PDA

View Full Version : What's Wrong With 4e?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Realms of Chaos
2008-06-09, 05:27 PM
Right off the bat, let me inform you that this the thread's title is not a rhetoricle question.

I want to know, what you, the people, think is wrong with 4e. I want a list of all of the good ideas that met the executioner's block, the bad ideas that were stuffed in for laughs, wonky substitutions for rules that worked, and the general differences that break any semblance of verismilitude.

Please refrain from vague comments like...
"4e has lost its integrity/depth/verismilitude" (tell me in what ways!)
or
"4e is now a miniatures game" (tell me how so!)
And from more sarcastic statements like...
"to see the problem, open up any 4e book to a random page and start reading"

Although I know a limited amount about 4e, I want to know as much as possible about what has been perceived to have gone wrong (or strangely different) with it before I decide to buy the books.

Of the changes I have heard are
-loss of several base classes (to be reintroduced into future PHBs, with exception of the sorcerer, which is gone forever). :smallfrown:
-loss of prestige classes
-no craft skill
-no profession skill
-multiclassing through feats.
-minions with 1 hp
-for some reason players cannot find magic items too weak for them but are expected to find items too strong for them.
-items sell for 1/5th price instead of 1/2 price.
-speed measured in squares rather than feet.

I'm sure that there are a bunch more things that people are somewhat distressed at, if not downright mad at. please help me assemble a list.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-09, 05:32 PM
first off, i want to say this. Nothing is wrong with 4th ed. Its a matter of taste, thats the simple answer to it. Not only that, but its core, no splat book, 4th ed we are seeing now. Gods only knows what we will get in a couple months.

The one thing i have to even remotely complain about is the limitied stuff on races....thats it.....Everything else is amazing

Zocelot
2008-06-09, 05:33 PM
A chief complaint seems to be that everything relys on powers. I personally don't see how this affects gameplay, but I'm sure someone will tell me in the next few posts.

In addition, there is a lack of versatillity with character creation and development. There are only 4 options for most classes, emphasized by the paragon path (3 paths for the warlock). 31 classes, and 8 races is only 248 possible character concepts, many of which are poor choices due to race and class not mixing.

TheCleric
2008-06-09, 05:37 PM
Wow. no replies yet? I expect there to be a lot.
Seems like I'm a slow type. :smallbiggrin:
What I, personally find wrong with it is mostly Races.
They dropped Gnomes for one, and added...yes another Elf race.
This time they're even elfier than normal elves!
They've moved Elves into a more, Wood Elf-y role. The elves that live in hidden forest cities and such.
I fear they might have unbalanced somethings, seeing as how almost all the races get a +2 in two things, and no minus to compensate.
Dragonborn +2 Str +2 Cha
Dwarves +2 Con +2 Wis
This may be compensated for, but I don't see how yet, I'm still very new to 4ed. as well.
Yeah Monk, Barbarian, Bard are gone.
There's new gods, and altered old ones.
Alignments have changed as well. Instead of Chaotic, Neutral, and Lawful variations of Good, Neutral, and Evil it's been shimmied down to
Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil.

So far that's about all I've read about...oh weapons.
They've been category name changed as far as i can see that's all.
Martial is now Military, Exotic is Superior I think it's called.
I'm sure someone else can tell you a lot more. But that's my short list of what's different/wrong.

EDIT: Forgot Druid was removed, along with Half-Orcs too, seems DragonBorn are taking their place as the strong race.

StoryKeeper
2008-06-09, 05:43 PM
I fear they might have unbalanced somethings, seeing as how almost all the races get a +2 in two things, and no minus to compensate.
Dragonborn +2 Str +2 Cha
Dwarves +2 Con +2 Wis
This may be compensated for, but I don't see how yet, I'm still very new to 4ed. as well.


I haven't had a chance to read the 4th edition stuff yet, but if all the races have two positive things and no drawbacks, then wouldn't they all be balanced with each other?

TheCleric
2008-06-09, 05:44 PM
I haven't had a chance to read the 4th edition stuff yet, but if all the races have two positive things and no drawbacks, then wouldn't they all be balanced with each other?

-smacks forehead-
Yeah. -laughs-
I guess that's how it works then.

RTGoodman
2008-06-09, 05:45 PM
Of the changes I have heard are
-loss of several base classes (to be reintroduced into future PHBs, with exception of the sorcerer, which is gone forever). :smallfrown:
Incorrect. Sorcerer has been stated as being in a future supplement, and will be based on more Elemental powers.

-loss of prestige classes
Well, sort of. But paragon paths are basically PrCs, and don't think for a minute that there won't be a glut of them with each new supplement.

-no craft skill
-no profession skill
Yeah, but besides Profession (Sailor), when have you ever rolled any of those? And Craft sucked anyway. Just roleplay it already.

-multiclassing through feats.
True. I don't really have an opinion on this. I don't really like it, but I don't think it's a bad system. I never really liked multiclassing anyway, except between similar classes (Fighter/Paladin, etc.), and that's still fine.

-minions with 1 hp
Not gonna touch that. I like Minions, but this inevitably turns into a big argument.

-for some reason players cannot find magic items too weak for them but are expected to find items too strong for them.
Because it was always great to have a 12th level character with 14 rings of protection +1 that no one wanted, and that he only had because the DM needed some way to make those NPCs slighty less squishy.
-items sell for 1/5th price instead of 1/2 price.[/quote]
I haven't played yet, so I don't know about how this works out. It may be the case that the economy works better this way.

-speed measured in squares rather than feet.
Just multiply by 5. Ta-da! It's the same thing, but easier for people that don't measure things in feet!


My only problem with 4E so far is just stuff that's hard to find or not clarified. I've been trying to figure out for a while what sort of challenge NPCs built by the rules on DMG pg. 186-88 are, and I just now got an e-mail back from CustServ clarifying it. (They're like standard monsters, sort of, but they're really closer to PCs that monsters.)

Also, there are a lot of monsters I'm not happy with because of power level. There are no goblins above Level 5 or so, for instance. The section on making monsters stronger, though, helps out a lot. Of course, several monsters I really like aren't there yet, but they're not that hard to homebrew.

I also don't see a lack of versatility, because WE ONLY HAVE ONE BOOK FOR PCS SO FAR. I've got one player who's pouting because of this now, because he apparently doesn't get that. :smallsigh:

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-09, 05:46 PM
first off, i want to say this. Nothing is wrong with 4th ed. Its a matter of taste, thats the simple answer to it.

In that case, then there is absolutely nothing good about 4e either.

Anyway, what I most object to is the inability of much rules-based creativity; and, by doing that, I don't mean 'LOL PUNPUN', but rather all those spells/mundane items/abilities that you could use, with a bit of imagination, to jerry rig stuff. Unexpected ways of solving problems, that sorta thing. Now, in the class powers, there are maybe a dozen such powers that even come close to that, and to say that the ritual list is good enough is just ludicrous. If 4e = WoW (which it doesn't - it's a massive exaggeration), then I miss the way that 3.5 = Garry's Mod.

Of course, that effects casters more than others, but it's still an across-the-board cut.

Tengu
2008-06-09, 05:47 PM
The biggest (and only major) drawback of 4e is that it's called Dungeons and Dragons, while being so different from the previous edition - which makes everyone and their dog complain about the differences instead of looking at it from an unbiased point of view.

TheCleric
2008-06-09, 05:50 PM
There are many players coming into D&D now because of 4th edition. They're the luckily and blissfully ignorant?

I seem to remember a major soda company pulling something like this. Upsetting a majority of it's brand loyal and then bringing them back with the old version? :smallwink:

Saph
2008-06-09, 05:52 PM
For me, the main issue with 4e is the loss of all those interesting, versatile spells and abilities. Everything really flexible with lots of uses has been either removed or nerfed (check out the difference in spells like Spider Climb or Teleport).

I don't care about much of the rest, and in fact I've had fun with 4e the times I've played it, but after 3.5, too much of the 4e stuff feels like weaksauce. If 4e wasn't going to replace 3.5 (and thus stop all official support for it), I'd enjoy it much more.

- Saph

Corncracker
2008-06-09, 05:53 PM
You don't seem to realize how many more character concepts there are then that.

For examply, my Dragonborn Warlord grabbed the Arcane initiate cross class feat. I gave him Ray of Frost with it in order to improve upon his battlefield control abilities, and because of that feet I have access to the Wizard Paragon, and I fully intend to run him through Stormmage.

Another guy is taking a ranger and planning to run him through the Cat Burgler Paragon as well.

I'll give you the problems I think it has compared to 3.5.

First is the Skill system. Without Skill points, you have no where near the customization in that area you once had. However once you look into the system, it does have a nice amount of customization, and with Skill Training Feats you can expand upon your known skills. So it's still a good system, just not when compared to 3.5.

Multiclassing is vastly different. You are basically stuck on the class you initially pick. However you can grab a Multiclass feat to give you a few abilities from a another class, Such as Arcane initiate automatically gives you Training in the ARcane Skill, 1 wizard at will power as an encounter power, and for purposes of choosing a Paragon Class you are treated as having the Wizard Class.

Most Multiclass feats, however, allow you to pick from any class skill the class has. Rogue would be another acception, making you pick thievery.

While again, it's a good system, it lacks the mass customization of 3.5's multiclassing.

While we'll likely be getting a lot more options later on through splat books and such, it does somewhat limit the options.

Overall though, I think this edition is looking better then 3.5. Every other problem I have is basically cosmetic, and some minor fluff changes will make me happy. (Like making Tieflings like they were in 3.5 compared to watered down half fiends.)

StoryKeeper
2008-06-09, 05:54 PM
Unexpected ways of solving problems, that sorta thing.

Granted, it can be really annoying when PCs completely side-step that brilliant, earth-shaking situation you had planned, but there's also fun to be had in finding creative solutions to problems.

TheEmerged
2008-06-09, 05:54 PM
Understand that I have only the Player's Handbook so far, and I'm unlikely to be able to actually play the system in an actual gaming environment for at least a month (and two is looking much better). I'm also working off a first blush so I could be wrong about some things, and am probably missing others. Final disclaimer -- I mostly played 3.0, not 3.5.

There's a lot that I'm still digesting at this point. A few of the issues you mentioned are things I'm prepared to invoke a "wait and see" attitude on. But there's one that right now, pending all the appropriate disclaimers, I think I'm going to have to be convinced to like -- the streamlining/gutting of the skill system.

There were flaws with the skill system as it existed in 3rd edition. I am very unconvinced at the moment that the 4th edition corrected those problems. Now maybe I'm missing a critical feat, power, or somesuch but I don't like that the most you can train skills above the norm is +25%. I don't like the way the 4th edition system is much less flexible in how I spend those skills. Now, I do like that you have a significant difference between trained & untrained even at 1st level, and I do like the way a lot of skills were combined (Thievery ftw).

Which brings us to a second, lesser concern: multiclassing as feats. I don't mind the nigh-removal of prestige classes -- yes it was one of the better innovations of 3rd edition, but it also caused some issues and I'm in no way convinced the game was better off with them. I do have a bit of a problem, however, with the idea that I can create a Wizard character, take a single feat, and then be able to pick locks/etc just as well as a same-leveled rogue with the same Dexterity. The idea that theoretically any character in the game can take 2 feats and be able to Raise Dead doesn't sit too well with me either, but my issue with Ritual Spells falls under the "wait and see" boilerplate.

TheCleric
2008-06-09, 05:59 PM
All very good viewpoints folks. Glad I invested time to check this thread out.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-09, 05:59 PM
The biggest (and only major) drawback of 4e is that it's called Dungeons and Dragons, while being so different from the previous edition - which makes everyone and their dog complain about the differences instead of looking at it from an unbiased point of view.

Yes, but when someone asks 'what shall we play', how are we not going to compare the two?


Granted, it can be really annoying when PCs completely side-step that brilliant, earth-shaking situation you had planned, but there's also fun to be had in finding creative solutions to problems.

Yes, but it's the PCs' game. If you're forcing them into your brilliant earth-shaking solution, then that's compromised.

Temp.
2008-06-09, 06:02 PM
I don't see anything "wrong" with 4.0, but it still isn't a system I'd want to play.

My biggest complaint is that magic doesn't do what I want magic to do. When I think about what spellcasters should be doing, I think about manipulation, illusions, conjurations and transformation. Fireballs, lightning bolts and Magic Missiles don't fit my ideas of "what magic should be" at all.

4.0 caters well to the people who do want their Wizards doing those things, but not to the effects that I want to see magic doing. By removing these sorts of abilities, WotC has built what appears to be a well-balanced game. It just isn't a game that actually appeals to me.

JackMage666
2008-06-09, 06:28 PM
Just a quick note on the item costs - Normal, nonmagical items sell for 1/5th the price, but magical and special items (a golden dagger was mentioned) sell for full price. I can't give you a page number, but I think it's mentioned somewhere in the equipment section.

Aotrs Commander
2008-06-09, 06:32 PM
Sigh... where to begin?

First off, I should say that 4E does not appear to be on the surface a mechanically poor system. As far as it seems to go (having not read it cover to cover; I've only got it this morning and have only skimmed the classes and powers and concentrated on reading the bulk (hah) of the rest of the rules).

It is not, however, in my opinion, either particularly elegant not particularly good. It's functional. Unlike 3.x, there is nothing that I've looked at gone "wow, that's just...why did we never think of that before!" (E.g. 3.0 multiclassing, easily the finest idea of the edition in my opinion.) (Note: 3.5 is by no means without flaws. But I find despite those flaws - some of which can be fixed with light to moderate house-ruling or simply lived with - it's the most mechanically superior set of RPG rules I've encountered.)

Lest anyone misinterpret me before I go any further I should qualify my position by saying that D&D - any edition - has no nostalgic hold over me. I started playing with HeroQuest and gravitated to Rolemaster right away (talk about a step up!) No rules system, wargame or roleplaying, commands any degree of respect from me other than what it earns by it's purely mechanical elements. So, no nostalgic grognarding drives me, only what I percieve as mechanical inferiority.

Right, that said...

I dislike the design philosphy. I dislike the hero-centric mechanics and 'exception based design'. The greatest strength of 3.x for me was the standardisation of everything. I thought that the monsters and the PCs being on equal footing was an outstanding step foward.

I hate the skill system with a passion; coming from a background of skill-based RPGs, having skills as basically negligable I find an anthema. Despite the fact I've a pretty heavy optimiser when all's said and done, a look a the skills on any of my characters will show a smattering of skills outside the primaries. My current Necormancer/Pale Master, for example, has picked up new knowledge skills in the last few levels and has skill ranks in Profession (Undertaker) and (Herbalist).

(The concept of skill challenges is one of the better ideas and one I shall steal, however.)

