for classes and other feats.

I'm going to agree with Matthew here to an extent but also say that it depends not just upon the player but also upon the general structure of the system. Some systems are 'modular' only to an extent. Meaning that although the individual feature is only apparantly linked to the system, the overall system design may have expected it to be playing a role in the actual in-game functioning of the system. For example, technically, classes in 3.x are modular but the system doesn't function very well if you have a party with no spell casters.

Matthew
2008-06-05, 09:13 AM
Not to get all Cartesian and phlisophical here but yeah, it's an illusion. We are imperfect little medium sized mammals. Creating anything that is truly perfect, if whatever that is can actually be identified, is quite beyond us.

Hey, there was a reason I wrote it 'perfect', rather than perfect. :smallwink:



Well, perhaps not. If we start from the premise that all systems are flawed we might be able to figure out which system is more flawed. The problem then really becomes what aspects of the theoretical 'perfect' system our value structure (or set of ordered preferences) rate higher than others.

Exactly true, which is why some systems appear more flawed than others to different people.



You also forgot those feats which are prerequisites for classes and other feats.

I'm going to agree with Matthew here to an extent but also say that it depends not just upon the player but also upon the general structure of the system. Some systems are 'modular' only to an extent. Meaning that although the individual feature is only apparantly linked to the system, the overall system design may have expected it to be playing a role in the actual in-game functioning of the system. For example, technically, classes in 3.x are modular but the system doesn't function very well if you have a party with no spell casters.

Well, I completely agree with that.

Indon
2008-06-05, 09:14 AM
You just erase the sentence "Paladins must be human", the DMG discusses doing just that. THe D20 DMG discusses doing the reverse (restricting Classes to certain Races). It's very easy.

You're still taking extra steps to increase the modularity of something so that you can remove it more easily, are you not?


I would say it's still easier to add three feats than exclude three hundred.

I never said it is more than one hundred times more difficult to do this difficult thing than it is to do this easy thing. And even then, I don't necessarily agree.

Let's say we're both playing 3'rd edition games. You have a spellcaster who wants to make a new spell, so you both hammer out something appropriate. I don't like the spell compendium, so I say, "No spell compendium-only spells."

I've excluded magnitudes more modular features than you have fabricated with only minimal guidelines, and it would seem I've done so with less effort.

Of course, it varies on a case-by-case basis.


1) "It is easier to add things to a simple system than remove things from a complex system."

2) "It is eaiser to remove things from a complex system than add things to a simple system."

The specifics of those two viewpoints can be argued back and forth, but in the end one is true for one person, and the other is true for another.

I disagree, and in fact I think those positions are quite simplistic.

You could build a complex system that is very easy to both remove from and add to, simply by having high modularity (allowing for easy removal) and strong guidance on fabrication (allowing for easy addition). I've never played GURPS, but from what I know it seems an example of just such a system.

Similarly, you could have a simple system that is very difficult to remove from or add to, by having low modularity and little to no guidance on fabrication. Most boardgames, like Chess (which actually does have a couple modular rules), would fall into this.

AD&D has relatively low modularity, and occasional guidance on how to fabricate things. As a result, it requires a good bit of effort to both exclude and include many things.

3'rd edition took modularity seriously - races, classes, and much more got revamped with modularity in mind, making them easier to remove. However, in some places 3'rd edition had poor guidance on how to add to the system - the magic item creation guidelines, for instance, were generally okay, but they had their problems, which could lead to the system helping less when making magic items.

4'th edition has retained some of 3'rd edition's modularity, in terms of races, classes, and feats. The power system reduces modularity in terms of class capabilities compared to spells, and increases it compared to non-spellcasting options, so that's a wash. And their guidance is frequently very strong and well-written within a specific scope, but outside of that scope guidance is nonexistent.

So I would say the important things are not simplicity and complexity - it's modularity and comprehensiveness of guidance.

Matthew
2008-06-05, 09:23 AM
You're still taking extra steps to increase the modularity of something so that you can remove it more easily, are you not?

It depends how you define modularity. I see the rules themselves as modular.



I never said it is more than one hundred times more difficult to do this difficult thing than it is to do this easy thing. And even then, I don't necessarily agree.

Let's say we're both playing 3'rd edition games. You have a spellcaster who wants to make a new spell, so you both hammer out something appropriate. I don't like the spell compendium, so I say, "No spell compendium-only spells."

I've excluded magnitudes more modular features than you have fabricated with only minimal guidelines, and it would seem I've done so with less effort.

Of course, it varies on a case-by-case basis.

You misunderstand. The point is that if I have 1,000 Feats available, I have to think about which ones I want to include and which ones I am going to exclude. If I just want to introduce feats on a case by case basis to the game, I only have to think about the feat I am introducing.



I disagree, and in fact I think those positions are quite simplistic.

Of course they are, they are supposed to be; the specifics are what crop up around them.



You could build a complex system that is very easy to both remove from and add to, simply by having high modularity (allowing for easy removal) and strong guidance on fabrication (allowing for easy addition). I've never played GURPS, but from what I know it seems an example of just such a system.

Again, though, you miss the point. To play GURPS you literally have to write the rules of the game from a bunch of existing rules. That is actually exactly the same as AD&D 2e, except it has a very simple default.



Similarly, you could have a simple system that is very difficult to remove from or add to, by having low modularity and little to no guidance on fabrication. Most boardgames, like Chess (which actually does have a couple modular rules), would fall into this.

I see D20 as more similar to chess int his regard than AD&D.



AD&D has relatively low modularity, and occasional guidance on how to fabricate things. As a result, it requires a good bit of effort to both exclude and include many things.

I strongly disagree.



3'rd edition took modularity seriously - races, classes, and much more got revamped with modularity in mind, making them easier to remove. However, in some places 3'rd edition had poor guidance on how to add to the system - the magic item creation guidelines, for instance, were generally okay, but they had their problems, which could lead to the system helping less when making magic items.

I don't agree that D20 has high modularity. It has some very modular systems, but the game itself is not particularly modular at all. However, we're probably disagreeing either as to:

a) What modular is

b) Whether modular equals easier



4'th edition has retained some of 3'rd edition's modularity, in terms of races, classes, and feats. The power system reduces modularity in terms of class capabilities compared to spells, and increases it compared to non-spellcasting options, so that's a wash. And their guidance is frequently very strong and well-written within a specific scope, but outside of that scope guidance is nonexistent.


So I would say the important things are not simplicity and complexity - it's modularity and comprehensiveness of guidance.

You may be confusing complications with complexity here. I actually view guidence as a potentially bad thing, restricting open ended thinking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suspect we have radically different views here as to what is being discussed, so let's try and narrow down our meanings.



Modular Aspects of D20: Feats, Races, Classes, Prestige Classes, Equipment, Spells, Monsters

Non Modular Aspects of D20: Attribute Rules, Combat Rules, Magic Rules, Skill Rules (?),

I don't know whether you would agree or disagree with these, I suspect from the above you would agree. However, many of these aspects are inter related and system dependent, none are truly modular in my opinion, there are just degrees of modularity. If you remove all of the spells, the Wizard Class is affected, etc... as you have noted yourself, some classes are dependent on the existence of some feats. Similarly some races depend on the existence of some (favoured) classes. That sounds exactly the same as your AD&D Paladin example (an optional class by the by) to me.

Presumably, your argument is that modularity = ease of rule change. I don't agree with that at all. I think you just end up with variations on a theme and not true (or even useful) rule changes at all.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-05, 09:42 AM
I don't know whether you would agree or disagree with these, I suspect from the above you would agree. Many of these aspects are inter related and system dependent, none are truly modular in my opinion, there are just degrees of modularity. If you remove all of the spells, the Wizard Class is affected, etc...

I think it might be better, given the degrees, not to try to divide it into an all or nothing schema. Perhaps 3 or 4 fold? By 'modular' here I mean that the more modular something is, the less the overall system is affected by it's removal. By 'Static' I mean the opposite. The more it is removed, the less functional or at least recognizable, the system becomes.

Fully Modular Aspects of D20:

Some Feats, Classes, Races, Prestige Classes, Some Equipment, Most Spells, Most Monsters (those not tied to spells)

Mostly Modular Aspects of D20

Some Feats, Some Spells, Some Equipment, Some Monsters (those tied to spells), Some Skills

Mostly Static Aspects of D20

Situation Specific Combat Rules (Like grapple), Situation Specific Magic Rules, Some Skills

Static Aspects of D20

General Magic Rules, General Combat Rules, General Monster Construction Rules, General Skill Rules, General XP Rules, General Feat Application Rules, Stacking Rules, The Core Mechanic etc.

Matthew
2008-06-05, 09:53 AM
I think it might be better, given the degrees, not to try to divide it into an all or nothing schema. Perhaps 3 or 4 fold? By 'modular' here I mean that the more modular something is, the less the overall system is affected by it's removal. By 'Static' I mean the opposite. The more it is removed, the less functional or at least recognizable, the system becomes.

I agree.



Fully Modular Aspects of D20:

Some Feats, Classes, Races, Prestige Classes, Some Equipment, Most Spells, Most Monsters (those not tied to spells)

Well, many Classes and Monsters depend on the existence of certain feats to function properly, and some Races are written with the expectation that certain classes are included. Similarly, as you pointed out, some Prestige Classes rely on Feats to qualify for, so it would be more like (to my mind): Very Modular, rather than fully.

I think that trying to divide system elements into categories of interdependence is useful, but you could continue to subdivide to achieve even closer approximation of degrees of modularity. Where you stop is kind of arbitrary. In fact, I think the very word 'modular' is potentially misleading here. Perhaps, degrees of system independence and System dependence are better nomenclature.

JaxGaret
2008-06-05, 09:58 AM
People played 3e and enjoyed themselves for years and now it's like they're suddenly saying "Oh, I played it...but I hated every minute of it because it was soooooo brokkken!" What. Ever. :smallsigh:

Has anyone actually said that?

That particular aspect of 3e is one that I did have quite a problem with, but I still very much liked 3e. You can like something and not like everything about it, you know; the world is not black and white.

I also very much like 4e. Only time will tell which edition I end up preferring, but right now I am really liking a lot of what 4e has to offer, and some particular things that 4e does a lot better than 3e appeal to me.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-05, 09:59 AM
I think that trying to divide them into categories of interdependence is useful, but you could continue to subdivide to achieve even closer approximation of degrees of modularity. Where you stop is kind of arbitrary.

Well yeah. And ultimatley, for it to have any practical value, you would need to do it with each and every feature of the system. Frankly, don't have the time in inclination to do that so broad strokes are probably best.

You have a point with the monsters and Prc's. I hadn't thought about that. Same applies to spells and consequently SLA's come to think of it. A doppelganger without Disguise Self is no doppleganger at all.

Indon
2008-06-05, 10:08 AM
You misunderstand. The point is that if I have 1,000 Feats available, I have to think about which ones I want to include and which ones I am going to exclude. If I just want to introduce feats on a case by case basis to the game, I only have to think about the feat I am introducing.

Even if you're going to be purely additive in your game's features, it's still easier to have something to draw from when being additive - which is what those 1,000 feats essentially are.


Again, though, you miss the point. To play GURPS you literally have to write the rules of the game from a bunch of existing rules. That is actually exactly the same as AD&D 2e, except it has a very simple default.

What do you write your world based off of in AD&D?


I don't agree that D20 has high modularity. It has some very modular systems, but the game itself is not particularly modular at all.

Well, there are more modular systems out there by far, but I would say that D20 is the most modular incarnation of D&D, to include 4'th edition (though not by much).


I actually view guidence as a potentially bad thing, restricting open ended thinking.

Guidance can indeed be a bad thing. Let's compare a couple bits of guidance:

Class creation, AD&D 2e: A simple, limited chart on how to calculate XP-per-level values. It seems to me that because the chart has such a limited scope, that it is indeed rather restricting, and oftentimes you would have to ignore the guidance to do what you want, meaning you aren't benefiting from it.

Magic Item Creation, 3'rd edition D&D: A variety of charts dictating pricing guidelines for magical items. This is limited to a scope, similar to our previous example, but the scope is a bit larger, with a few more notes where things could be open-ended. Just like with the last system, if you need to make something outside the scope, it's not very helpful.

Class creation, 3'rd edition D&D: 3'rd edition D&D has no guidelines on class creation. As such, anything you do is basically working outside of a guideline. I would say that this is worse than the AD&D version, for the fact that you can simply ignore guidance if it doesn't suit your needs, but you can't really make guidance if you need it.


However, many of these aspects are inter related and system dependent, none are truly modular in my opinion, there are just degrees of modularity.
I would agree that there's no such thing as 'true' modularity.


Presumably, your argument is that modularity = ease of rule change. I don't agree with that at all. I think you just end up with variations on a theme and not true (or even useful) rule changes at all.

Can't you get highly varying games in D20 simply by using different classes and races?


Well, many Classes and Monsters depend on the existence of certain feats, and some Races are written with the expectation that certain classes are included. Similarly, as you pointed out, some Prestige Classes rely on Feats to qulaify for, so it would be more like (to my mind): Very Modular, rather than fully.

Well, the feats are already not all listed as fully modular. If Feature A is dependent on feature B, that doesn't make feature A less modular - it makes feature B less modular.

Matthew
2008-06-05, 10:24 AM
Even if you're going to be purely additive in your game's features, it's still easier to have something to draw from when being additive - which is what those 1,000 feats essentially are.

See, that's your opinion, and that's fine, but it's not my experience, which takes us back to square one and the two simple statements.



What do you write your world based off of in AD&D?

Not sure I understand the question. You mean rules wise? If you mean "what do you base the rules of your AD&D game off?", the answer would be tons of things/games, even D20. If you mean setting wise, well again, tons of things, both RPG related and unrelated. It is systemised thinking that I reject [which could perhaps be described as modularity itself], rather than inspirational resources.