I dislike the homogenising of the classes. While I grant you, 3.5's wide disparity in character class power levels was not good, homogenisation to this point was not the answer. After 3.x's superlative multiclassing, 4E's is laughable. I feel that the class roles are too restrictive and artificial for my tastes and I found the lack of permissibility and flexibility to be poor when compared to 3.x.

I personally find 4E to be littered with too much world-specific fluff. I really hate this because I do not play on existing campaign worlds if I can help it, as world building gives me as much joy as playing. I don't freakin' want shared fictional histories, renamed or otherwise, I want my world to be my world, not some broadly similar thing to what WotC considers ideal (this applies to 3.5 too; I tossed out the entire MM for my current campaign world).

Related to this, the MM is absolutely hands down the worst bestiary I have ever seen in any game, RPG or wargame, ever. I'm not happy, but don't regret buying the PHB and DMG; but I do the MM because it's just a collection of stat blocks. The mix of monsters and multiple levels of the same type remind me more or those found in Final Fantasy or Dungeon Siege. I've no problems with them in context but I want my table-top bestiary to include some of the normal, generic stuff like animals as well as the weird oddities. Now this would be forgivable, because reading bestiaries are usually a fun read for the sake of a read, except the MM has basically nothing to read. Most monsters get about what four-six lines of fluff. Call me nuts, but while I don't like too much fluff (or at least world-specific fluff) in my mechanics, I expect it my monster descriptions. A picture and a stat block are not inspiring me to use any of them. (Size of monsters, guys? Aside from the size stat, not heights or weights are listed; how do I describe them to the PCs? Plonk the minature down (assuming I was daft enough to buy trillions of D&D minis to have enough to do that)? Show them the picture - which doesn't help because I still don't know how big it is...)

I find the use of squares as a measurement risable, not only because it forces you to use a grid (I prefer the grid to be a rough guide not an absolute; I don't use a grid in wargames, I'm bloody well not playing a smaller-scale RPG under greater restrictions) but because I find it shatters immersion and forces you to convert back to feet anytime you deal with a described envrioment anyway (see Jump skill example. It tells you to work out your jump distance in squares and promptly has to convert it back to feet. Poor design, folks.)

The distance in squares is just one of the aspects of the rules that make me think it it too game-y for an RPG. The phrasing of the rules reminds me of a lot of (generally poor) wargames. I was particularly reminded of Warhammer Fantasy Battle (no, not even the RPG) in style - only without the strong Warhammer flavour that characterised the later stuff (not that I would want that anyway, but...)

Overall, the set-up reminded me forceably of a CRPG (not necessarily an MMORPG, because I've never played one) but more of Diablo, Dungeon Siege or JRPGs where the monsters are totally different from the players and everything has to have some combat use.

Finally, I found that it didn't have enough of a grounding in reality for me (two fantasy armour-types for every loosely historical one? No, I think not.) Now, I'd be the first to agree my games, containing as they do on occasion laser-breathing psionic crow-falcons or Pokemon (once) are not realisitic. They are however, very firmly grounded in reality (and where appropriate history - not just Medieval either), which I use as a springboard to do the crazies. 4E bears very little lip service (longbows have a range of 200' (40 squares)? Keh? That's not even a hundred yards.) to reality, sacrificing it for the game-y aspects, which as mentioned earlier, I don't like as I find them counter to immersion.



Frankly, WotC seem to me to have done a Games Workshop; a lot of heavy commercialisation (plugging D&D mini cards for random encounters but never suggesting random encounter tables? What?) and trying very hard to recruit new blood. (I could, with perhaps a touch of unfairness but a fair degree of justification, accuse them of dumbing it down.) I imagine it'll be great for newcomers or for DMs who just want to pull WotC monsters right out of the box. But for a mechanic-loving, wargaming, homebrewer like me, it's just not what I want from an RPG system. I may well play it (but I'll play pretty much anything if it eases my DMing duties a touch), but I'm certainly not going to DM it.



(And clerics with lasers? What?)

Starbuck_II
2008-06-09, 06:58 PM
I dislike the design philosphy. I dislike the hero-centric mechanics and 'exception based design'. The greatest strength of 3.x for me was the standardisation of everything. I thought that the monsters and the PCs being on equal footing was an outstanding step foward.

Yeah, I thought that was the greatest weakness. You know, LA and CR and ECL (so many new DMs and players confused it all).



I personally find 4E to be littered with too much world-specific fluff. I really hate this because I do not play on existing campaign worlds if I can help it, as world building gives me as much joy as playing. I don't freakin' want shared fictional histories, renamed or otherwise, I want my world to be my world, not some broadly similar thing to what WotC considers ideal (this applies to 3.5 too; I tossed out the entire MM for my current campaign world).

I won't be getting my books from amazon till next week at earliest (stupid Amazon).
So I must ask you to explain: What world specific Fluff is you problem?


A picture and a stat block are not inspiring me to use any of them. (Size of monsters, guys? Aside from the size stat, not heights or weights are listed; how do I describe them to the PCs? Plonk the minature down (assuming I was daft enough to buy trillions of D&D minis to have enough to do that)? Show them the picture - which doesn't help because I still don't know how big it is...)

Pretty easy:
Large equal 8 to 9 feet unless panther/dog like than 3-4 feet (like Horse in 3.5). This should only be an issue with new players.

Aotrs Commander
2008-06-09, 07:11 PM
Yeah, I thought that was the greatest weakness. You know, LA and CR and ECL (so many new DMs and players confused it all).

LA, CR and ECL are definately among 3.5's worst points. That the monsters and characters used all the same base rules wasn't.


I won't be getting my books from amazon till next week at earliest (stupid Amazon).
So I must ask you to explain: What world specific Fluff is you problem?

Example: the fact that Tieflings are supposed to come from some fallen civilisation. Okay fine; but I take umbridge when 4E says, "you can change the name of the fallen empire if you like" and is still going to assume your world will have a temple of elemental evil and whatnot.

It's akin to 3.5 Complete Champion having all those spells and PrCs which relied on you using core dieties or close derivatives thereof (your sun god must be good for example) which I don't like. I really, really, don't like rules telling me flavour assumptions, especially as I make the effort to avoid cliches where I can.

(Related quibble: they rabbited on pre-release about how every monster has a story - and then don't bother to present it...wha?)


Pretty easy:
Large equal 8 to 9 feet unless panther/dog like than 3-4 feet (like Horse in 3.5). This should only be an issue with new players.

Not very descriptive, though is it? Aside from the amoutn of combat space it takes up, there's actually no clue as to how big something is. That strikes me of something I expect out of a poor wargames rule set where you're expected to buy the accompanying figures and so have no need of that information, not an RPG.

It just reinforces my opinion of the monster as a stat block. Me, I want to know a monster's size, ecology, biology, eating habits, hell, mating behavior. Natural history is my other big interest and I like to see it applied to my games. I want to see the design guy actually thought about it and didn't just go "a wizard did it" or "hey, it's just a game man, you're not supposed to think about that stuff" because that's a large part of my fun. I was thus very disappointed with 4Es bestiary because it contained nothing fun for me to read as DM, just barely described stat blocks and some (admittedly generally high quaility) pictures.

sktarq
2008-06-09, 07:22 PM
*puts down MM4*

Just in the MM

Lack of ability for to advance monsters. While it took some time they were great for allowing a thematic monster be used in a greater variety of situations. To have a pack of wolves led by one with an extra HD or two even made sense.

Loss of templates....Again it needed some prep work and could get you some odd CR's (glad to see them go) I thought it was great you could get that kind of variation. Also having applied the Vampire Spawn template to a player's kid sister and use the abilities that they had helped her developed was one of the more disturbing moments my DM ever gave me.

1 hp minions.....*blink* so any lvl 1 wizard with a dagger will kill the Orc or Legion devil every time he hits.....Why? How do these creatures survive? They would trip over a rock on day and die. I wouldn't be able to take a world in which orcs are supposed to be a menace but only have 1 hp very seriously.

The lack of the cost/process of how to actually create the created creatures (undead/summoned/contructs). Yes I have had players MAKE stone golems, and having your villian spend a "known spell" on the preqs for a certain undead gives the world a fuller, more believable feel to it.

The near total loss of flavor/descriptive text. Social aspects, descriptions, etc. This REALLY galls me. In fact everything else is minor compared to this. It is as if you are not expected to do anything OTHER than kill anything you meet. (or meat in 4e)

Heck you ended up with a stat block that looked like a magic the gathering card or warhammer 40K description for a new unit. Except warhammer gives more history/flavor in most cases. Complete with little "ranged" "melee" "ranged burst" icons.

It really seems as if the parts of the game that allow for DM creativity, flexibility, and storytelling got shorted all around. From the way powers run (on paper I'm not playing till next week) to the monsters to the feats. It gave me the feeling of a video/mini's game. And while they said they rejected the idea of setting up the DM in a more advasarial relationship (as it was in say Firstquest if we want to stay in DnD) I would say they did it by accident then.




And Why did they move blue dragons to the coasts? Any good reason? They have desert dwelling since 2e just fine and don't see the point. A Coast is always a coastal something- coastal swamps, coastal hills, coastal tundra, coastal desert, so another dragon from the second part is always availible. Now I have a hole in my deserts.

The_Snark
2008-06-09, 07:32 PM
For me, the main issue with 4e is the loss of all those interesting, versatile spells and abilities. Everything really flexible with lots of uses has been either removed or nerfed (check out the difference in spells like Spider Climb or Teleport).

I don't care about much of the rest, and in fact I've had fun with 4e the times I've played it, but after 3.5, too much of the 4e stuff feels like weaksauce. If 4e wasn't going to replace 3.5 (and thus stop all official support for it), I'd enjoy it much more.

- Saph

I'd just like to pick up on this to point something out... Let me start by saying I'm by no means criticizing you specifically (or at all), Saph; it's simply something I've been thinking about for a while. :smallsmile:

Magic in 3.5 is incredibly versatile; even just using the PHB, it could do just about anything. When you look at all the supplements, you get an even more dizzying array of options.

Spellcasters in 3.5 are regarded as broken for exactly this purpose. Present a fighter with an obstacle, and the fighter has a few choices. Because the fighter is a very focused class, the only option our fighter is likely to be good at is hitting the obstacle until it falls down or goes away. Rogues and other skilled characters are better at getting around such obstacles in creative ways, but they're still limited to what seems feasible. Spellcasters have a nigh-unlimited number of options.

As an example—let's say your task is "free wrongfully imprisoned prisoner". A fighter can... fight his way through the prison, or maybe appeal to the duke to free him, or take the duke captive and order him to free the prisoner. A rogue could sneak into the prison, disguise himself as a guard, forge release papers, talk to the duke and convince him of the prisoner's innocence, bribe/charm the prison guards, or any combination of the above. (A fighter could try these too, but it'd be harder, and some would be all but impossible.) A spellcaster... could enchant the guards, enchant the duke, get into the prison while invisible or polymorphed, teleport in and out of the prisoner's cell (with him in tow), walk through the walls, or simply use brute force. Not only do they have almost every option available to other characters at their disposal (using magic to simulate or exceed skill),

That's the real problem, and when you think about it, it extends all the way back to D&D's many inspirations. How many fantasy stories tell the tale of a wizard protagonist who goes up against a powerful foe who possesses no magic whatsoever? Unless magic in the story is incredibly, severely limited, or the protagonist is simply incompentent, a totally mundane foe isn't really a threat. A warrior who is nigh-impervious to magic might be, but that's no longer mundane. Far more often, you'll find the opposite archetype—a heroic swordsman going up against an evil wizard who could end his life with a few syllables.

And now we have 4e, which is going off the assumption that all the characters should be equal. Which is a fair assumption in a game; you don't want to force people to be playing the underdog. They really have two ways to do this: Make everyone capable of doing magic, or make nonmagical characters the equal of magic-using characters.

They decided to choose the second, because, well, not everybody wants to use magic. Completely understandable; there are a lot of character concepts magic just doesn't fit. So then they're faced with the difficulty of making magic, a force that does impossible things, equal in power to non-magical means, which are limited to what's realistic... which is tricky.

To do that, they have to make magic less powerful, in order to keep your group's mundane street rats and career soldiers useful even out of combat. It's now much less versatile (illusions are being redone) and less able to simulate or replace other classes' skills (see: shapechange, knock), but by doing this, they're losing a lot of possibilities for what magic could be doing.

It's a trade-off, and I think there's points to be made in favor of both viewpoints.

Zocelot
2008-06-09, 07:32 PM
Just a quick note on the item costs - Normal, nonmagical items sell for 1/5th the price, but magical and special items (a golden dagger was mentioned) sell for full price. I can't give you a page number, but I think it's mentioned somewhere in the equipment section.

Actually, the golden dagger is an art object. Art objects and Gems are the only thing that sell for their full price. Magic items are still 1/5.

sonofzeal
2008-06-09, 07:38 PM
- Everything's substantially more "heroic" now. This is good, because it makes the players feel more badass (and with dragonborn and tiefling as base races, there's a LOT more badassitude going around), but makes it much harder to do "gritty realism" or "horror" campaigns. Don't get me wrong, it's still possible to do these, it's just harder.

- Out-of-combat healing is a lot cheaper. Again, this raises the Badassitude factor, but makes it harder to gradually grind down the PCs to put the fear of DM into them; combat's more of an all-or-nothing thing these days. Again, it's still possible to use this approach, but it requires a substantially more contrived set of circumstances.

- The abundance of bursts and blasts and other area effects make combat more difficult to run in a chat-based environment (MSN, IRC, and various flashchats) where miniatures and battlemaps are not practical.

- The loss of Druid as a base class. In my experience, Druid has been the single most popular character class among newbs for lord knows what reasons. Losing half-orcs, gnomes, bards, barbarians, and sorcs is basically compensated by what we gain in return, but the lack of the Druid is a major problem in my gaming circles.


....by the way, I haven't cracked open the MonMan yet, is there a way to play Orcs these days?

Zocelot
2008-06-09, 07:44 PM
I'd just like to pick up on this to point something out... Let me start by saying I'm by no means criticizing you specifically (or at all), Saph; it's simply something I've been thinking about for a while. :smallsmile:

Magic in 3.5 is incredibly versatile; even just using the PHB, it could do just about anything. When you look at all the supplements, you get an even more dizzying array of options....
.....It's a trade-off, and I think there's points to be made in favor of both viewpoints.

Wow... That entire post was exceptionally well though out and well written. Congratulations.

RTGoodman
2008-06-09, 07:48 PM
- Out-of-combat healing is a lot cheaper. Again, this raises the Badassitude factor, but makes it harder to gradually grind down the PCs to put the fear of DM into them; combat's more of an all-or-nothing thing these days. Again, it's still possible to use this approach, but it requires a substantially more contrived set of circumstances.

One thing you can do, and that's suggested in... well, I don't remember where exactly, but it's somewhere in the DMG, is that if the PCs go through difficult stuff out of combat, take away a healing surge. EDIT: It's part of a "Lost in the Woods" type of Skill Challenge, but I can see it being used elsewhere. I mean, if you PCs don't have many surges left for the day (i.e., 1 or less), they're not gonna be in a hurry to get in a tussle with anyone or anything.