Well, there are more modular systems out there by far, but I would say that D20 is the most modular incarnation of D&D, to include 4'th edition (though not by much).

That may well be the case, depending on your definition of modular.



Guidance can indeed be a bad thing. Let's compare a couple bits of guidance:

Class creation, AD&D 2e: A simple, limited chart on how to calculate XP-per-level values. It seems to me that because the chart has such a limited scope, that it is indeed rather restricting, and oftentimes you would have to ignore the guidance to do what you want, meaning you aren't benefiting from it.

Magic Item Creation, 3'rd edition D&D: A variety of charts dictating pricing guidelines for magical items. This is limited to a scope, similar to our previous example, but the scope is a bit larger, with a few more notes where things could be open-ended. Just like with the last system, if you need to make something outside the scope, it's not very helpful.

Class creation, 3'rd edition D&D: 3'rd edition D&D has no guidelines on class creation. As such, anything you do is basically working outside of a guideline. I would say that this is worse than the AD&D version, for the fact that you can simply ignore guidance if it doesn't suit your needs, but you can't really make guidance if you need it.

There's an additional factor, though, which is guidance that discourages open ended thinking. Interestingly, the section in the D20 DMG on Class creation strongly discourages altering the classes.



I would agree that there's no such thing as 'true' modularity.

Good, good.



Can't you get highly varying games in D20 simply by using different classes and races?

Well, it depends. I don't think there is much mechanical variation in the modularity of D20. The real variance comes from the imagination (in terms of what the game is imagined to be representing). However, strong mechanical variations on D20 are things like Forbidden Kingdoms, Iron Heroes, True20 or Castles & Crusades, which discard fundamental rules and restructure the game. Of course, Unearthed Arcana provides a similar methodology.



Well, the feats are already not all listed as fully modular. If Feature A is dependent on feature B, that doesn't make feature A less modular - it makes feature B less modular.

I can see what you're saying there, which is why I think system dependence/independence is a better criteria for examination.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-05, 01:56 PM
..."Oh, I played it...but I hated every minute of it because it was soooooo brokkken!"... Has anyone actually said that?

I wrote it as hyperbole, but this comes pretty close:


I don't know what 4e is yet, but 3.5e isn't versatile at all, and it's barely even playable as written once you know what can really be done. Whatever 4e is, I think 3.5e books are best as kindling.

Indon
2008-06-05, 02:05 PM
I wrote it as hyperbole, but this comes pretty close:

I'm curious as to precisely why a game would become less playable the more you know about it.

Cainen
2008-06-05, 02:13 PM
When it's broken at higher levels, well...

AKA_Bait
2008-06-05, 02:17 PM
I'm curious as to precisely why a game would become less playable the more you know about it.

Poor Impulse Control?

Kiara LeSabre
2008-06-05, 05:27 PM
Thou shalt not blame the system for the sins of the player.

I think this statement is precisely the point of contention between us. You would say that the above statement is true (clearly, as you made the statement yourself). I would say that it is false, and all of our disagreement naturally follows therefrom.

To put it very plainly, I feel that providing balanced mechanics is exactly the point of a gaming system. I don't need the gaming system to teach me (or expect me) to be a good little girl, to show me the value of fair play and sharing and caring. I don't need it to have an imagination because that's my job and the jobs of the other players and the GM. I don't need it to do anything but handle the mechanical parts in a balanced and reasonable way so that I can focus on the roleplaying.

If it can't do that well, my reaction is, "Well, then, what good is it?"

Charity
2008-06-05, 06:23 PM
The problem with using player self control to limit the use of game breaking/enjoyment damaging feats/classes/combos is that everyone defines that line that you cross into cheese differently, one mans stilton is another mans sour cream.
Self limiting systems break down when there is more than one self in the system.

Also 3e played with good friends and plenty of prior discussion is fine, I just object to folk beatifying it.

Bearonet
2008-06-05, 06:29 PM
I think this statement is precisely the point of contention between us. You would say that the above statement is true (clearly, as you made the statement yourself). I would say that it is false, and all of our disagreement naturally follows therefrom.

To put it very plainly, I feel that providing balanced mechanics is exactly the point of a gaming system. I don't need the gaming system to teach me (or expect me) to be a good little girl, to show me the value of fair play and sharing and caring. I don't need it to have an imagination because that's my job and the jobs of the other players and the GM. I don't need it to do anything but handle the mechanical parts in a balanced and reasonable way so that I can focus on the roleplaying.

If it can't do that well, my reaction is, "Well, then, what good is it?"

<3

fillertext

Matthew
2008-06-05, 06:39 PM
If it can't do that well, my reaction is, "Well, then, what good is it?"

Well... perhaps it would be no good to you, but personally I like rule sets to be inspirational, rather than prescriptional. Out of the box games are fine and all for tournaments, but I will end up house ruling them for normal play. Thus a completely out of the box balanced and reasonable rule set is not necessarily high on my list of priorities.



The problem with using player self control to limit the use of game breaking/enjoyment damaging feats/classes/combos is that everyone defines that line that you cross into cheese differently, one mans stilton is another mans sour cream.
Self limiting systems break down when there is more than one self in the system.

Also 3e played with good friends and plenty of prior discussion is fine, I just object to folk beatifying it.

Agreed, but if I ain't playing with friends, I probably ain't playing.

Charity
2008-06-05, 06:52 PM
Not everyone has the good fortune to have a local group. I think increasing numbers of games happen online, or in colleges, or other institutions where the choice of personel is restricted... but I agree, though that has not always been the case, and even among my friends, disagreement are reasonable common, though amiable enough.

All hail the mighty , !

JaxGaret
2008-06-05, 06:58 PM
The problem with using player self control to limit the use of game breaking/enjoyment damaging feats/classes/combos is that everyone defines that line that you cross into cheese differently, one mans stilton is another mans sour cream.
Self limiting systems break down when there is more than one self in the system.

Agreed, 100%.

One of the first times that I came across this in 3e was when I organically built a Zenythri Monk1/Bard4/Ur-Priest5, who was by far the most powerful PC in the campaign. I didn't build him to be uber-powerful; in fact, he wasn't even getting to the meat of his power curve. But the fact remained that even an obviously subpar build such as that came out on top, simply because casters in 3e are uber.

There's no ifs ands or buts about it; in 3e, casters are in a class by themselves.


Also 3e played with good friends and plenty of prior discussion is fine, I just object to folk beatifying it.

Agreed.

However, not everyone has the luxury of playing with good friends and having plenty of prior discussion. Sometimes it's a mix of good friends and acquaintances, and not everyone has all the time (or patience) in the world to wrinkle out party power discrepancies of every single PC.

Plus, it's a lot easier to police your own character than to do it to others', since then you are crossing the line into telling other people what to play, which can be a line that ones does not want to cross.

Also, even if someone is your friend, that doesn't mean that you are in perfect alignment over everything. Sometimes someone wants to play Druid McSuperhero, and someone else wants to play Swashbuckler McWeaksauce. In 4e, Druids and Swashbucklers will be balanced to each other, theoretically. If the splats are as balanced as core, there is a good chance of that occurring.