- The loss of Druid as a base class. In my experience, Druid has been the single most popular character class among newbs for lord knows what reasons. Losing half-orcs, gnomes, bards, barbarians, and sorcs is basically compensated by what we gain in return, but the lack of the Druid is a major problem in my gaming circles.
Again, they'll be out soon, but I can understand that it's disappointing. We've never had anyone play a Druid in any campaign besides me, so it's not that big a deal for us to wait. Note, though, that Gnomes are playable (they're just in the MM instead of the PHB), and you don't really need Half-Orcs since you can just reflavor a full Orc. And speaking of...


....by the way, I haven't cracked open the MonMan yet, is there a way to play Orcs these days?

Indeed there is. Near the end of the MM is several pages of various races' PC stats, which has everything from Gnomes to Dopplegangers to, yes, Orcs. Orcs get +2 Str/Con, a speed boost when they charge, and an encounter power attack that lets them spend a healing surge (which is awesome if you don't have a Cleric/Warlord/miscellaneous Leader).

TheCleric
2008-06-09, 07:55 PM
I'd actually like to quote the PHB 4E now for something I was reminded of in an earlier rant. About how the Tieflings come from an already premade fallen empire that it seems you have to have since you have Tiefling players.
It's not anything wrong, or bad, just comedically....stupid.

Chapter 2. Page 19. Starts at the bottom of the first column and ends at the top of the second.


"If you choose an alignment for your character, you should pick either Good or Lawful Good. Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all the characters are evil or chaotic evil, playing an evil or chaotic evil character disrupts an adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players mad at you."

You're playing an evil character!? You ****ing ****bag ***fairy!"

(^ asterisks inserted myself)

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-09, 07:56 PM
*puts down MM4*

Just in the MM

Lack of ability for to advance monsters. While it took some time they were great for allowing a thematic monster be used in a greater variety of situations. To have a pack of wolves led by one with an extra HD or two even made sense.

Loss of templates....Again it needed some prep work and could get you some odd CR's (glad to see them go) I thought it was great you could get that kind of variation. Also having applied the Vampire Spawn template to a player's kid sister and use the abilities that they had helped her developed was one of the more disturbing moments my DM ever gave me.
They present both of these things in the DMG, P 174.


1 hp minions.....*blink* so any lvl 1 wizard with a dagger will kill the Orc or Legion devil every time he hits.....Why? How do these creatures survive? They would trip over a rock on day and die. I wouldn't be able to take a world in which orcs are supposed to be a menace but only have 1 hp very seriously.
Minions are meant to serve a specific cinematic purpose, allowing mook-type enemies that can appear in large numbers without forcing a lot of DM bookkeeping for HP. Think the Battle of Helms Deep: if a hero hits an orc, that orc is dead (except for that one with the torch, he'd be a Brute)

You're not meant to get hung up on "how do they survive?" Stats are part of the metagame, and are meant to cover only how the heros interact with them. People in your world don't recognize having "hp", nor is their ability to recover from scrapes based on their hp.
Battles between orc raiders and a small village is determined by story progression, not who's stats are numerically superior.


The lack of the cost/process of how to actually create the created creatures (undead/summoned/contructs). Yes I have had players MAKE stone golems, and having your villian spend a "known spell" on the preqs for a certain undead gives the world a fuller, more believable feel to it.

I'm sorry, I guess I just don't get this. Why? Having NPCs run on the same stat/rules requirements of PCs was always really bothersome for me.

What i need from NPC stats are specific rules that allow them to interact with the PCs.


The near total loss of flavor/descriptive text. Social aspects, descriptions, etc. This REALLY galls me. In fact everything else is minor compared to this. It is as if you are not expected to do anything OTHER than kill anything you meet. (or meat in 4e)
So, just because they don't spell out the monster flavor for you doesn't mean you can't have any. Make your own...I can't remember the last time I used the predetermined "ecology of the Grick" sections of a monster manual.

I vastly prefer the larger number of monsters that not having extraneous flavor allows them to add.
I don't understand why it seems like everyone says that creativity is shorted because they don't spell out how to roleplay every situation.

Instead, you're actually required to be creative and come up with flavor to use.

Homebrew a setting, play Eberron, download Iron Kingdoms. World flavor is independent of your combat rules.

SmartAlec
2008-06-09, 07:58 PM
Far more often, you'll find the opposite archetype—a heroic swordsman going up against an evil wizard who could end his life with a few syllables.

Hate to say it, but I'm not entirely convinced by this; if only because I don't think comparing a hero and a villain is really valid when it's the balance between heroes you're discussing. It feels wrong, both in terms of story conventions and in mechanics; wouldn't the villain NPC simply be a higher level?

Kompera
2008-06-09, 08:00 PM
I want to know, what you, the people, think is wrong with 4e. I want a list of all of the good ideas that met the executioner's block, the bad ideas that were stuffed in for laughs, wonky substitutions for rules that worked, and the general differences that break any semblance of verismilitude.

I'm not a big fan of either Dragonborn or Tieflings. I like my standard fantasy races, dang it, and both of those seem like aberrations. To be fair, I was never a fan of 3.x games in which people played monster races. To me, Orcs and Kobolds are the bad guys, and sprites are a NPC race.


Of the changes I have heard are
-loss of several base classes (to be reintroduced into future PHBs, with exception of the sorcerer, which is gone forever). :smallfrown:
With no Vancian casting I'd say rather that the Wizard is gone, but the Sorcerer is now called the Wizard.

Many people complain about the removal of many spells, but I see that as a necessary design change in order to promote balance among the classes and to remove a lot of game breaking capabilities which existed in 3.x. In 4e there will be no "GM: You're looking at the fortress of a Lich, the gate has many guards and there are rumors of many fierce creatures within." "Wizard: *yawn* I cast scry, teleport the party to the Lich, and then the Cleric dominates the Lich. What's the loot?" events, because those spells which facilitated this breaking of the game have been removed or converted into rituals which take a long time to cast and bear a high cost. Instead the players will need to use their wits and roleplay abilities to overcome as many game challenges as they can, and not resort to the crutch of having a few hundred game breaking spells to fall back on rather than exercising their imaginations.

The removal of these spells also eliminates the GMs need to manufacture bogus prohibitions or hand wave or apply phlebotinum to prevent the game from being broken.

Win-win.


-multiclassing through feats.
On multiclassing, I find 4es system to be far preferrable. In 3.x multiclassing mostly came down to selecting level dips for specific advantages, not to represent a character concept. Eliminating that made a lot of sense. No more 1 level dip into Lion Totem spirit barbarian for full attack on a charge, no more 2 levels in Fighter for 2 extra feats, no more dip here and dip there to add Int and Cha to melee damage, etc. No more dip/dip/dip and now my caster has access to all spells in the game. Good riddance.


-speed measured in squares rather than feet.
I find this to be a niggling objection. In 3.x your character moved 30' or your spell had a range of 100', and you had to convert that to squares. In 4e your character moves 6 squares or your spell has a range of 20 squares, and you have to convert that to feet. Same difference either way.

I would have preferred to see 4e use a hex map rather than a square grid. Hex maps are more logical as they allow for more natural movement and don't have that whole hypotenuse issue.
But then people would cry out that 4e was published as a vehicle for hex map sales...

Other than my dislike for Dragonborn, Tieflings, and square battle maps, that's about it so far. I'm sure I'll find more complaints as time goes on, because no system can be all things to any person. But so far, it's a RPG like any other.

Counterpower
2008-06-09, 08:06 PM
It really seems as if the parts of the game that allow for DM creativity, flexibility, and storytelling got shorted all around. From the way powers run (on paper I'm not playing till next week) to the monsters to the feats. It gave me the feeling of a video/mini's game. And while they said they rejected the idea of setting up the DM in a more advasarial relationship (as it was in say Firstquest if we want to stay in DnD) I would say they did it by accident then.

I don't really understand this point. How do the 4e rules limit DM creativity, flexibility, or storytelling? How do they, say, prevent the DM from creating a city full of NPCs that the players can interact with, or prevent the players from exploring a world?

Those are honest questions; I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I don't have 4e yet, but I'm finding it hard to understand, reading these forums, how what appears to be a complete and total reworking of the combat system could affect roleplaying that much. The 3.5 combat rules never had really any effect at all on the interactions my players had with the NPCs I created, so how is it that the 4e combat rules change this?

Thoughtbot360
2008-06-09, 08:06 PM
Yeah, but besides Profession (Sailor), when have you ever rolled any of those? And Craft sucked anyway. Just roleplay it already.


Because you never get in a position where you might have to fix a wagon wheel before more Kobolds come to try and finish the job their fallen comrades started. :smallsigh:

Innis Cabal
2008-06-09, 08:11 PM
Because you never get in a position where you might have to fix a wagon wheel before more Kobolds come to try and finish the job their fallen comrades started. :smallsigh:

And you cant just pick an arbitrary roll and role play it out :smallsigh:

The_Snark
2008-06-09, 08:13 PM
Hate to say it, but I'm not entirely convinced by this; if only because I don't think comparing a hero and a villain is really valid when it's the balance between heroes you're discussing.

You have a point; villains are often more overtly powerful than heroes in order to be a threat. Still, I think that the fact that you find so few examples of a nonmagical villain being more powerful than a magic-using hero, as compared to the other way around, is indicative of the general trend.

Chronos
2008-06-09, 08:14 PM
Personally, I have two major complaints (each of which could be broken down into many facets).

First, a lot of 4e seems to be change for the sake of change, not because there was any real need for it. 3e came up with (or at least used; maybe someone else did it first) the best multiclassing system I've ever seen in any RPG, and they just discarded it for something completely different. Why? They dropped some of the standard races, and replaced them with one that nobody'd ever heard of before, and another that was buried in the Monster Manual and which folks didn't bother to play. Why? They went from 20 levels, to 30. Why? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Second, I don't like the whole attitude of "We're making it more like a game, instead of a simulation". D&D has always been a game, 100%. But that's not mutually exclusive with it being a simulation, and the reason I would choose D&D over some other game is that it is, to a large degree, a simulation. If I don't care at all about simulationism, I'll just play chess, which has stood the test of time and is far more popular than any version of D&D.

A large sub-complaint about this is the notion that the world revolves around the PCs. The world exists because of the players, of course, to the extent that it's a game, but within that world, the PCs should start off as random nobodies, just like everyone else. They may well end up being very important, but it's their job to prove that to the world. If I ask an NPC why he had a particular item, but didn't have some other particular item, the answer shouldn't be "I figured that the PCs who are destined to defeat me would find the first item useful, but not the second".

Zocelot
2008-06-09, 08:14 PM
Hate to say it, but I'm not entirely convinced by this; if only because I don't think comparing a hero and a villain is really valid when it's the balance between heroes you're discussing. It feels wrong, both in terms of story conventions and in mechanics; wouldn't the villain NPC simply be a higher level?

The Snarks comment is discussing the roots of D&D. WotC read through a lot of fantasy, and realized that Wizards are much more powerful. They assumed that the Hero and Antagonist were of the same level, and gave the PC Wizards a power level comparable to the Wizards in literature.

Enlong
2008-06-09, 08:18 PM
*puts down MM4*

Just in the MM

Lack of ability for to advance monsters. While it took some time they were great for allowing a thematic monster be used in a greater variety of situations. To have a pack of wolves led by one with an extra HD or two even made sense.

DM Guide. Page 174.
"Increasing or Decreasing Level"
It gives rules for boosting or dropping any monster's level. It's pretty easy, too.



Loss of templates....Again it needed some prep work and could get you some odd CR's (glad to see them go) I thought it was great you could get that kind of variation. Also having applied the Vampire Spawn template to a player's kid sister and use the abilities that they had helped her developed was one of the more disturbing moments my DM ever gave me.

DM Guide. Page 175.
"Templates"
It gives "Functional Templates" (Battle Champion, Death Knight, Lich, Vampire Lord, etc.) and "Class Templates"


Yeah, it makes little sense to put those rules in the DM guide instead of the Monster Manual, but they're there.

InaVegt
2008-06-09, 08:19 PM
One thing that has been bugging me about the people who dislike 4E.

4E emphasizes battle, this is true, but so did all other versions of D&D.

You see, D&D is not an RPG, and never has been. It's a tactical wargame that encourages roleplaying (and it hasn't even always done that)

The entire reason I disliked 3.x so much is that it tried to be both a tactical wargame (Which it still was), and an RPG (which it wasn't, not even close, though it tried really hard to be)

To make D&D into an RPG would make it not D&D, as D&D has always been, and always should be, a tactical wargame that encourages roleplaying.

mikethepoor
2008-06-09, 08:23 PM
Going over the PHB, DMG, and MM, there are only two big problems that strike me so far (subject to change).

First, I don't like the idea of at-will powers. This might just be me complaining about change, but the way they're designed seems to make a lot of options irrelevant. I don't think any character, hero or monster, should have them.

Second, though I love the idea of healing surges, I think classes are granted far too many of them. I'm worried it'll turn out to be a crutch instead of a useful tool.

SmartAlec
2008-06-09, 08:28 PM
You have a point; villains are often more overtly powerful than heroes in order to be a threat. Still, I think that the fact that you find so few examples of a nonmagical villain being more powerful than a magic-using hero, as compared to the other way around, is indicative of the general trend.

This is true; my point, though, was more that is is harder to find an example in a book of a wizard hero being more overtly powerful than a warrior hero. The storytelling caveat I've seen most often is that wizard heroes are more powerful that warrior heroes, but tend not to unleash their power unless the situation is absolutely dire.

The two editions take radically different approaches, and both defy this convention in different ways. One says, 'yes, you are more powerful, but you can use that power freely.' This is quite practical, but lacks the mystique and restraint that is the hallmark of the fantasy wizard. The other simply says 'you're not more powerful', possibly going for the 'apprentice hero' angle.

As you say, they're both valid, to a point. The first is perhaps truer to the idea of the fantasy wizard, but the second leaves less up to human nature. I just think leaving the villains out of the comparison is possibly a good idea, as there are a wholly completely different series of dramatic conventions when it comes to villains.


The Snarks comment is discussing the roots of D&D. WotC read through a lot of fantasy, and realized that Wizards are much more powerful. They assumed that the Hero and Antagonist were of the same level, and gave the PC Wizards a power level comparable to the Wizards in literature.

I hope my above reply makes it clear that I was aware of this.

Trizap
2008-06-09, 08:31 PM
In response to the threads title:

NOTHING!!

Zocelot
2008-06-09, 08:34 PM
Going over the PHB, DMG, and MM, there are only two big problems that strike me so far (subject to change).

First, I don't like the idea of at-will powers. This might just be me complaining about change, but the way they're designed seems to make a lot of options irrelevant. I don't think any character, hero or monster, should have them.