So, I can understand why some people have no problem with that aspect of 3e (the imbalance), but I really don't understand why they can't see that other people could conceivably have issues with it.

Matthew
2008-06-05, 07:13 PM
All hail the mighty , !

Having comma issues, Charity?



Not everyone has the good fortune to have a local group. I think increasing numbers of games happen online, or in colleges, or other institutions where the choice of personel is restricted... but I agree, though that has not always been the case, and even among my friends, disagreement are reasonable common, though amiable enough.

Indeed. Desires and needs vary by person and situation.



So, I can understand why some people have no problem with that aspect of 3e (the imbalance), but I really don't understand why they can't see that other people could conceivably have issues with it.

Quite, but I think it cuts both ways as well. As with so many things, people need to be responsible for defining their terms clearly and then respondents need to take the trouble to read what was written and try to see the poster's point of view.

Neither of which are common traits of many message board posters. :smallbiggrin:

Indon
2008-06-05, 07:20 PM
To put it very plainly, I feel that providing balanced mechanics is exactly the point of a gaming system.
I feel that providing convenient conflict and event resolution mechanics for a variety of situations in a campaign setting is the reason for having a gaming system.

And balance really has nothing to do with that convenience, unless said balance is somehow a result of something that provides convenience.

Charity
2008-06-05, 07:34 PM
Having comma issues, Charity?
Me and my mate , go waaay back. Punctuation was never a strong suit of mine.

Matthew
2008-06-05, 07:46 PM
Ha, ha. I know the feeling well, and can sympathise.

JaxGaret
2008-06-05, 07:53 PM
Ha, ha. I know the feeling well, and can sympathise.

I was going to make a joke about your misspelling of the word sympathize here, but then I remembered that you are a Brit, and thus like to spell things funny :smallwink:

Matthew
2008-06-05, 08:07 PM
That we do, we pronounce them funny as well. :smallwink:

Mind, I hear across the pond they spell it sox, rather than socks; that always just seemed lazy, but then I suppose it does give 'x' something more to do than algebra...

Bitzeralisis
2008-06-05, 08:08 PM
To me, 4e seems really, really inflexible.

JaxGaret
2008-06-05, 08:24 PM
To me, 4e seems really, really inflexible.

I'm curious: in what manner do you find it inflexible?

Roog
2008-06-05, 09:33 PM
I feel that providing convenient conflict and event resolution mechanics for a variety of situations in a campaign setting is the reason for having a gaming system.

And balance really has nothing to do with that convenience, unless said balance is somehow a result of something that provides convenience.

A coin toss is very convinient.

Skyserpent
2008-06-05, 09:35 PM
A coin toss is very convinient.

But there are very few ways to effect the result, and thus, there is very little randomness, which is a completely seperate, but equally important part of a Game.

Indon
2008-06-05, 09:41 PM
A coin toss is very convinient.

If I have a character who falls down a hole, sure, I can flip a coin... for what? That he breaks his leg? That he lands on his head, cracks it open, and dies within 10 minutes without emergency medical assistance?

Now, don't get me wrong before - I can and have flipped coins to determine things before. But no, it's not particularly convenient, because I still have to perform the majority of the resolution myself, by fiat.

Edit: It often is more convenient than doing nothing, though. Ditto with rock-paper-scissors, another simple game mechanic to resolve contested rolls.

xirr2000
2008-06-05, 10:09 PM
What happened is WotC decided to go from D&D primarily being an RPG, a combat heavy RPG with assumed roles and playstles but still an RPG, to being a tactical wargame.

4e is not an RPG in any traditional meaning of the term.

I keep hearing things like this and they do not make any kinda of sense to me. What made 3.x better for roleplaying? It had different combat rules, but other than that you can still roleplay the same out of combat. How did a change in combat rules change roleplaying options?

Kiara LeSabre
2008-06-05, 11:02 PM
I keep hearing things like this and they do not make any kinda of sense to me. What made 3.x better for roleplaying? It had different combat rules, but other than that you can still roleplay the same out of combat. How did a change in combat rules change roleplaying options?

I'm not really following that reasoning myself. I always thought the game system was almost entirely separate from roleplay, save when one needs to roll against social skills ... and 4e has the usual expected compliment of social skills anyway.

So you can only roleplay if the system is designed so that the wizard always wins and all fighters can take tons of feats but will only be remotely useful if they carefully plan and build from a narrowly defined selection of optimal feats like Shock Trooper? So tactical wargames typically feature social, out-of-combat skills like Diplomacy and Streetwise (the new Gather Information)?

I'm going to go out on a limb and be a bit blunt: I think that, for some at least, the real complaint is that there's no longer a class that can do absolutely everything you'd ever conceivably need done without needing anyone else. Power corrupts ...

Rutee
2008-06-06, 12:37 AM
Systems can encourage roleplay. They're just not dungeons and dragons.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-06, 01:01 AM
That we do, we pronounce them funny as well. :smallwink:

Mind, I hear across the pond they spell it sox, rather than socks; that always just seemed lazy, but then I suppose it does give 'x' something more to do than algebra...

I've lived in the US my whole life and can categorically state that I have never read, or heard anyone (including myself) spell socks 'sox'.


I keep hearing things like this and they do not make any kinda of sense to me. What made 3.x better for roleplaying? It had different combat rules, but other than that you can still roleplay the same out of combat. How did a change in combat rules change roleplaying options?

I misphrased that. I should have said:

"WotC decided to go from D&D primarily being an open ended anything goes RPG - a combat heavy and still with assumed roles and playstyles but the rules supported pretty much anything you could think to play - to being a tactical wargame with very restrictive and limiting rules that do not support even fairly common hi fantasy roles and archetypes (illusionist, summoner, transformation, mind attacks) and that disallow a lot of lateral problem solving."

xirr2000
2008-06-06, 01:17 AM
Systems can encourage roleplay. They're just not dungeons and dragons.

Ya i keep reading things like this but I dont see how any system like D&D 4e discourages it? I knew this guy in 3e who would like to play a mage who pretended to be a rogue. Went to great lengths to hide that he was a in fact a mage who used things like knock to open locks. Guess what? In 4e a mage can actually just get the thievery skill because they eliminated the silliness that a person who did not have a skill on their list was forever incapable of learning it no matter how much time they spent trying to. I like that, it sounds like it opens some roleplay doors to me. Doesn't it?

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-06, 01:26 AM
Ya i keep reading things like this but I dont see how any system like D&D 4e discourages it? I knew this guy in 3e who would like to play a mage who pretended to be a rogue. Went to great lengths to hide that he was a in fact a mage who used things like knock to open locks. Guess what? In 4e a mage can actually just get the thievery skill because they eliminated the silliness that a person who did not have a skill on their list was forever incapable of learning it no matter how much time they spent trying to. I like that, it sounds like it opens some roleplay doors to me. Doesn't it?

Why didn't that mage just take a single level dip in Rogue or Factotum to get them as class skills?

xirr2000
2008-06-06, 01:31 AM
I misphrased that. I should have said:

"WotC decided to go from D&D primarily being an open ended anything goes RPG - a combat heavy and still with assumed roles and playstyles but the rules supported pretty much anything you could think to play

Funny, though, "anything people could think of to play" usually took the form of a caster type....and if THAT wasn't enough...queue the splatbooks to help folks make their non-caster types more caster-like(tank-mages). For roleplay purposes of course, this had nothing to do with improving their heavy combat or tactical needs, right?


- to being a tactical wargame with very restrictive and limiting rules that do not support even fairly common hi fantasy roles and archetypes (illusionist, summoner, transformation, mind attacks) and that disallow a lot of lateral problem solving."

Hrrmm....what do you mean by "lateral problems solving"? The cynic in me thinks he sees an attempt to glorify one overpowered classes ability to "do it all" without help from anyone else.

In 3e, casters like wizards simply had too much flexibility. Enemy with fire attacks or death magic? I'll just turn into something immune to it. Don't have an effective attack vs this monster? Oh, i'll just summon a solar or Pit Fiend to figure it out for me. With a reduction in their options, basically reductions that bring them in line with other classes, they have to coordinate with the other kids now, keep up friendly relations with fighter types now that they need them, have a rogue handy (or take the thievery skill now that they can), research their challenges and come up with clever solutions, develop npcs relationship if they need extra help, what's the word I'm looking for........oh ya, roleplay.

xirr2000
2008-06-06, 01:46 AM
Why didn't that mage just take a single level dip in Rogue or Factotum to get them as class skills?

It wasn't his concept of his character, and he didn't want to lose a level in a spellcasting class. A roleplay and a mechanic reasons for ya, how ya like them apples. Simply put the system was limiting him in his roleplay options, ways that 4e does not.

What is this factotum class i hear so much about, from the snippets I've read here and there it sounds like a broken do anything you want type of class. I'll reserve judgment till I actually read it (astute readers will note I have already failed to do that) but my instincts say "ubar splatbook tank-mage"! Somebody prove me wrong and send me a link please :)

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-06, 01:51 AM
Funny, though, "anything people could think of to play" usually took the form of a caster type....and if THAT wasn't enough...queue the splatbooks to help folks make their non-caster types more caster-like(tank-mages). For roleplay purposes of course, this had nothing to do with improving their heavy combat or tactical needs, right?
Giving melee more options was a very good idea. While most concepts involved magic you can name pretty much any non magical concept and be able to create a build that can represent that concept with at least a fair degree of accuracy. While all concepts wouldn't necessarily be balanced against one another they could all be created in some way.

You can not play an illusionist in 4e. You can not play a guy who uses magic to mess with peoples minds. The rules simply do not support either one.


Hrrmm....what do you mean by "lateral problems solving"? The cynic in me thinks he sees an attempt to glorify one overpowered classes ability to "do it all" without help from anyone else.
Lateral problem solving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking)

It requires that you have numerous potential actions, allowing more possible ways to solve a problem. 4e does not offer numerous potential actions and thus limits you to few possible ways to solve any given problem.


In 3e, casters like wizards simply had too much flexibility. Enemy with fire attacks or death magic? I'll just turn into something immune to it. Don't have an effective attack vs this monster? Oh, i'll just summon a solar or Pit Fiend to figure it out for me. With a reduction in their options, basically reductions that bring them in line with other classes, they have to coordinate with the other kids now, keep up friendly relations with fighter types now that they need them, have a rogue handy (or take the thievery skill now that they can), research their challenges and come up with clever solutions, develop npcs relationship if they need extra help, what's the word I'm looking for........oh ya, roleplay.

I never said 3e casters didn't have to much flexibility. The problem is 4e went far to far in the other direction. Look at ToB and XPH. Those are good classes.

JaxGaret
2008-06-06, 01:52 AM
What is this factotum class i hear so much about, from the snippets I've read here and there it sounds like a broken do anything you want type of class. I'll reserve judgment till I actually read it (astute readers will note I have already failed to do that) but my instincts say "ubar splatbook tank-mage"! Somebody prove me wrong and send me a link please :)

The Factotum is a class designed by Rich Burlew for Dungeonscape.

It is essentially a rogue-like skillmonkey (except better than the Rogue at it) who also has some neat combat options, most of which do not revolve around Sneak Attack.

It's not brokenly powerful like the primary casters, but it is quite strong. It's on par with the ToB classes.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-06, 01:55 AM
It wasn't his concept of his character, and he didn't want to lose a level in a spellcasting class. A roleplay and a mechanic reasons for ya, how ya like them apples. Simply put the system was limiting him in his roleplay options, ways that 4e does not.
No, his stiff necked stupidity was limiting his roleplay options. Fluff does not matter. Classes and abilities are just collections of mechanical effects. You can flavor them however you damn well please. As for loosing class levels, loosing 1 level doesn't really bother a wizard at all (get's spells on the sorcerer progression)


What is this factotum class i hear so much about, from the snippets I've read here and there it sounds like a broken do anything you want type of class. I'll reserve judgment till I actually read it (astute readers will note I have already failed to do that) but my instincts say "ubar splatbook tank-mage"! Somebody prove me wrong and send me a link please :)
...
Someone else can explain it, suffice it to say that it gets all skills as class skills (why I said take a 1 level dip). Its a good class.

JaxGaret
2008-06-06, 01:58 AM
You can not play an illusionist in 4e. You can not play a guy who uses magic to mess with peoples minds. The rules simply do not support either one.

The core ruleset doesn't, anyway. I'm pretty sure, as most are, that they will be released in some splatbook. Perhaps the PHBII.


It requires that you have numerous potential actions, allowing more possible ways to solve a problem. 4e does not offer numerous potential actions and thus limits you to few possible ways to solve any given problem.

Could you elaborate on this? What specifically has changed from 3e to 4e that "limits you to few[er] possible ways to solve any given problem", other than the non-uberness of casters?


I never said 3e casters didn't have to much flexibility. The problem is 4e went far to far in the other direction. Look at ToB and XPH. Those are good classes.

4e classes seem to be at about the same level of flexibility as Warblades and Crusaders, no? If not a fair bit more flexible.

xirr2000
2008-06-06, 01:59 AM
The Factotum is a class designed by Rich Burlew for Dungeonscape.

It is essentially a rogue-like skillmonkey (except better than the Rogue at it) who also has some neat combat options, most of which do not revolve around Sneak Attack.

It's not brokenly powerful like the primary casters, but it is quite strong. It's on par with the ToB classes.

ToB? Tome of Blood?

JaxGaret
2008-06-06, 02:01 AM
ToB? Tome of Blood?

Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords.

Rutee
2008-06-06, 02:03 AM
Ya i keep reading things like this but I dont see how any system like D&D 4e discourages it? I knew this guy in 3e who would like to play a mage who pretended to be a rogue. Went to great lengths to hide that he was a in fact a mage who used things like knock to open locks. Guess what? In 4e a mage can actually just get the thievery skill because they eliminated the silliness that a person who did not have a skill on their list was forever incapable of learning it no matter how much time they spent trying to. I like that, it sounds like it opens some roleplay doors to me. Doesn't it?