Second, though I love the idea of healing surges, I think classes are granted far too many of them. I'm worried it'll turn out to be a crutch instead of a useful tool.

I personally like the concept of at-will powers. To give a character a choice of 2 powers whenever they get a turn where nothing extremely important is happening is a big factor in the fun of the game. That's just a personal preference though.

The amount of healing surges don't seem too plentiful. You can only actually use one per encounter. Otherwise, you need a power to use them. This makes leaders powerful, without being necessary. It is also a good way to let healing scale with level. The limited nature prevents a character from being inches away from death too many times per day.

To me, Bull Rushing and Charging seem very useless. They provide very minor effects, but a character is almost always better off using an at-will. They feel tacked on so that people don't complain about a lack of them.

Zocelot
2008-06-09, 08:44 PM
This is true; my point, though, was more that is is harder to find an example in a book of a wizard hero being more overtly powerful than a warrior hero.

I'm not extremely well read, so I am genuinely curious: Which books feature both warrior and magician heroes on equal footing?

There seems to be a general lack of books similar to D&D in that entire groups of people of equal talent go adventuring together, because many authors want to make the reader identify with one character.

Xyk
2008-06-09, 08:46 PM
I like most of 4e and am optimistic, though I enjoyed the skills of 3e. These new skills suck. Vastly less customization.

Dervag
2008-06-09, 08:47 PM
And you cant just pick an arbitrary roll and role play it out :smallsigh:No, you can't; not if you don't want your PCs to feel that the entire encounter was arbitrary.

There's a big advantage to having a defined rule. It means that the DM doesn't have to get personally involved in the consequences of a PC's actions. If the PC decides to fix a wagon, and how long that will take is relevant, there's a rule in print to tell him. The DM doesn't have to come up with a complex answer to a problem he doesn't understand (wheelwrighting). Nor does she have to come up with an arbitrary solution that will annoy the players if they find themselves unable to do what they want.

For some people, that is quite helpful.


The biggest (and only major) drawback of 4e is that it's called Dungeons and Dragons, while being so different from the previous edition - which makes everyone and their dog complain about the differences instead of looking at it from an unbiased point of view.You know, I think that's a very insightful point.

The other problem that creates is related- because this replaces 3rd Edition. People who don't like the changes have a right to feel like they're being painted into a corner for that reason.


You're not meant to get hung up on "how do they survive?" Stats are part of the metagame, and are meant to cover only how the heros interact with them. People in your world don't recognize having "hp", nor is their ability to recover from scrapes based on their hp.
Battles between orc raiders and a small village is determined by story progression, not who's stats are numerically superior.I understand the logic, but there's a reasonable complaint behind what he's saying.

Some people do not want rules that only make sense in the PCs' context. That implies that the entire rest of the campaign universe is run entirely on DM fiat. If the rules don't make sense out of combat, or even in an off-screen combat (orcs attack peasant village), then the DM doesn't have good guidelines for how events that take place without PC involvement should go.

Many DMs like to have rules they can use to tell them what should happen if, say, a giant Dire Bear fights an orc hunting party. They want those rules to work even if the PCs aren't involved because it feels sort of wrong to simply dictate all the outcomes of all those fights purely on the basis of their own intuition and will.

And that gets even worse if the fluff describing off-screen stuff (especially the monsters) is reduced, as it apparently is in 4th Edition. Without fluff, the DM doesn't have a good feel for what his monsters are like.


I'm sorry, I guess I just don't get this. Why? Having NPCs run on the same stat/rules requirements of PCs was always really bothersome for me.

What i need from NPC stats are specific rules that allow them to interact with the PCs.Other people have a different need. Thing is, your need for rules that describe PC-NPC interactions can be met by a common system. Their need for rules that describe NPC-NPC interactions, too, cannot be met by a system without commonality. Such as the minion mechanic, which makes a hash out of confrontations between NPC forces.

It can break suspension of disbelief when the legion devils, powerful minions of Hell, go down in one hit. Always. And yet somehow they survived long periods of combat against the foes of Hell. Apparently they just never fought anyone as tough and badass as you. Except you can still reliably obliterate them even if most of your abilities are weaker than theirs so long as you have any way of hitting them for damage.


So, just because they don't spell out the monster flavor for you doesn't mean you can't have any. Make your own...I can't remember the last time I used the predetermined "ecology of the Grick" sections of a monster manual.The provided fluff gives people a better sense for when to use and to not use monsters, and how to group monsters (i.e. grouping kobolds with dragons in 3rd Edition).


Instead, you're actually required to be creative and come up with flavor to use.If the DM has to invent all the flavor for all the monsters, then as a practical matter he has less flexibility. He has to limit the number of kinds of monsters he uses to avoid having to create unreasonable amounts of detail. He has to decide whether a given monster is particularly aggressive, what its habits are, how good it is at planning, how likely it is to retreat when threatened, and so on. He may even have to decide on details of its physical description such as size.

If you do that for every monster, you end up having to work a lot harder and having less creative energy for other tasks.


Homebrew a setting, play Eberron, download Iron Kingdoms. World flavor is independent of your combat rules.But quite a bit of the created 4th Edition content makes specific assumptions about how your world works. This makes homebrewing harder- they have little fluff that you can incorporate in your homebrew, and considerable amounts of fluff you have to specifically bypass to use your homebrew.

skywalker
2008-06-09, 08:47 PM
The feats are boring as hell. I built a warlord today and, literally, my feat selection went like this: "Well, which one sucks the least?" Not "Which one is coolest?"

I'm also upset that they sold fighters having specific weapons as a big deal, only to have about 3 powers devoted to each weapon group.

Next, combat isn't revolutionized the way they said it would be. In fact, it isn't revolutionized the way combat was revolutionized by ToB, maybe because you get fewer powers than ToB characters, and also because they tried to make powers do everything.

If your combat was boring in 3.5, it will be boring in 4.0. Nothing has changed from "I roll a d20 to hit him," except that it's now "I use [power], and roll a d20 to hit him."

Finally, I find the "not everyone can be heroes" philosophy annoying.

SmartAlec
2008-06-09, 08:55 PM
I'm not extremely well read, so I am genuinely curious: Which books feature both warrior and magician heroes on equal footing?

There seems to be a general lack of books similar to D&D in that entire groups of people of equal talent go adventuring together, because many authors want to make the reader identify with one character.

You're right, there are a distinct lack of them. However, I wasn't referring to them at all. The key word in the sentence you quoted was overtly,, and I went on to explain that the heroic wizards in stories usually ARE more powerful than warriors. However, they are also usually very cautious or careful with that power, only using it when there is truly no other option; often because there would be some negative consequences in the story if they used their powers to the full. DnD 3rd Ed gives hero wizards the power, but none of the need for restraint, which is why - in my opinion - DnD 3rd Ed wizards are as unfaithful to the classic wizard archetype as 4th Ed wizards are.


No, you can't; not if you don't want your PCs to feel that the entire encounter was arbitrary.

As far as I can see it, the encounter would be arbitrary either way; two distinct outcomes would hinge on one player having been quirky or paranoid enough to give his player an out-of-the-way skill that is mostly irrelevant to dungeoneering. It smacks of "The cart is broken. Player C, now is the chance to use those skill points you put in Craft: Carpentry."

If it's an easy fix for the cart that anyone could do, then it's just as easily resolved with some stat rolls. If it's a complicated fix that requires someone with skill ranks, and the party have to wait around for the cart to be repaired, you as a DM run the risk of losing any sense of urgency you might have been trying to create in your gaming session.

Bottom line: I agree when it is said that some skills are almost entirely unnecessary.

Zocelot
2008-06-09, 08:57 PM
The feats are boring as hell. I built a warlord today and, literally, my feat selection went like this: "Well, which one sucks the least?" Not "Which one is coolest?"

I'm also upset that they sold fighters having specific weapons as a big deal, only to have about 3 powers devoted to each weapon group.

Next, combat isn't revolutionized the way they said it would be. In fact, it isn't revolutionized the way combat was revolutionized by ToB, maybe because you get fewer powers than ToB characters, and also because they tried to make powers do everything.
If your combat was boring in 3.5, it will be boring in 4.0. Nothing has changed from "I roll a d20 to hit him," except that it's now "I use [power], and roll a d20 to hit him."

Finally, I find the "not everyone can be heroes" philosophy annoying.


To address all you points in order
-Yes, you are completely right. Feats are abysmally boring. Especially Epic Tier feats, where half of them are "Make this weapon score a hit on 19 or 20
-Right again, although you usually get one feat per weapon group that augments your abilities. It's still weak though
-I firmly believe that 4e has more of an emphasis on group tactics. It's not "I use [power], and roll a d20 to hit him", but rather "I use [power], and roll a d20 to hit him. That will set him up for the warlord to move him towards his allies. Then, the wizard can hit them all with an area spell, and the ranger can kill him if he's still alive"
-I think the "not everyone can be heroes" philosophy is very important, because even at level 1, that represents years of training. The only reason it could get annoying is if annoying people repeat it over and over again.

Zocelot
2008-06-09, 09:00 PM
You're right, there are a distinct lack of them. However, I wasn't referring to them at all. The key word in the sentence you quoted was overtly,, and I went on to explain that the heroic wizards in stories usually ARE more powerful than warriors. However, they are also usually very cautious or careful with that power, only using it when there is truly no other option; often because there would be some negative consequences in the story if they used their powers to the full. DnD 3rd Ed gives hero wizards the power, but none of the need for restraint, which is why - in my opinion - DnD 3rd Ed wizards are as unfaithful to the classic wizard archetype as 4th Ed wizards are.

Ok, now that I understand your argument, I completely agree with it. I apologize for a lack of communication on my part.

Enlong
2008-06-09, 09:02 PM
But quite a bit of the created 4th Edition content makes specific assumptions about how your world works. This makes homebrewing harder- they have little fluff that you can incorporate in your homebrew, and considerable amounts of fluff you have to specifically bypass to use your homebrew.
Like? I've not yet read through all 3 books, so the only thing I can think of is the "sample town" and specific monsters like Orcus.

Helgraf
2008-06-09, 09:34 PM
I don't see anything "wrong" with 4.0, but it still isn't a system I'd want to play.

My biggest complaint is that magic doesn't do what I want magic to do. When I think about what spellcasters should be doing, I think about manipulation, illusions, conjurations and transformation. Fireballs, lightning bolts and Magic Missiles don't fit my ideas of "what magic should be" at all.

4.0 caters well to the people who do want their Wizards doing those things, but not to the effects that I want to see magic doing. By removing these sorts of abilities, WotC has built what appears to be a well-balanced game. It just isn't a game that actually appeals to me.

To be fair, what you want magic to do is a lot of the harder to adjucate and balance aspects of magic. It's practically presumed that enchantment and illusion will be brought back into the game; in fact with bards being the 'go-to' class for enchantment (per the previews), it's really more a lack of the moment than a true overall lacking. And they had to boil down the huge list of classes and races or the PHB would have been like 2-3x its current size.

Wait and see is a good mantra right now.

Indon
2008-06-09, 09:35 PM
And you cant just pick an arbitrary roll and role play it out :smallsigh:

You could do that with combat, too, you know. But you know what? If an RPG lacked rules for combat, people would complain (at least, if it was the newest version of an RPG that had rules for combat).

My (quite long) two cents:

4'th edition could have put in detailed racial progressions for each race which would have vastly increased the playability of exotic races over 3'rd edition. Instead, they only put in race-specific feats and paragon paths, and not in the core books.

Not that that's all bad, because feats aren't really very interesting anyway. With a few exceptions, they're minor passive bonuses. Though, enough codex creep will present us with enough good feats that everyone can take the 17 good ones and be done with it, that won't happen for a while.

Moving on to skills, despite performing skill consolidation and establishing a multiple-success-level system, which would have been precisely what they needed to do to get the rich point-based skill system of 3.x to work excellently... they got rid of the rich point-based skill system of 3.x, in favor of a vastly simpler-but-not-in-a-good-way system which removes much of the customizability of skills as well as the ability to have skills which might only indirectly or occasionally affect adventuring.

Shifting to a more general outlook, the game was balanced at a heavy cost. Multiclassing was heavily restricted compared to the free-form system of 3'rd edition, few build options actually increase tactical options outside of the limited scope of power and path progression, and the removal of build and gear options have stripped a majority of the strategic and operational intricacy that 3'rd edition possesses.

Another casualty of the balancing seems to be the concept of synergy, which has been hunted down and killed all over the book. This doesn't stop there from still being synergy, of course (Wizards isn't exactly perfect), and now because there's so little of it, more or less every instance of it is clearly unbalanced, an obvious pock on the otherwise unblemished skin of 4'th edition.

I'll not say the game is like WoW. As a largely mental exercise, I've been homebrewing a World of Warcraft class into the mechanics 4'th edition, and I've had to make a number of houserules to be able to model the mechanics of a WoW class on even a rudimentary level, and no doubt the class will be overpowered even though I am heftily nerfing a majority of the class' abilities (The class is the Warrior, btw), simply because I am actually giving the class every ability they would be expected to have in the game. I nonetheless expect the class to play comparatively interestingly on the tactical game, despite having no push/pull/slide moves and each warrior having nearly identical powers. But verification of that'll have to wait until I'm done and I've performed some basic benchmark tests.

What I will say the game is like, is earlier versions of Dungeons and Dragons, with more polish. 4'th edition took the improvements of 3'rd edition and rather than continue to make them better, got rid of them. The severely limited skill system and largely insignificant feat system seems an evolution of the Rogue's skills and the Nonweapon Proficiencies. Spells have been replaced with Powers and given to every character (not necessarily bad), but severely limited to prevent exploitation of the tactical game (not necessarily good). Support for exotic races has been removed. I think the game is a fine update to Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, but unfortunately I stopped playing that game for a reason, and it wasn't that AD&D was unbalanced (though it is balanced better than AD&D was).
Too long, didn't read version: "Races suck, feats suck, skills suck, combat is boring to the point that WoW does it better, and there'll still be people saying the system is broken, making the quest for balance practically a joke. They should have called the game 2'nd edition D&D." - Now pretend I said all of that in a civilized manner with clarification of my points and you'll have my post.
All that said, there are things I like about the system, but I haven't been asked to share them and my post is already long enough.

marjan
2008-06-09, 09:36 PM
I'll tell you what's wrong with 4e:

They put "shuriken" and "superior weapon" in same sentence (does anyone else find this hilarious?). Just joking - I know that superior is new term for exotic weapons.

Now seriously: They still have spiked chain, it's still idiotic weapon, the only difference is it now sucks, like all reach weapon since they only threaten adjacent squares. Now there might be some way to make use of that reach, but I'm not aware of that. Still compared to halberd and longspear it does on average 0.5 less dmg, but proficiency with it gives +1 extra to-hit (which I doubt is worth it). They should really learn that when you spend some resources (like feat in this case), you should get something in return.