I didn't say 4e discourages roleplay. Well, at least not more then 3rd ed, which I feel can only damage roleplay if you take it as simulation rather then abstract, and then only in a serious setting. I don't think your scenario is really indicative one way or the other though. Mage who pretends to be a rogue, depending on the reasoning for why it's done, can be as interesting as mage who can in fact replicate what the rogue does without magic. Specifically, are you using magic because you /have/ to, to replicate the rogue while being a Wizard, or to actually pretend to be a rogue ICly? And if you really wanted to have the wizard pretend to be a rogue ICly, is a GM really going to kvetch much about making Knock as fast as lockpicking?


4e classes seem to be at about the same level of flexibility as Warblades and Crusaders, no? If not a fair bit more flexible.
Fewer Maneuvers readied, is the argument. I dunno if I buy it.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-06, 02:06 AM
The core ruleset doesn't, anyway. I'm pretty sure, as most are, that they will be released in some splatbook. Perhaps the PHBII.
Thats great. My opinion may well change when those splatbooks are released. I've said that in at least a few threads. If it does and WotC does it well then my opinion of it may change, but I can't judge based on things that aren't available to judge.


Could you elaborate on this? What specifically has changed from 3e to 4e that "limits you to few[er] possible ways to solve any given problem", other than the non-uberness of casters?
Can you create an illusion of a guard walking down the street and being dragged into an ally so that the guard in front of the building you need to enter will leave his post?

Can you charm the guard into thinking that you are his trusted friend so he doesn't haul you off to jail for that barfight?

Can you summon up an elemental to run around the bazaar?

Those are just off the top of my head at 3 in the morning and without having looked at the 4e books in a few days.

As for rituals, the only one of those that allows for real innovative uses is LSC. And thats just because the thing is badly written.


4e classes seem to be at about the same level of flexibility as Warblades and Crusaders, no? If not a fair bit more flexible.
...
No, they really aren't.

Rutee
2008-06-06, 02:12 AM
That goes back to the fact that one class, one method gets to do everything, Tippy. That's exactly what he was talking about.

Charity
2008-06-06, 02:18 AM
I was going to moan that we are back to this :smallsigh: then I remembered that I suppose this is the premiss of this thread so best not... it was all going so well as well..

I have been involved in the long debate (long debate is loooooong) about whether a system can influence/affect/preclude/promote etc roleplaying. No conlusion was ever reached nor was it likely to be. Suffice to say differences of opinion were about as common as posters in that one.
My opinion then as it is now is that personel and not system define the quantity and quality of the roleplaying that goes on.

Oh and nobody was restricting anybodies roleplay options, the characters choices were limited, your ability to realise the characters personality in an interesting and believable manner were in no way prevented by whether or not he had some or other class skill.

xirr2000
2008-06-06, 02:27 AM
Ya, i'll admit i'm not a big fan that conjurations, summonings, polymorphs and illusions were complete removed from 4e PHB. It does feel like something is lacking or was rushed. I also do not like that several "core" classes will be released in a later book. I mean if you don't have room for the druid/barbarian/monk, why squeeze in the warlock?

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-06, 02:29 AM
That goes back to the fact that one class, one method gets to do everything, Tippy. That's exactly what he was talking about.

No. Magic can do everything. Hell, the wizard class can do everything for all I care. Just make sure that no individual wizard can do everything.

Look at the Psion. That's how the wizard should have been done in 4e.

You can be an illusionist wizard, who has a large number of spells that no one else can cast.
You can be a summoner wizard, who has a large number of spells that no one else can cast.
You can be a blaster wizard, who has a larger number of spells no one else can cast.
You can be an enchantment wizard, who has a large number of spells no one else can cast.

Unlike 3.5 you cannot just be a wizard, who can cast all of those spells.

WotC should have either not included the wizard (and perhaps the cleric) in the PHB or spent the time to fully flesh out all of the possibilities. Yes, they say that classes will be able to do all of these things and will be presented in splatbooks, but that doesn't really matter. They are not there now.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-06-06, 02:37 AM
You also can't be a World of Darkness-style vampire or werewolf in either 3.5e or 4e, nor can you be a jedi or a Shadowrunner-style decker in either.

Clearly, this is proof that they both lack versatility and are actually just wargaming systems.

Rutee
2008-06-06, 02:37 AM
WotC should have either not included the wizard (and perhaps the cleric) in the PHB or spent the time to fully flesh out all of the possibilities. Yes, they say that classes will be able to do all of these things and will be presented in splatbooks, but that doesn't really matter. They are not there now.

Why? Because you say so? According to you, the problem is that the options don't exist, not that the wizard does or doesn't have them. Why is no wizard better then your version of the wizard class, which is effectively 8 different classes? What you've basically done with what you're saying (Not that I disagree with this) is segregate Wizard into 8 different classes. Why should they all be in the core book?

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-06, 02:53 AM
Why? Because you say so? According to you, the problem is that the options don't exist, not that the wizard does or doesn't have them. Why is no wizard better then your version of the wizard class, which is effectively 8 different classes? What you've basically done with what you're saying (Not that I disagree with this) is segregate Wizard into 8 different classes. Why should they all be in the core book?

No, because they choose to put something in a game called Dungeons & Dragons 4e that was marketed as a "revision" of the 3.5 rules called the wizard. This class existed in 3.5. It could do certain things, the least of which is more than the 4e wizard can do. If WotC has chosen to leave the wizard out of the PHB all together and call what they published as a "wizard" a Blaster or Warmage or pretty much anything else it would have been one thing.

WotC could have also chosen to divorce fluff and crunch completely and just give mechanical abilities which you could fill in the flavor for. Want a striker wizard? Take a striker class of your choice and fill in the wizard specific stats.

But WotC did neither of those, for market reasons which I understand WotC choose to use the D&D brand to sell 4e. How WotC marketed 4e implied certain things about 4e which WotC then failed to deliver.

---
I have no problem with the 4e system in a vacuum or on it's own. Where my problem arises is in comparison to the previous edition (hell every edition from 2e on) which 4e was marketed as a revision of.

Rutee
2008-06-06, 03:00 AM
Do you really think it bothers most DnD players that Wizards are less capable? Do you really think that in conserving the archetype but discarding most of the traditional DnD powers, most people are genuinely that mad? Well, no, actually, you do, or you wouldn't think this was a legitimate complaint. Honestly, IMO if they didn't have the Wizard in there (I don't see why not the cleric. They can melee and handle most of the combat stuff that distinguished old clerics, they just don't do it by becoming 20 feet tall. How was /that/ tied to all clerics, exactly?), more people would bitch that it's not DnD because they removed an archetypal class. It's only a 'marketting decision' in the sense that it would piss /more/ people off to not have it.

Talk about yer unpleasable fanbase. Mascot-tan was certainly right to give them that custom advantage where they gain/lose twice the moe anyone else would for the same action...

Kurald Galain
2008-06-06, 05:03 AM
Hallucinatory Creature Ritual.
For the situation Tippy described, that ritual works technically, but not effectively, because of the casting time and material component cost involved.

"It exists on paper" is not the same as "it is effectively usable in play". 3.5 has numerous options that exist on paper but don't work all that well (like, say, TWF or S&B fighters) and it's obvious that 4E also has a few.

Charity
2008-06-06, 05:23 AM
WotC should have either not included the wizard (and perhaps the cleric) in the PHB or spent the time to fully flesh out all of the possibilities. Yes, they say that classes will be able to do all of these things and will be presented in splatbooks, but that doesn't really matter. They are not there now.

Oh Tippy, can you imagine the hoohah if they'd left wizards or clerics out?
There would be suicide bombers running into their lobby... imagine the turnaround on receptionists.

As far as I'm concerned they have included a fully functional wizard, there will no doubt be other options along soon, heck I imagine Fax is already penning a summoner or some such.

The wealth of options you want to see for a wizard simply cannot be made available to just one class and maintain even the illiusion of balance.
The other identifiable schools of magic will have to be seperate classes, and just cos you want to see 4 types of wizard in the PHB doesn't mean that everyone feels the same. Though I think there is room in there for an alternate controller type class, we got the warlord after all.

Rutee
2008-06-06, 05:27 AM
The wealth of options you want to see for a wizard simply cannot be made available to just one class and maintain even the illiusion of balance.
The other identifiable schools of magic will have to be seperate classes, and just cos you want to see 4 types of wizard in the PHB doesn't mean that everyone feels the same.
I will point out that he did effectively grant that Wizard should be chopped up into 8 classes. He didn't say it that way, but that was the gist of the "One Wizard casts all Enchantment", etc.

Charity
2008-06-06, 09:00 AM
Fair enough, and I agree with that, but they couldn't have put 8 wizard classes in the PHB, there just isn't the room.

tumble check
2008-06-06, 09:05 AM
Tippy has provided some inspiration for me in that 4e really isn't that bad, it's just really hard to consider it the next wave of DnD as marketed by WotC. The feel of it is so incredibly different, and while tactical options for playing have dramatically increased, the out-of-combat mechanics, flavor of the classes, and the game as a whole is so different from 3.5 that it is simply jarring.

It seems to me that it is revolutionary, not evolutionary, and being called a 4e after a 3.5, it is a little disconcerting.

Swordguy
2008-06-06, 09:49 AM
I misphrased that. I should have said:

"WotC decided to go from D&D primarily being an open ended anything goes RPG - a combat heavy and still with assumed roles and playstyles but the rules supported pretty much anything you could think to play - to being a tactical wargame with very restrictive and limiting rules that do not support even fairly common hi fantasy roles and archetypes (illusionist, summoner, transformation, mind attacks) and that disallow a lot of lateral problem solving."

To be fair, "being a tactical wargame with very restrictive and limiting rules" accurately describes D&D, Basic D&D, AD&D, 2e AD&D, and 4e.

3rd edition was the anomaly. They tried to move away from what D&D was into the larger market of open-ended character creation-type games, and look what it got them. *Points at WotC CharOp Forum* They didn't want that. Therefore, we step back in time, and old is new again. We get 4e.


Also:

Tippy has provided some inspiration for me in that 4e really isn't that bad, it's just really hard to consider it the next wave of DnD as marketed by WotC. The feel of it is so incredibly different, and while tactical options for playing have dramatically increased, the out-of-combat mechanics, flavor of the classes, and the game as a whole is so different from 3.5 that it is simply jarring.

It seems to me that it is revolutionary, not evolutionary, and being called a 4e after a 3.5, it is a little disconcerting.

THIS

It's a completely new game, with the D&D imprint. Bitch at WotC for bad marketing, if you must. That's a fair complaint.

Oslecamo
2008-06-06, 09:51 AM
"It exists on paper" is not the same as "it is effectively usable in play". 3.5 has numerous options that exist on paper but don't work all that well (like, say, TWF or S&B fighters) and it's obvious that 4E also has a few.

Please define "effectively usable in play". At low levels a S&B fighter is quite good whitout need of specific feats or anything, and a TWF rogue is perfectly able to rape most monsters it finds with insane damage outputs.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-06, 09:59 AM
3rd edition was the anomaly. They tried to move away from what D&D was into the larger market of open-ended character creation-type games, and look what it got them. *Points at WotC CharOp Forum* They didn't want that. Therefore, we step back in time, and old is new again. We get 4e.

On the other side, didn't it also get them a wider player base than before?

Kurald Galain
2008-06-06, 10:13 AM
Please define "effectively usable in play". At low levels a S&B fighter is quite good whitout need of specific feats or anything, and a TWF rogue is perfectly able to rape most monsters it finds with insane damage outputs.

Note how my previous post was referring to a fighters, not rogues.

Even at low levels, S&B fighters get +1 defense, whereas THF fighters +3 to +6 extra damage per blow. Gets worse at higher levels.

So what is your point precisely, that every single character concept, or race/class/feat combination, in 3E is effectively usable? Because that is so obviously wrong that it shouldn't even need explaining. Just open any class guide and look at the races or feats or whatever marked red.

JaxGaret
2008-06-06, 10:24 AM
Thats great. My opinion may well change when those splatbooks are released. I've said that in at least a few threads. If it does and WotC does it well then my opinion of it may change, but I can't judge based on things that aren't available to judge.

If the splatbooks are as well designed as the core books, I will be a happy man.


Can you create an illusion of a guard walking down the street and being dragged into an ally so that the guard in front of the building you need to enter will leave his post?

Hallucinatory Creature Ritual.


Can you charm the guard into thinking that you are his trusted friend so he doesn't haul you off to jail for that barfight?

With social skills, sure :smallsmile:


Can you summon up an elemental to run around the bazaar?

Clerics get some Summoning spells.


Those are just off the top of my head at 3 in the morning and without having looked at the 4e books in a few days.

Not that it really makes a difference, but I did answer all three.


As for rituals, the only one of those that allows for real innovative uses is LSC. And thats just because the thing is badly written.

I happen to like the 4e Divination Rituals. There should be more Rituals released down the line.


... No, they really aren't.

Would you care to explain this viewpoint? The Powers vs. Maneuvers comparison seems pretty comparable.


One thing that I haven't mentioned yet is Skill usage. In 3e, most skills were completely overshadowed by magic. In 4e, skills can also be used to find those lateral solutions to situations you mentioned, since magic isn't uber any more and skills are comparatively more useful than they were in 3e, since their power level didn't change as appreciably.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-06, 10:35 AM
Speaking of Illusion powers...

Issue 364 of Dragon Magazine...


Class Acts: Wizard
By Rodney Thompson
If you're in the market for more illusionist-style wizard powers, look no further.

The full article is here. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080605a) It mentions Warforged racial feats, more kobolds, Dark Sun hazards... as well as other stuff. Now if only I could figure out how to SEE the cursed thing.