Since I'm not very familiar with whole set of rules I might have missed something that makes spiked chain better choice. If so please correct me.

Indon
2008-06-09, 09:42 PM
Since I'm not very familiar with whole set of rules I might have missed something that makes spiked chain better choice. If so please correct me.

Name something better to spend all your feats on.

Kompera
2008-06-09, 09:43 PM
Because you never get in a position where you might have to fix a wagon wheel before more Kobolds come to try and finish the job their fallen comrades started. :smallsigh:

That's a great example, or perhaps not. How many times have you been in a D&D game where you asked the group "I sure hope someone took skill ranks in Profession: Wheelwright, because if not we're all going to die!"

drengnikrafe
2008-06-09, 09:47 PM
FOREWARNING: I did not read this whole thing, I just wanted to say my personal opinion on it.

You remember when 3e first came out, and so many people looked at it and say "that's stupid", and stuck with 2e? It's because they already owned all the books. It's because they knew all the rules. It's because they invested the time. It's because they made the houserules to fix the problems already, and it's because they were good at it. Switching from 3e to 4e is like setting down a finished The Ledgend of Zelda: The Ocarana of Time, and picking up a nigh finished The Ledgend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (or, the other way around, if you prefer). Now you have a whole set of new tools and mechanics to get used to. Sure, you can adventure in new ways, but you're no longer what you used to be, and everything has changed. Some of the stuff looks stupid, and some people don't like the changes that have been made, especially considering they already fixed the problems with their own houserules. A lot of people aren't willing to start from scratch, and call their 800 dollars worth of 3.0 and 3.5 books "old news". Nothing is inherantly wrong with 4e, it's just not what a lot of people want. Why switch when you have what you want?

marjan
2008-06-09, 09:50 PM
Name something better to spend all your feats on.

Something that gives you a bonus, maybe? As I said it deals less dmg than longspear. Power attack maybe?

brant167
2008-06-09, 09:52 PM
Most of what I feel about 4th ed has been stated. It's not versatile and takes a great deal of fun out of gaming because of it. True story, a week back, when one of my friends offered to run a couple of sessions to try out 4th edition I was eagerly looking forward to it. Hell, I was going to bring back a character I had been itching to play for a couple of months. That character being a Half-Elf Chaotic-Neutral Paladin(no more alignment restrictions so I didn't have to look in a dragon magazine from over a year ago) of Fharlanghn whom was a master contractor.
When I picked up my friend Steve on the way he said he just happened to be playing a paladin of Bahamaut, so we thought it would be great character interaction and would be fun for the party... you know a constant bickering until we see a evil dragon on a road.
However when we got there to make characters, to my surprise chaotic neutral had been eliminated, there was no craft skills, and it seems that Fharlanghn had finished his journey and called it quits cause he wasn't in the players handbook. Which all caught me by surprise but I still wanted to play the character and the dm gave me the option of using a feat to buy a "profession: contractor" as a class skill.
After it was all said and done Steve and my character who were completely different from a rp stand point seemed like we were playing the same character in combat. Which, honestly was the turning off point for me and 4th ed. I can deal with the house rules and such that make a character playable in a campaign, however I can't deal with the fact that two players playing the same class but completely different archetypes can be so similar, yes it was only a level 3 game but still there should be more differences then he has one different power then I do and has +1 to hit from a feat while I can build bridges and roads(only on account of a dm's rule change).
When I play or dm combat always takes a back seat to the story and to character development. I feel in 3.0 and 3.5 the rules reflected that however in 4th ed. I feel the opposite is true because they stifled the opportunities for character optimization for a intangible and unreachable idea of "balance."

The_Snark
2008-06-09, 09:53 PM
This is true; my point, though, was more that is is harder to find an example in a book of a wizard hero being more overtly powerful than a warrior hero. The storytelling caveat I've seen most often is that wizard heroes are more powerful that warrior heroes, but tend not to unleash their power unless the situation is absolutely dire.

The two editions take radically different approaches, and both defy this convention in different ways. One says, 'yes, you are more powerful, but you can use that power freely.' This is quite practical, but lacks the mystique and restraint that is the hallmark of the fantasy wizard. The other simply says 'you're not more powerful', possibly going for the 'apprentice hero' angle.

As you say, they're both valid, to a point. The first is perhaps truer to the idea of the fantasy wizard, but the second leaves less up to human nature. I just think leaving the villains out of the comparison is possibly a good idea, as there are a wholly completely different series of dramatic conventions when it comes to villains.

I do think it's relevant, though. The point I was making with my villain comparison was that a story usually has to go out of its way to justify a warrior-villain being a threat to a magic-using hero, and the reverse isn't true. In other words, warrior-villains have to be inflated more than evil wizards, or else the protagonists have to be suitably depowered as well. It's an example of how people with magic are inherently more threatening than people without it.

But your comparison between heroic archetypes is also good, and probably more relevant to D&D specifically, since we're dealing with the balance between characters in a party. :smallsmile:


I'm not extremely well read, so I am genuinely curious: Which books feature both warrior and magician heroes on equal footing?

There seems to be a general lack of books similar to D&D in that entire groups of people of equal talent go adventuring together, because many authors want to make the reader identify with one character.

None really spring to mind, at least not that I've read... Unless the book is based off an RPG, it feels like it always comes down to one of Smartalec's examples—the magician is more powerful but lets others take the spotlight, or the magician is an apprentice or otherwise unskilled.

Generally, a story that features both magicians and mundane characters (heroic or villainous) will do one or more of the following to keep the mundane characters relevant:

-Limit magic itself. Maybe it can only produce very subtle or limited effects, maybe it's really really complex, maybe it's dangerous to use, but for whatever reason, it's not a good answer to most problems. Examples- hmmm... I guess the Warhammer universe and accompanying demons fits for magic being dangerous to use, and there really aren't many stories where magic isn't very powerful.
-Limit the character's skill. The character is only an apprentice, or only dabbles in magic, or just isn't very good at it. Related to the above, except it only applies to the character.
-Limit the character in some other manner. Also related to the first, but again, it only applies to this character. Maybe they don't want to attract (possibly dangerous) attention, risk going mad or come closer to losing their humanity every time they use magic, or want to give the other characters a chance to grow, but it won't get used very often.
-Elevate the mundane characters. Perhaps the mundane character is incredibly skilled in some way magic can't duplicate, or has an innate resistance to sorcery, or is just clever and lucky enough to outwit enemy magicians and assist friendly ones.

The last two are quite common for protagonists in fantasy stories, especially when pitting warrior-heroes against evil wizards, and yet they're the most inapplicable to most games, because every player can be equally clever or lucky, and the player of the wizard isn't under any obligation to be sparing with his abilities.

Spells per day was an attempt to give that obligation to spellcasters in 3rd edition, but it only worked at low levels, and only when there were an appropriate number of encounters in a day. 4th seems to be trying for either the first or second option, by making magic roughly equivalent in usefulness to what nonmages can manage.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-09, 10:01 PM
After it was all said and done Steve and my character who were completely different from a rp stand point seemed like we were playing the same character in combat. Which, honestly was the turning off point for me and 4th ed. I can deal with the house rules and such that make a character playable in a campaign, however I can't deal with the fact that two players playing the same class but completely different archetypes can be so similar, yes it was only a level 3 game but still there should be more differences then he has one different power then I do and has +1 to hit from a feat while I can build bridges and roads(only on account of a dm's rule change).
When I play or dm combat always takes a back seat to the story and to character development. I feel in 3.0 and 3.5 the rules reflected that however in 4th ed. I feel the opposite is true because they stifled the opportunities for character optimization for a intangible and unreachable idea of "balance."

Dude, two level 3 Paladins from 3.5 would play the exact same way as each other too. They'd have the exact same abilities and two or three feats that just affect their combat skills a tiny bit at that point. I really have no idea what your level 3 paladins did in 3.5 that made them so different from each other.

The fact that your DM made you take a feat for that is retarded, smack him. Professions are out of the skills for a reason, you should be able to roleplay them without having to sacrifice your feats.

And god damn I'm sick of this argument that 4e is less role play centric. 4e has just as much roleplay capabilities as 3.5. Hell I'd argue that it has more because it leads itself so very well to customization of house rules. Something that 3.5 did not.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-09, 10:01 PM
FOREWARNING: I did not read this whole thing, I just wanted to say my personal opinion on it.

You remember when 3e first came out, and so many people looked at it and say "that's stupid", and stuck with 2e? It's because they already owned all the books. It's because they knew all the rules. It's because they invested the time. It's because they made the houserules to fix the problems already, and it's because they were good at it. Switching from 3e to 4e is like setting down a finished The Ledgend of Zelda: The Ocarana of Time, and picking up a nigh finished The Ledgend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (or, the other way around, if you prefer). Now you have a whole set of new tools and mechanics to get used to. Sure, you can adventure in new ways, but you're no longer what you used to be, and everything has changed. Some of the stuff looks stupid, and some people don't like the changes that have been made, especially considering they already fixed the problems with their own houserules. A lot of people aren't willing to start from scratch, and call their 800 dollars worth of 3.0 and 3.5 books "old news". Nothing is inherantly wrong with 4e, it's just not what a lot of people want. Why switch when you have what you want?

To be honest, I was around during the 2e/3e shift, and I found the reactions to be remarkably similar to those of the 3e/4e shift. (Except for everyone and their brother saying "DnD is WoW!')


Also, on the issue of 3.5's complexity, I saw it as a problem with the system, not an asset. Yes, it allowed you to make hundreds and hundreds of builds out of interchangable parts...but it turned character building into a puzzle. In almost every game I played, the extensive combinations of rules/abilities that formed a sheet vastly overshadowed the actual characters we played. God help us if we reached high level play.


People are always saying that 4e overemphasizes combat, but really, the focus the rules put on combat serve the primary purpose of allowing you to go about combat simply and get back to roleplaying.

EvilElitest
2008-06-09, 10:10 PM
first off, i want to say this. Nothing is wrong with 4th ed. Its a matter of taste, thats the simple answer to it. Not only that, but its core, no splat book, 4th ed we are seeing now. Gods only knows what we will get in a couple months.

The one thing i have to even remotely complain about is the limitied stuff on races....thats it.....Everything else is amazing

If that was true, then FATAL is not a bad game. At all. In any way, because it is a matter of taste


Anyways, 4E lends its self to simplification and not in a good way, in a "insulting my intelligence sort of way" to the point that the misunderstood sterotypes of D&D are basically becoming true.
from
EE

Jack Zander
2008-06-09, 10:10 PM
The underlying problem with 4.0 is that is was marketed as an upgrade to 3.5 and it wasn't. It's a completely new game and there was absolutely no need for it yet. In 2-3 years, we probably could have done well with an upgrade, but now we don't even get an upgrade. We've got an entirely new system that, dispite what the defenders say, actually does focus more on combat than 3.5 did. I'm not saying that 3.5 didn't focus on combat, but 4th edition certainly takes that focus and zooms in even closer.

What 4th edition should have been was simply a fixed and streamlined 3.5, just as 3.0 fixed THAC0 with it's BAB mechanic. Instead, they made changes just for the sake of making changes.

EvilElitest
2008-06-09, 10:12 PM
Zander, an upgrade was needed, but your right, it should still be the same game. This is basically the poser child of the same game

On the 2E/3E shift, i never played 2E for years after i got into D&D and looking back, i realize that actually, to an extend they were right, 3E did simplifiy things a lot. It still however was an upgraded 2E, through it lost a lot of the focus and wonderful qualities of 2E and became more war game focused.

on the subject of craft, couldn't you simply roleplay any skill then? I mean, that argument applies to everything
from
EE

Chronos
2008-06-09, 10:22 PM
On the question of wizards and warriors being balanced in literature, I can think of a couple of examples. First is Feist's Riftworld series. Pug ends up being supremely epicly powerful, but so does Thomas, in a completely different way. Admittedly, Thomas is the only warrior of his level, while several other wizards are at least comparable to Pug, but it's at least possible.

Second is Aspirin's Myth series. Skeeve is simultaneously the greatest magician in the multiverse, and a half-trained amateur. Most magicians are just posers, and he's just better at posing than most of them. But he certainly regards his less magical companions as equals, and in objective terms, they're all about equally effective in a tough situation.

Kompera
2008-06-09, 10:35 PM
I'm not extremely well read, so I am genuinely curious: Which books feature both warrior and magician heroes on equal footing?

There seems to be a general lack of books similar to D&D in that entire groups of people of equal talent go adventuring together, because many authors want to make the reader identify with one character.
The Wizard Lord by Lawrence Watt-Evans is as close to this as I have seen in a novel. The setting involves a points-of-light civilization, with magical wards being needed just to travel between towns, or even a litle bit outside the borders of any town. There are a handful of "Chosen", who are all archetypes of one form or another, and are imbued with a supernatural ability in that archetype. The protagonist is the Chosen Swordsman, and the remaining archetypes are Leader, the Seer, the Beauty, the Thief, the Scholar, the Archer, and the Speaker. The world is run by the Wizard Lord, and the job of the 8 Chosen is to counter him if he gets uppity and becomes a Dark Lord.

Even in this novel the Wizard is described as having more raw power, but he is able to be countered by any one of the Chosen although they are supposed to work together to oppose him if he goes evil.

But once the Swordsman gathers the Chosen to oppose the Dark Lord you've got a classic D&D style adventure, with a group of equals with different specialized powers traveling together and overcoming the challenges the Dark Lord throws at them.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-09, 10:48 PM
on the subject of craft, couldn't you simply roleplay any skill then? I mean, that argument applies to everything
from
EE

It's a matter of frequency. Jumping is something that reasonably comes up in every adventurers career, relatively often. Carpentry? Shipbuilding? Cooking?

They only came up if your DM specifically put in "Oh, a wagon wheel needs to be fixed, somebody knows carpentry, right?" knowing full well you have the skill. Systems that encourage Eigan plots aren't good.

Moreover, Craft and Profession had no intrinsic purpose other than these highly specific instances. And yes, I know, "that's a reason to fix them" but really it's not. We don't need to keep things that are bad and don't work, especially when a better system that doesn't evolve them is available.


Too many arguments seem to revolve around "they should have changed things, but in a way that didn't change them."

FoE
2008-06-09, 10:50 PM
I think any problems that people have with Fourth Edition come down to personal preference. Player A loved gnomes, Player B loved Batman wizards, player C doesn't like dragonborn, Player D wants more fluff, etc. Until someone shows me that the game "doesn't work" in terms of its mechanics, I'll chalk up every criticism of the system to personal preference and shrug my shoulders. You can't please everyone, right? I'll note there are still reams of material still available for 3.5. No one's precluded from using it.

As for whether D&D has become WoW, Brian Clevinger of 8-Bit Theatre had a good point:

"I always thought D&D was about hanging out with your loser friends and making fun of one another for/while pretending to kill orcs. The rules are a cloud of random facts and numbers that orbit this central activity."

Kabump
2008-06-09, 11:09 PM
I think any problems that people have with Fourth Edition come down to personal preference. Player A loved gnomes, Player B loved Batman wizards, player C doesn't like dragonborn, Player D wants more fluff, etc. Until someone shows me that the game "doesn't work" in terms of its mechanics, I'll chalk up every criticism of the system to personal preference and shrug my shoulders. You can't please everyone, right? I'll note there are still reams of material still available for 3.5. No one's precluded from using it.


This. It pretty much sums up the way I feel about the new system. I personally like it. I also like 3.5. Yes, 3.5 is no longer supported officially, but your pile of old books isn't useless anymore. Nothing is stopping you from continuing to use the old system. You just dont get any more splat. And honestly, it seems like all the people who love 3.5 use a good amount of house rules anyway to change what they dont like. I dont see how 4e is any harder to house rule, I've already seen a pretty good one for skill challenges. Regardless, no one's opinion is wrong, and if you dont like 4e you dont like because of opinion, NOT because the system is broken, as many try to claim.

JGPyre
2008-06-09, 11:18 PM
So after getting the rulebooks on Friday, spending about 5-6 hours leafing through them and digesting everything, I'm happy to share some of my opinions and complaints of 4E, step by step. I read all of this thread, but if I regurgitate things said by others elsewhere I apologize for my triteness.

First up: Some of the things Bill Slavicsek mentioned that they were going to try to do, and I think were really evident in the mechanics.

1. Balance the classes.
This one has been discussed in some detail already here, and I agree with the majority that their solution to balancing the classes comes down to the previously observed fact that Clerics and Wizards were superior to martial classes starting at rather low levels, and only widening the gap as the levels increased. WotC's solution to this was to homogenize the classes, rendering a Wizard and Fighter mechanically being forced to follow similar rules (powers per encounter or day) while still trying to separate them by their roles. However, the way I see it, this does a number of negative things to the perception of a D&D world. For example, with the magic of 4e, is magic even remotely terrifying anymore? When a powerful wizard stands on even ground (roughly) with a fighter of similar ability, it almost feels like the realism of the fantasy is being stretched. If someone has the power to manipulate the fabrics of existence to their will, should someone be able to become just as powerful simply by training their body and skill? I think most would agree that magic is a deeper reservoir of power than the physical form, and thus should be in some way more justly rewarded. That said, removing the batman from the wizard class while still allowing your company to produce infinite supplements is a daunting task, and not one that I would judge myself capable of taking on.
As a side note, in my campaigns I did remove a large number of spells (polymorph I'm looking at you), and don't use any spells from supplementary material, because that's where I saw the greatest opportunity for the creation of overly power-gamed niche casters... but that's not what I'm getting on about here.

From the fighter's point of view, you lose the thing that made the fighter in a well-run campaign the antithesis of the wizard (especially at low levels): the ability to go from fight to fight without rest. All of the fighter's attacking abilities are /day or /encounter, and with the removing of the full attack action, this means that he is (like a wizard) spending his battles cycling through his various powers until he is exhausted and then going to rest. There is a missing romanticism in the fighter that was present in older editions of D&D, the old reliable party member.

Finally, a comment must be made about the customization of characters (which I will have one more comment on later). I find it incredibly true that two characters of a similar class are no longer readily differentiable, and I believe this to be both unfortunate and intentional. Some reasons why: Powers are limited, and the summation of powers you take while playing the game are not sufficient to make you differentiable in combat from another player who has taken completely different powers. Added to this is the debasement of the feat. What used to provide many of the classes with the flair that could give them a unique and powerful direction can no longer do so, because the power of the feat is now just smaller (for better or for worse). As an example: a pair of 4th level human fighters in 3.5, give them both a composite longbow and a melee weapon, but have one go for an archer build of fighter (Short Sword with WF, WS, Rapid Shot, PBS, Precise Shot) and another for the melee route (Pow. Atk, Cleave) and you have two vastly different characters (the archer does about 1/2 as much damage in melee while launching twice the attacks at a higher bonus from range). Again I'll comment again on this later.

2. The Sweet Spot (and the fallacy of the economy)
So we all know that any character we've ever built really starts to become powerful somewhere between 8th and 12th level (with some wiggle room for some characters). It's where you get 5th level spells, hybrid PrCs start paying off, Second or Third attacks roll in with improved critical... etc. But in my campaigns one of the most salient things about this level range from a DM's perspective was the ability to finally purchase some of those items that pushed a character from decent to incredible. Bill wanted to extend this sweet spot of gaining new abilities and items throughout all of the 30 levels, which is I believe how two innovations were born.

The first is the Power system: which has been discussed in detail above. It's not evil, but it homogenizes characters.
The second is the magic item economy in the game. Look at some of the prices and you will be astonished. Magic item prices that proceeded at quadratic functions for increasing bonuses in 3.5 have now increased to Log base 4 increases, so raising them to the fourth power(it's actually somewhere between raising to the 4th and 5th). You can find items that are +1 for 1k, +2 for 45k, and +3 for 1,250k gold pieces, which prompted my comment of "Well, when as a character you have to choose between getting another +1d6 to charge attacks or build an interplanar mansion, something is wrong."

The reason I believe this problem came about starts with the abandoning of the CR system. The beauty of the CR system was that it kept experience numbers for each level on a roughly linear scale, so when that moves into XP costs (for things like magic items) the cost of the item must skyrocket to make the XP cost of an item manageable. The result in magic items with retardedly expensive (+3) and also some inexpensive (+1) price tags.

Adding to this is the desire to emulate constant successes (sweet spot) without unbalancing the game and the opposition, making requisite the huge increases in the cost of improving your abilities even remotely coupled with the increase in treasure from adventures.

The result: less customization, because a lot of the oddball magic items that don't serve some sort of statistical significance are out, you're left choosing the set of items that increases your character's abilities best and going from there.

I call this section the fallacy of the economy because I like to play my D&D games in a realistic fantasy. By this logic, you cannot ignore one important facet of the magic item economy in the world. Adventurers bringing in bundles of magical items and selling them for 1/5 (or even up to 1/2 if you change the suggestions) to merchants, who then resell the items that they need to adventure back to the adventurer for full price so that they can go out and repeat the process... these guys form their own economy, and for a merchant dealing with a couple 12th-13th level adventurers, his wealth will quickly skyrocket beyond most nobles. When you consider that, at most, a peasant makes about 100gp for a noble every year, if a merchant is pulling in 60k from a routine drop-in from adventurers, the Noble/Peasant vs Merchant/Adventurer dynamic is going to be upset. In my realistic fantasy, what this means is that every noble with half a brain would be scrambling to get into some of the magic item trade, which would have to take the prices down to a reasonable level.

Concluding, it is exactly this set of mechanics (the homogenization of classes and the exponential increases of the economy) that have drawn comparisons between 4e and MMORPGs. The feeling of the two games seem regrettably similar, something along the lines of 1) Choose a character archetype, 2) Go adventuring for gear, 3) Improve your gear, 4) Become incrementally more buff as you acquire incrementally better and better gear.

WoW players will attest, that feeling of gradual but continual improvement through oodles of adventuring as prices go continually higher, and you replace your item slots with superior items, is exactly the "Continual Sweet Spot" that the designers were shooting for.


BLeh...

Ok I've gone on long enough, but I still need to posit a couple closing comments without discussing any mechanics in detail.

The first rule that was ever told to me about D&D was the 1st edition slogan: "The DM is always right." This set the tone of everything that D&D has meant to me over the last 10 years, a vehicle by which I can bring to life an imagined fantasy. With the flexibility (especially in multiclassing and feat selection) the tone of the edition was: "Let us give you the tools for creating a character, and then expand upon the way that these simple numerical representations allow your character to interact with the world" to the 4th edition "Let me show you how to choose a character and run a game."

The end result is a change of tone, gone are the days where you sit and ponder "So given the way my character has changed over the past few months, what class do I take this level?" Were I to switch editions, I would miss those days dearly. Yes PrC and class dipping happened, but a vast multitude of character concepts, especially at the point of character creation, cannot fit into the multiclassing system posited by 4th edition. What this ends up doing is removing the tools to make your abstract creation a reality ('this character would be a wiz/rog') and instead getting you into start playing a balanced game ('I'll play a wizard, what kind of character will my wizard be?'). While this is not a dramatic change for all gamers, it alienates and excludes many others. The ones alienated, in my opinion, are the those who love D&D as a set of physics, rules by which an imaginary character can exist within a fantastic reality, and not those who value D&D as a game that is played.

James' verdict: 4th Edition D&D started off on the wrong foot (choosing to emphasize these game-related elements, not dissimilar from an MMORPG) and did most things right from that starting point. If you think that this is exactly what the doctor ordered for D&D, enjoy your game. I'm perfectly happy to stick with the wonderful system that we call 3.5.

I shall end the giant rant with my two favourite quotes from the new DMG:

p9

Engage the Storyteller by...
- Facilitating background development
- Using his background to help define adventures and NPCs
- Include at least a little plot in every adventure
- Recruit him to record important events and encounters

and finally
p141

What Has Come Before...
You should put some thought into the events that have brought your world to the point where the campaign begins. Don't overdo it, though. You need only as much history as sets the stage for the story you have in mind.

And so condemned is much that makes D&D the best game of all time.

Peace, y'all.

Oh, and it's nice to be on the forums. GITP seems a much more solid D&D community than I ever expected. As expected from the website that brought us OotS!

ZipZipskins
2008-06-09, 11:26 PM
My answer to the question: Not much.

I think people who claim that it doesn't allow for flexibility are kidding themselves. One example I will cite: you can finally create viable characters of any class and any race. Remember when, say, a halfling fighter was at a pretty sizable disadvantage due to a Strength penalty? And forget about a half-orc wizard. The removal of penalties allows for greater role-playing possibility. Wanted a powerful Dwarven paladin? You've got it. They no longer take a hit to Charisma. An Elven fighter? Sure. No more sock to their Constitution. This, to me, is just one example of expansion of roleplaying possibilities, instead of ceaseless min/maxing just to make a character playable.

Another point- anytime something comes up that's new, there are going to be people who love it just because it's new, and there are going to be people who gripe about it just because it's new. Neither side has any real correctness whatsoever. Just because something is different from 3.5 doesn't mean it's bad (and conversely, doesn't mean it's good either).

Addendum: Personally, I love the action-oriented gameplay. I know, a lot of you will say that it focuses on combat and not on roleplaying. I think the burden of that falls on the players and whether or not the DM is competent, and not on the game setting.

Swordguy
2008-06-09, 11:35 PM
I'd just like to pick up on this to point something out... Let me start by saying I'm by no means criticizing you specifically (or at all), Saph; it's simply something I've been thinking about for a while. :smallsmile:

Magic in 3.5 is incredibly versatile; even just using the PHB, it could do just about anything. When you look at all the supplements, you get an even more dizzying array of options.

...

It's a trade-off, and I think there's points to be made in favor of both viewpoints.

I was about to make a long, detailed post, but The_Snark summed up my opinion perfectly. Thank you for being a voice of sanity and reason in these troubled times.

Kompera
2008-06-09, 11:45 PM
I shall end the giant rant with my two favourite quotes from the new DMG:

p9

Engage the Storyteller by...
- Facilitating background development
- Using his background to help define adventures and NPCs
- Include at least a little plot in every adventure
- Recruit him to record important events and encounters

and finally
p141

What Has Come Before...
You should put some thought into the events that have brought your world to the point where the campaign begins. Don't overdo it, though. You need only as much history as sets the stage for the story you have in mind.

And so condemned is much that makes D&D the best game of all time.

Peace, y'all.

Oh, and it's nice to be on the forums. GITP seems a much more solid D&D community than I ever expected. As expected from the website that brought us OotS!

I think they were trying to avoid this:

http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr1a.jpg

But seriously, telling a potential GM that s/he doesn't need to have a fully fleshed out world is a Good Thing (tm), if it prevents even a single potential GM from being scared off by the enormity of the time required to develop such a beast.

sonofzeal
2008-06-10, 12:24 AM
But seriously, telling a potential GM that s/he doesn't need to have a fully fleshed out world is a Good Thing (tm), if it prevents even a single potential GM from being scared off by the enormity of the time required to develop such a beast.
+1. Most newbie DMs I know (including myself in my earlier stuff) tended to put way too much effort into worldbuilding and coming up with some epic storyline, which then produces railroading as they try to shuffle the players from plotpoint to plotpoint, or causes tears and hairpulling when they whack the Plucky Street Urchin Destined To Rule The Realm (tm) because they think that they can pawn his ancestral amulet for some loose change. IMO, everybody is better off if the DM restricts worldbuilding to what's needed. That leaves the rest of the world in effectively a state of flux - a "Shrodinger's World", out of which the necessary locations and NPCs can crystalize as needed.

Example - In my current campaign, they started in a relatively pastoral, human-dominated land. As the plot progressed and they (to my surprise) slaughtered a whole tribe of goblin civilians, I expanded the gameworld to include a hobgoblin nation to the West, which is now putting political pressure against them. When other situations came up, I added an ocean to the East and a thriving port from which they could hire a vessel to any other part of the world (they haven't yet). North and South are still blank slates; if, next session, someone expresses interest in aquiring Dwarven help against the Hobgoblins, then I'll mention the Dwarven lands in a mountain range to the South-West, or North-East, or whatever direction pops into my mind at the moment, which will then become official and be added to my mental map of the realm. If I want it to be harder for them, I may make another land (maybe yuan-ti) in between. The end result in theory is a world that requires far less work for me, and that feels to them exactly the same as any thoroughly pre-made one.

JGPyre
2008-06-10, 12:44 AM
@ Kompera
Yup, I understood where they were coming from. My intention isn't to call the 4e developers retards (as I believe came across in my post), but instead to highlight the alternate approach that this edition seems to be taking to the game.

Also, wonderful comic, thanks for that.

@Sonofzeal
What you are doing is definitely a great GREAT way to start a campaign world. Now, fast-forwards to the end of the campaign you are currently running. You're left with a bit of world that your players and their characters have now interacted with and changed in some ways. So, when designing your second campaign, the world that you are adventuring in is that much more entrenched. It is my experience that successive campaigns within a consistent campaign world allow the players to become sequentially more encapsulated by the realistic fantasy of the world.

A perfect example, in the first campaign, your players slaughtered an entire tribe of goblins. Did they do this because they thought there would be no repercussions? Did their characters know about this hobgoblin kingdom that might seek some sort of recompense? If you punish them this campaign for making that uninformed choice, in a similar situation for the next campaign if the characters are considering doing something similar, having some of the politics already set in stone is beneficial to the roleplaying of the characters. They may in this new setting be wise enough to make some checks to see what the village's ties are to the hobgoblin kingdom before wantonly slaughtering.