Breaw
2008-06-06, 11:12 AM
Well, frankly, "This is balanced on the assumption that players won't use it, at least not too often, even though there's no more of a limit placed on its use than on the use of the alternatives" sounds so dumb that it's kind of hard to believe that anyone actually believed that. Was powergaming actually a foreign concept to 3E's designers? I'm pretty sure it existed in 2E. The idea that players might pick options based on how effective they are seems like a fairly obvious concept. That the best way to test the effectiveness of an option is to run a character that makes frequent use of that option also seems pretty obvious. If you run a wizard who specializes in Enchanment but mostly casts Evocation spells, you've hardly really playtested Enchanters. You don't meaningfully playtest something by running it in an ass-backwards way.


To be fair, play-testing doesn't mean 'checking for balance'. So long as you don't find some very obvious loopholes that regularly allow one player to totally trivialize challenges put forth by the DM (I'm not saying these klooges don't exist, but most of them are obviously so and fixed with rule 0) play-testing can just be about making sure the system works to form a entertaining game for all those playing.

The concept of balance has always been there, but it's certainly come to the front of the stage with the explosion of video games in the past 10 years. So long as you are playing with a reasonable group of people who aren't setting out to make your less-than-optimal build make you feel like less of a person, balance is mostly irrelevant.

I have played plenty of sub optimal characters, but rolled ridiculously well on my stats. As a result I toned down my pwnage as to not alienate the rest of the party.

I'm not saying that seeking balance is a bad thing, I'm just saying that in a pen and paper cooperative game one can get by very well without worrying too much about balance. It's more about everyone having a good time than everyone being exactly as integral in the success of the party. (Although there is certainly some overlap in those two things.

anyway, that's enough ranting for now.

Vikingkingq
2008-06-06, 12:37 PM
Unless I'm very much mistaken, you'll be able to do illusions, either as a Psion or a Bard or an Illusionist, we don't know yet. Likewise, I'm sure you will be able to do summons, either as a Necromancer or something else, we don't know yet.

There are still lots of choices for how to play, the main change is you can't do them in the same class.

But to look at the broader picture, I don't think most classes have lost versatility. Fighters? Definitely added versatility. Rogues? Ditto. Rangers lost some with spells, but picked up a lot of combat stuff to counter-balance. Paladins? Gained as well. Warlords? New. Warlocks? Can't really tell, never played them. Clerics? Gained in terms of role versatility, by being able to fight and accomplish other tasks (healing, buffing, etc.) with the same attack.

Swordguy
2008-06-06, 02:23 PM
On the other side, didn't it also get them a wider player base than before?

Possibly. It also could have been the OGL, better marketing, the previous generation of D&D players foisting the new edition on their kids and their kid's friends, or even the general sea change in American culture which resulted in D&D being not quite as geeky anymore.

To claim that the sole reason that D&D's players base expanded in the early 2000's was due to a new ruleset is, I think, a logical fallacy. And if the WotC Suits decided that it was more due to (for example) marketing and the OGL, why then, they can change the rules at will! After all, they didn't lose a lot of players with the wholesale rules changes from 2e to 3.x, right?

ImperiousLeader
2008-06-06, 05:28 PM
It mentions Warforged racial feats, more kobolds, Dark Sun hazards... as well as other stuff. Now if only I could figure out how to SEE the cursed thing.

Only the Warforged and Demonomicon articles have been posted, the others will should be posted within the month. The 'Forged article was really well done.

JaxGaret
2008-06-06, 07:21 PM
Speaking of Illusion powers...

Issue 364 of Dragon Magazine...



The full article is here. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080605a) It mentions Warforged racial feats, more kobolds, Dark Sun hazards... as well as other stuff. Now if only I could figure out how to SEE the cursed thing.

Wow.

That is really amazing.

That really is truly amazing. That is so amazingly amazing I think I'd like to steal it.

quillbreaker
2008-06-06, 11:19 PM
The $64,000 question is whether or not this lack of versatility a) holds, and b) truly has either positive or negative effect on the game. Only time will tell.

It was mentioned that the ideal party these days is "Batman Wizard, Druid, Beguiler, Artificer". None of these, unless you have played them before, are particularly quick to build, and you have a lot more little details to balance. I'm in a game right now where we're leveling pretty fast, and I'm actually starting to get annoyed at the amount of paperwork involved. Skills, magic item shopping, spell selection... and so forth.

And then we had a new player join the group... and that's another character for someone to make, because if a new player just sits down and makes a fighter out of the Player's Manual, they're going to be both ineffective and bored, and probably annoyed when they do 20 damage and the guy next to them does 100. Maybe I've been around the block so many times that the buildings are all starting to look the same, but I'm getting really sick of making 3.5 ed characters. I quit playing my MoMF because the game was starting to turn into a race to find the most broken monster.

It's getting to the point where the game that we play is not a game that we can bring people into because it takes an associate's degree worth of information and experience to play. And you learn that information, or you don't play, or you don't play effectively, and those are your three choices.

I'm much more interested in who my character is and what is going on in the plot than 3 page minimum character sheets. These days, I really just want to sit down and play. And versatility pretty much means complexity, and choices to make, and choices take time, especially when they are irreversible choices. It sounds like with 4th edition I can sit down and make a character in 10 minutes, even above level 1, and if that is true I can forgive a *lot* of flaws.

My gaming group's favorite game that I run? I took a copy of the Call of Cuthulu 3.0 game, stripped out sanity and magic, added modern weapons, and ran a near-modern day military game. They love it and can't get enough of it and they don't seem to care that during a given combat round they will probably just move, shoot, hide, or flee. They don't seem to miss choosing from an arsenal of 50 spells and 20 magic items. Combat rounds go about five times as fast as a mid to high end D&D game, and there's nothing to hate about that, either.

Calling 3.5 versatile is glorifying the needless complexity that has infested it over the years. Dealing with 3.5 mechanics is closer to dealing with the tax code than anything else I do in my life. I can say pretty safely that not only will I not miss playing 3.5, but that if I ever see another game like it I will back away really quickly and claim I have plans that day.

JaxGaret
2008-06-06, 11:27 PM
It was mentioned that the ideal party these days is "Batman Wizard, Druid, Beguiler, Artificer".

No no no, it's Druid, Artificer, Archivist (or Cleric), Wizard. :smallsmile:


I'm much more interested in who my character is and what is going on in the plot than 3 page minimum character sheets. These days, I really just want to sit down and play. And versatility pretty much means complexity, and choices to make, and choices take time, especially when they are irreversible choices. It sounds like with 4th edition I can sit down and make a character in 10 minutes, even above level 1, and if that is true I can forgive a *lot* of flaws.

Agreed. And then you actually sit down at a 4e game, and it plays like a dream.

That's been mine and many others' experience with it, anyway.


Calling 3.5 versatile is glorifying the needless complexity that has infested it over the years. Dealing with 3.5 mechanics is closer to dealing with the tax code than anything else I do in my life. I can say pretty safely that not only will I not miss playing 3.5, but that if I ever see another game like it I will back away really quickly and claim I have plans that day.

I wouldn't go that far. But I may be slowly edging towards this kind of viewpoint.