In my current world I use a system of modular design, that is: each successive campaign that I run take place in overlapping time periods with the newer campaign slightly more recent than the previous one. In this way the world that is expanded and evolved by the set of previous campaigns in some way influences the actions of the characters in new campaigns. As long as your players aren't constantly using player knowledge to learn more than their characters know, it enhances the sense of realism if the party would have someone who knows that there is a powerful kingdom that supports the barony that the party started in... etc.

My Campaign World Wiki (http://tearsofchaos.wikispaces.com/Introduction)... if you're interested. There's much unfinished/unwritten on the wiki, but I think it's pretty nifty.

Best of luck with your campaign setting, and happy gaming.

-JP

ghost_warlock
2008-06-10, 01:34 AM
The Wizard Lord by Lawrence Watt-Evans is as close to this as I have seen in a novel. The setting involves a points-of-light civilization, with magical wards being needed just to travel between towns, or even a litle bit outside the borders of any town. There are a handful of "Chosen", who are all archetypes of one form or another, and are imbued with a supernatural ability in that archetype. The protagonist is the Chosen Swordsman, and the remaining archetypes are Leader, the Seer, the Beauty, the Thief, the Scholar, the Archer, and the Speaker. The world is run by the Wizard Lord, and the job of the 8 Chosen is to counter him if he gets uppity and becomes a Dark Lord.

Even in this novel the Wizard is described as having more raw power, but he is able to be countered by any one of the Chosen although they are supposed to work together to oppose him if he goes evil.

But once the Swordsman gathers the Chosen to oppose the Dark Lord you've got a classic D&D style adventure, with a group of equals with different specialized powers traveling together and overcoming the challenges the Dark Lord throws at them.

OMG! I just realized, 4e isn't WoW...it's Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles! :smalleek:

SmartAlec
2008-06-10, 01:39 AM
If someone has the power to manipulate the fabrics of existence to their will, should someone be able to become just as powerful simply by training their body and skill?

Your point hinges on magic being the manipulation of the fabric of existence at will. I don't think that's quite the case any more? Wizards in 4th Ed feel to me to be more like 15th century natural scientists or alchemists, tapping into something they don't fully understand.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the potential for awesome power should be there in magic. But perhaps it makes more sense for it to be a sort of Holy Grail for the wizard, unattainable.

ZipZipskins
2008-06-10, 02:23 AM
Don't get me wrong, I agree that the potential for awesome power should be there in magic. But perhaps it makes more sense for it to be a sort of Holy Grail for the wizard, unattainable.

Or only attainable as an epic destiny.

Matthew
2008-06-10, 06:51 AM
Here's something interesting to chew on from James Mishler (http://jamesmishler.blogspot.com/2008/06/he4rt-of-problem-economics.html):



The He4rt of the Problem: Economics
The economic system is so broken I don't even know where to begin. To provide a few examples:

Cloth Armor (i.e., "clothing" to most folks) provides a +0 armor bonus to AC and has a purchase price of 1 gp.
+6 Magical Cloth Armor provides a +6 armor bonus to AC and has a purchase price of 1,125,000 gp.

Plate Armor provides a +8 armor bonus to AC and has a purchase price of 50 gp.
+6 Magical Godplate Armor provides a +20 armor bonus to AC and has a purchase price of... yes, 1,125,000 gp.

The cost to enchant either item? 1,125,000 gp. The time required to enchant either item? 1 hour.

One. Hour.

Purchase price of a +1 Magical Longsword is 360 gp. Purchase price of a Silvered Longsword is 500 gp. Purchase price of a +1 Magical Silvered Longsword... 360 gp ("any" weapon).

Purchase price of a bag of holding (20 cubic feet, up to 200# weighs 1#) is 1,000 gp. Purchase price of a handy haversack (100 cubic feet, up to 1,000# weighs 1#) is 5,000 gp. Purchase price of a portable hole (5 ft. x 5 ft. x 5 ft. cube, i.e., 125 cubic feet, no weight limit mentioned) is 105,000 gp. An extra 25 cubic feet for 100,000 gp?

Potion of healing... 10 hp... 50 gp
Potion of vitality... 25 hp... 1,000 gp
Potion of recovery... 50 hp... 25,000 gp
Sure, each spends a healing surge, but still...

These are just some glaring things I've noticed without going in-depth into the issue. And don't get me started on the costs of some rituals!

Raise Dead. Level 8. Cost to learn? 680 gp. Cost to use? 500 gp (1st to 10th level), 5,000 gp (11th to 20th level), or 50,000 gp (21st to 30th level). Time to cast? 8 hours. No roll needed to succeed.

Observe Creature (i.e. scrye). Level 24. Cost to learn? 105,000 gp. Cost to use? 21,000 gp plus a focus worth 10,000 gp. Time to cast? 1 hour. Arcana roll to succeed, with maximum duration of five round. FIVE. ROUNDS.

So it is infinitely easier to rip someone's soul from across the most distant planes, recreate his body, and merge that with the soul to give him life, than it is to spy on someone...

Oy.

Gort
2008-06-10, 06:53 AM
but I don't like that the most you can train skills above the norm is +25%. I don't like the way the 4th edition system is much less flexible in how I spend those skills. Now, I do like that you have a significant difference between trained & untrained even at 1st level, and I do like the way a lot of skills were combined (Thievery ftw).


I think the new skills system is a plus. I was always annoyed that a 20th level paladin had the same perception skill as a 1 level one.



Which brings us to a second, lesser concern: multiclassing as feats. I don't mind the nigh-removal of prestige classes -- yes it was one of the better innovations of 3rd edition, but it also caused some issues and I'm in no way convinced the game was better off with them.

Very much agree. I always thought that characters with more than 2 classes lost the flavour of their classes.



I do have a bit of a problem, however, with the idea that I can create a Wizard character, take a single feat, and then be able to pick locks/etc just as well as a same-leveled rogue with the same Dexterity. The idea that theoretically any character in the game can take 2 feats and be able to Raise Dead doesn't sit too well with me either, but my issue with Ritual Spells falls under the "wait and see" boilerplate.

I am probably going to house rule against this. Mostly on the basis that a character concept must have some basis for a power. If a fighter really wants to take the Raise Dead feat then he had better be ready to have a religious awakening and roleplay it.

:smallsmile:

brant167
2008-06-10, 06:56 AM
Dude, two level 3 Paladins from 3.5 would play the exact same way as each other too. They'd have the exact same abilities and two or three feats that just affect their combat skills a tiny bit at that point. I really have no idea what your level 3 paladins did in 3.5 that made them so different from each other.

The fact that your DM made you take a feat for that is retarded, smack him. Professions are out of the skills for a reason, you should be able to roleplay them without having to sacrifice your feats.

And god damn I'm sick of this argument that 4e is less role play centric. 4e has just as much roleplay capabilities as 3.5. Hell I'd argue that it has more because it leads itself so very well to customization of house rules. Something that 3.5 did not.


Two 3.5 level 3 paladins can be extremely different. For one in 3.5 we have numerous splat books at our disposal which we don't have in 4th edition, yet. Which means that I can use the anarch paladin variant from dungeon magazine that would give me various different abilities.

This is not including feat choice which would have a vastly different feel for both paladins, odds are my friend would have been driven to dragon rider feats while I would focus more on power attack, improved sunder etc.

Not having to sacrifice takes the entire point on focusing on how to do it. That means any other person would be able build bridges and roads as well as this character could, which is not what I was going for.

So you criticize the only house rule mentioned in the post, which was nothing but role play centric, but you claim that 4th ed leads itself to more customizable house rules.

Gort
2008-06-10, 07:06 AM
The second is the magic item economy in the game. Look at some of the prices and you will be astonished. Magic item prices that proceeded at quadratic functions for increasing bonuses in 3.5 have now increased to Log base 4 increases, so raising them to the fourth power(it's actually somewhere between raising to the 4th and 5th). You can find items that are +1 for 1k, +2 for 45k, and +3 for 1,250k gold pieces, which prompted my comment of "Well, when as a character you have to choose between getting another +1d6 to charge attacks or build an interplanar mansion, something is wrong."

It does look pretty silly if you assume a set of physical laws and think about what the actual costs of making magic items might be.
Its really just about game balance. The quadratic increase in magic item prices was still causing too many money problems for GMs. Hence also the 1/5 price for second hand magic items.
The effect is to enable the GMs to keep a tight control on the power level of magic items, even if the players have access to a good market for buying items. It's a common pitfall for new GMs, and a good idea to cover it with a steep price curve. I always like to tightly control what magic items can be purchased - I am always open to player requests, but abusable items just aren't for sale.

nagora
2008-06-10, 07:21 AM
Right off the bat, let me inform you that this the thread's title is not a rhetoricle question.
Good, because that sounds painful :smalleek:



I want to know, what you, the people, think is wrong with 4e. I want a list of all of the good ideas that met the executioner's block, the bad ideas that were stuffed in for laughs, wonky substitutions for rules that worked, and the general differences that break any semblance of verismilitude.

It's a superhero game. And a damn good one, I think. Everything is geared towards making characters that are totally unrealistic but fun to play. They have special powers and nice simple rules about how they are used. Combat is designed to always give that "comic book" feel with lots of goons and a big bad guy or two in charge. There's even a set of "Tony Stark" rules for the super-rich gadget maker who needs to knock together scenario solutions quickly. Realism always plays second fiddle to balance.

It's the first major new superhero game in years. just for some reason they've used terminology from a fantasy setting :smallconfused:

SamTheCleric
2008-06-10, 07:30 AM
First, I'd like to mention that asking "what's wrong" with something is generally a bad idea, as you'll get a biased opinion. Especially on the internet.

Second, nothing is "wrong" with 4e. It may not cater to everyone's playstyle, but that doesn't make the game bad/wrong inherently. I understand you're asking for people's opinion, but it seems as though you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

Third, I enjoy 4e. I've run 3 games and played in 3 so far, each involving good solid roleplaying, interesting combats and fun skill challenges (inner city chase, negotiations and a nasty Pendulum Scythe trap)... I have yet to have a player truly complain about the game as it was played, and that's with 15ish different people.

I look forward to DMing for my local group and playing in Living Forgotten Realms.

(Note: This does -not- mean there is nothing in 4e that I don't like. Of course there are things I don't like, but that doesn't mean they are "wrong")

Cainen
2008-06-10, 07:39 AM
Second, nothing is "wrong" with 4e. It may not cater to everyone's playstyle, but that doesn't make the game bad/wrong inherently.

Taking that to its logical extreme means that nothing is "right" with 4E, either, which is why it's not the best argument to use.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-10, 07:42 AM
Taking that to its logical extreme means that nothing is "right" with 4E, either, which is why it's not the best argument to use.

Correct. The game system is not right or wrong inherently. It is a matter of taste/playstyle/subjective opinion.

Cainen
2008-06-10, 07:46 AM
The other problem is that it gives pretty much any system, no matter how poorly-designed it is, the same amount of leverage. I certainly don't want to see SenZar compared to Unisystem, and I'm refraining from mentioning the obvious choice.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-10, 07:50 AM
The other problem is that it gives pretty much any system, no matter how poorly-designed it is, the same amount of leverage. I certainly don't want to see SenZar compared to Unisystem, and I'm refraining from mentioning the obvious choice.

Just because you have preference of one over the other does not mean the other one is wrong. Someone may like it, for some reason or another.

I mean, I like 4e more than 3e. Does that make 3e "wrong"? Of course not. It means, I, as an individual, have a preference and opinion. I have voiced this opinion, with both flaws and merits of the system of my choosing.

There, that's a much way to put it... it is not "right/wrong" it is "merits/flaws"... don't start out on the wrong (hah!) foot by asking simply what is wrong with something.

Saph
2008-06-10, 07:50 AM
To do that, they have to make magic less powerful, in order to keep your group's mundane street rats and career soldiers useful even out of combat. It's now much less versatile (illusions are being redone) and less able to simulate or replace other classes' skills (see: shapechange, knock), but by doing this, they're losing a lot of possibilities for what magic could be doing.

It's a trade-off, and I think there's points to be made in favor of both viewpoints.

I know, and I've mentioned the tradeoff myself. The problem is that all that unbalanced, incredibly flexible stuff that they removed was pretty much the thing I most enjoyed about D&D characters. I really enjoyed levelling up, since it meant getting access to all these things. With 4e levelling up is kind of eh. The only thing I really enjoy about 4e is the tactical combat aspect (which is pretty much the focus of the game, anyway).

I don't think it would have been impossible to make the classes more balanced in combat while still giving players access to really versatile abilities. But it's a moot point now.

- Saph

Cainen
2008-06-10, 07:57 AM
Just because you have preference of one over the other does not mean the other one is wrong. Someone may like it, for some reason or another.

Where do you stop? Is classic literature now on equal ground with Eragon? Are dynamic, believable characters the same as some random Internet kid's Mary Sue in a fanfic?

I don't necessarily disagree with you, as I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything, but 4E did the same thing 3E did to me. It worked my gaming groups into a fervor about something ELSE that isn't being marketed towards gamers like me and indirectly made me quite angry.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-10, 07:59 AM
Two 3.5 level 3 paladins can be extremely different. For one in 3.5 we have numerous splat books at our disposal which we don't have in 4th edition, yet. Which means that I can use the anarch paladin variant from dungeon magazine that would give me various different abilities.

This is not including feat choice which would have a vastly different feel for both paladins, odds are my friend would have been driven to dragon rider feats while I would focus more on power attack, improved sunder etc.

Not having to sacrifice takes the entire point on focusing on how to do it. That means any other person would be able build bridges and roads as well as this character could, which is not what I was going for.

So you criticize the only house rule mentioned in the post, which was nothing but role play centric, but you claim that 4th ed leads itself to more customizable house rules.

If you're going to argue that the 3.5 pallys would be vastly different due to all the splat books that were available (Hell, you're even including Dragon magazine), then you're argument does not exist at all. We're in CORE right now with 4e, of course your paladins are going to be similar. Two 3.5 CORE ONLY pallys would be just as similar. I really don't know why I should have to explain this difference.

I'm criticizing the house rule because it's pointless. The chances of you ever needing to make a check for "road building" is less than 1%. There is no reason you should need to lose a feat when you could just as easily put into your back story that you used to work as a mason or what have you before you started serving the gods as a fist. Hell if any of my group was the DM for that instances they'd probably just say "Ok, if you EVER need to make a check for that, you get a +10".

SamTheCleric
2008-06-10, 08:01 AM
From an objective standpoint, everything starts on equal ground before you compare them.

Your personal opinion is what matters. And it's just that, personal. Your opinion is what matters to you, my opinion matters to me.

Take The Hobbit and compare it to Eragon. Personally, I can't stand reading Tolkien's work, it puts me to sleep. Eragon isn' much better, but I at least made it through the book. To me, Eragon is a better book, but that may not be true for you or anyone else.

Edit: And don't take my posts as attempting to be antagonistic, if I come off that way, I'm sorry. :smallsmile:

Cainen
2008-06-10, 08:11 AM
I'm criticizing the house rule because it's pointless. The chances of you ever needing to make a check for "road building" is less than 1%.

A point that only makes sense from one viewpoint, which makes its impact minimal on what he was doing. The hammer didn't fall on you, so why try to justify your criticism? Regardless, the idea that the DM can hold you directly to the rules and not approve anything you want to do outside of them can give a reason to mechanically quantify many, many items, and his house rule is built along those lines. Yeah, rules-moderate systems mean that the GM might hold you to the rules, but rules-heavy ones ensure it'll happen at least once - and it's not fun at ALL when someone does it with a system that'll restrain you so hard that you'll forget that it's not BDSM somewhere along the line.


Your personal opinion is what matters. And it's just that, personal. Your opinion is what matters to you, my opinion matters to me.

Which is why there can be things 'wrong' with the system, though some might perceive it as a plus.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-10, 08:17 AM
Which is why there can be things 'wrong' with the system, though some might perceive it as a plus.

Things can be wrong with the system to you. That doesn't make the thing that's wrong part of the system by design.

One Man's Trash is another Man's Treasure sort of situation? :smallbiggrin:

Talya
2008-06-10, 08:20 AM
Nothing is "wrong" with 4e.

Fourth Edition is just a basic, "lite" version of a new tactical boardgame with roleplaying elements. If you like that, great. Nothing "wrong" with it.

I'm sure that within 2-3 years WotC is going to release Advanced Dungeons & Dragons - 4th Edition. Then I'll be able to directly compare it to 3.5. Right now, you can't really directly compare them. 4e isn't designed to be able to do what 3.x can.

As it stands, 4e is likely excellent on a battlegrid, and I am honestly looking forward to seeing computer games based on it. It should be perfect for me in those situations.

Cainen
2008-06-10, 08:23 AM
Things can be wrong with the system to you. That doesn't make the thing that's wrong part of the system by design.

What defines quality, then? Opinion? Many would disagree on principle.


One Man's Trash is another Man's Treasure sort of situation?

Exactly, but not everyone gets their treasure at the same rate.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-10, 08:31 AM
What defines quality, then? Opinion? Many would disagree on principle.

You raise an interesting point. Perhaps its standards for quality? But then we get into the interesting debate on what the "Standards of Quality" for a role-playing game are... and we go right back to where we started, stating our opinions and running around in circles.

nagora
2008-06-10, 08:34 AM
All discussions about "good" and "bad" are subjective and if you think that makes them pointless then there's little reason to post on such threads.

Just take it as read that all such posts are the poster's opinion and work from there. There's no need to bother pointing out the subjectivity; we all already know that.

Morty
2008-06-10, 08:36 AM
I'll try to be precise and conscie:
-Simplifying the skill system. They added skill challenges, which is good, but they made skills profoundly boring and uninteresting. You select few skills you're good at from a really short list, and then you might get a feat to get a new one, but nothing more.
-Shift towards cinematic and even more heroic playstyle. I liked 3.5 D&D because it was heroic, but not too much. 3ed characters were stronger, smarter, etc. than most folks, but before higher levels, they could be still low-profile if the players wanted it so. 4ed assumes than PCs are cool, powerful and unique heroes right off the bat, just because. The new edition also assumes that the gaming session should strive to be like a book or movie, dramatic and climatic, with a "boss fight" at the end. Minions are a perfect example of this.
-Different systems for PCs and NPCs. In 3ed, PCs and NPCs used the same rules, while PCs were set apart by higher stats, more powerful classes and of course being controlled by players. But the base assumptions remained the same- everone has X levels in a class and gets appropriate features. It worked for good immersion and a feeling that PCs are but parts of a huge world.
-Butchering the magic-users and magic in general. Nothing more to say here that hasn't already been said.
Those are the biggest compliants about 4ed.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-10, 08:39 AM
All discussions about "good" and "bad" are subjective and if you think that makes them pointless then there's little reason to post on such threads.

Just take it as read that all such posts are the poster's opinion and work from there. There's no need to bother pointing out the subjectivity; we all already know that.

This wasnt a discussion of good and bad. He asked what was wrong with 4e. Good and Bad are subjective. I don't take my car to the mechanic and ask for the good and bad, I ask what's wrong and he tells me what's causing it to not function as intended.

And yes, everything posted on the internet is subjective. As I stated, I wasn't being argumenative.

tumble check
2008-06-10, 08:47 AM
One thing that has been bugging me about the people who dislike 4E.

4E emphasizes battle, this is true, but so did all other versions of D&D.

You see, D&D is not an RPG, and never has been. It's a tactical wargame that encourages roleplaying (and it hasn't even always done that)

The entire reason I disliked 3.x so much is that it tried to be both a tactical wargame (Which it still was), and an RPG (which it wasn't, not even close, though it tried really hard to be)

To make D&D into an RPG would make it not D&D, as D&D has always been, and always should be, a tactical wargame that encourages roleplaying.


You are very wrong.

Clearly, your preferences lie more with wargames, and that's fine. But no one ever said DnD was a pure RPG, although it's called an RPG. Even the first iterations of Dungeons and Dragons was indeed spawned from a pure wargame to have more roleplaying.

3.x didn't "try" to be an RPG, it instead was a tactical wargame with many elements of an RPG (clearly, now, the version of DnD which had the most).

We need not live in a world of extremes. We can have a game that incorporates elements of gaming, RPG, and simulation in a balanced way. 3.x did that. 4e does it to a lesser extent. If you think that's a step in the right direction, good for you, but don't say that DnD's ultimate goal is to become a barely flavored game of squares and miniatures, because those are the roots from which DnD originally separated itself.

Roderick_BR
2008-06-10, 08:52 AM
Question: People are complaining a lot that the skill system was simplified (dumbed down as some claim)... but anyone here actually uses skills in their games, other than tumble/use magic device/hide in shadows/move silently/lock pick/disable device/search? You are claiming that you can't split your points between profession and craft anymore.... WHEN was the last time you USED these in game? I don't mean a world-changing skill check, just something minor, like trying to get a little money on the side, show you have some knowledge on the area, or give a helping hand to the expert? Did anyone here use these skills as anything else other than background?
"My character have 1 and half ranks in profession(cook) because he was going to be a famous chef, but someday he took a great axe in hand and decided to hunt down orcs."

Cainen
2008-06-10, 09:01 AM
I use those sort of skills almost every time I play, and often for something that isn't wholly relevant to the DM's plot. In fact, I find more fun in doing the little mundane things than in picking a lock with the dice.

its_all_ogre
2008-06-10, 09:08 AM
skill checks are used a lot in my game but primarily spot/listen/hide/move silently with knowledge/spellcraft thrown in as appropriate.
many of the skills are player led anyway so i don't plan around them, primarily because if i put a cliff in to be climbed i know at least one pc won't make the checks.
new skill system will solve the latter issue.

as for the two 3.5 paladins, at level 1 they'll be identical except for stats, unless you point buy, feats will likely be the same (power attack and cleave if human) and skill points are not making much difference at this stage. still will be very similar. (this is all core)
and they will just roll to hit and damage the same, possibly using different weapons.
4ed has more options that actually work from what i've seen. the above paladin will be flat out better than one with iron will and skill focus diplomacy for example, unless you use diplo-cheese.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-10, 09:08 AM
Question: People are complaining a lot that the skill system was simplified (dumbed down as some claim)... but anyone here actually uses skills in their games, other than tumble/use magic device/hide in shadows/move silently/lock pick/disable device/search? You are claiming that you can't split your points between profession and craft anymore.... WHEN was the last time you USED these in game? I don't mean a world-changing skill check, just something minor, like trying to get a little money on the side, show you have some knowledge on the area, or give a helping hand to the expert? Did anyone here use these skills as anything else other than background?
"My character have 1 and half ranks in profession(cook) because he was going to be a famous chef, but someday he took a great axe in hand and decided to hunt down orcs."

My last long-term character crafted almost all the party's weaponry past 3rd level, including his own adamantine longsword (which is a major investment in time and checks if you don't have fabricate). Previous characters have gotten a lot of mileage out of their Craft, and even Profession, skills.

Just because you don't use these skills, it doesn't mean that others of us haven't used and enjoyed them.

Realms of Chaos
2008-06-10, 09:10 AM
From what I now understand, there are two main groups of people: The Supporters of 4e and the Haters of 4e. The arguement seems to go like this, from what I've seen all over the internet.

Haters: We lost the realistic and gritty feel for our game. The fact that so many aspects of the game that made a campaign setting seem like a feasible world were cut makes 4e inferior to 3e. Furthermore, the game is becoming a miniatures game, suggesting that 4e was made more to sell miniatures rather than to fix problems.
Supporters: Even if you lost the realistic and gritty feel for your game, there is nothing that says that you have to use the RAW. If you really want that realistic of a world, than a good DM can House Rule, Homebrew, and Improvise their way to getting that realism. When 2e became 3e, the game became more miniatures based but many players managed to avoid using miniatures. If you retrain yourself, you can continue a 4e game without miniatures as well.
Haters: If I have to homebrew and house rule everything in order to get a realistic world, why am I even playing this game in the first place rather than creating my own. Isn't the entire incentive when choosing a game that the game has rules that you can agree with and work with.
Supporters: No one is forcing you to convert to 4e, or even to continue playing DnD if you are so miffed. However, keep in mind that from the beginning, there have always been rules that have not made sense or that have been glossed over. Although not necessarily the mark of a good DM, for example, many games forget that players have to eat and drink and don't keep track of projectiles like arrows and bolts. 4e houserules should be about as simple.

At least, that is how I percieve the arguement.

Morty
2008-06-10, 09:16 AM
At least, that is how I percieve the arguement.

Then you percieve it in a skewed way, because criticizing 4ed doesn't make you its "hater". Geez, why do people feel the urge to divide the community into opposite groups of some sort? And then making one of those imagined groups look stupid?

Roderick_BR
2008-06-10, 09:24 AM
My last long-term character crafted almost all the party's weaponry past 3rd level, including his own adamantine longsword (which is a major investment in time and checks if you don't have fabricate). Previous characters have gotten a lot of mileage out of their Craft, and even Profession, skills.

Just because you don't use these skills, it doesn't mean that others of us haven't used and enjoyed them.
Hmm, sorry, that came out bad. I'm not saying no one uses it, I'm just asking how much use it actually gets. It's not that I don't like it, I just rarely see it being used at all in most games I played, and when used, they took so long to understand and to be played most of my groups ditches them.
I never really got how craft worked. I read something that a 20th level character with maxed out craft, and a group of helpers would take a year and a half to craft most heavy armors.
I'm actually hoping the new skills are easier to use, so I can use them at all.

sonofzeal
2008-06-10, 09:25 AM
If you're going to argue that the 3.5 pallys would be vastly different due to all the splat books that were available (Hell, you're even including Dragon magazine), then you're argument does not exist at all. We're in CORE right now with 4e, of course your paladins are going to be similar. Two 3.5 CORE ONLY pallys would be just as similar. I really don't know why I should have to explain this difference.
Here's a set of 6rd level core-only Human Paladins. Let's see what we can do.


Pally 1 - Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample
- Uses a lance, goes for single high-damage hits on charges.

Pally 2 - Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Shield Bash, Improved Initiative, Extra Turning
- Fights with sword and shield, at his best holding the line against superior numbers.

Pally 3 - Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
- Uses his mount for mobility while picking off the leaders and spellcasters with arrows. Often takes Ready Action to interrupt casters.

Pally 4 - Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Improved Grapple, Improved Turning.
- Focused on fighting tactically, holding his own in an archery duel due to Defect, or moving in and shutting down a particular threat with Grapple (or Turning if it's undead). Smites inside the Grapple for extra damage.

tumble check
2008-06-10, 09:38 AM
Here's a set of 6rd level core-only Human Paladins. Let's see what we can do.


Pally 1 - Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample
- Uses a lance, goes for single high-damage hits on charges.

Pally 2 - Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Shield Bash, Improved Initiative, Extra Turning
- Fights with sword and shield, at his best holding the line against superior numbers.

Pally 3 - Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
- Uses his mount for mobility while picking off the leaders and spellcasters with arrows. Often takes Ready Action to interrupt casters.

Pally 4 - Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Improved Grapple, Improved Turning.
- Focused on fighting tactically, holding his own in an archery duel due to Defect, or moving in and shutting down a particular threat with Grapple (or Turning if it's undead). Smites inside the Grapple for extra damage.

This is why I love 3.5, its other problems notwithstanding.

Closet_Skeleton
2008-06-10, 10:17 AM
To make D&D into an RPG would make it not D&D, as D&D has always been, and always should be, a tactical wargame that encourages roleplaying.

While what you say has some truth, this is more because D&D was the first RPG and therefore had no idea what an RPG should be like. When D&D was the sole RPG on the market (a short period since it was cloned incredibly quickly), all an RPG could be was a wargame that involved individual people and allowed for roleplaying. Now that the idea of what an RPG is is more defined, why shouldn't D&D change to fit that new decision?


The Snarks comment is discussing the roots of D&D. WotC read through a lot of fantasy, and realized that Wizards are much more powerful. They assumed that the Hero and Antagonist were of the same level, and gave the PC Wizards a power level comparable to the Wizards in literature.

That's one theory but it's far more likely that WotC had no idea how powerful they had actually made spell casters and also assumed that no matter how powerful spellcasters became they would always spend some of their power buffing their allies.

They also overestimated the power of direct damage spells.

I hate Dragonborn. D&D did not need a playable Dragon race and they are very poorly designed as reptilian humanoids. This is probably just my personal preferance that lizardmen should be bipedal reptiles that can do many of the things humans can do, not humans with scales and dragon heads.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-10, 10:34 AM
My complaint has less to do about rules and mechanics. Overall, for what 4e sets out to do, it's a fine system as far as I can tell.

Early days of DnD were a bit nebulous, but once it solidified into Dungeons & Dragons and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, it lasted a good while until the advent of 2nd Edition AD&D. That lasted about ten years.

Now there were complaints of the new edition after that, I'm aware. I would note that in my case and of that of my friends, we all took up 3rd Edition with nary a complaint. In many ways we embraced some of the changes (like the fact that there was no longer a need to subtract negative numbers, something I never had a problem with but still a nuisance to many). Just a few short years later we got 3.5e which supposedly cleaned up a lot of problems with 3e, but pretty much felt and played the same.

Still, though essentially the same system, the update required us to get the three core books again. Splatbooks released in 3e were re-released in 3.5 as well. The last 8 years of 3e has been quite the investment for what has been in practical purposes, two similar editions.

Now 4e is out, and though I personally am interested, most of my friends have little impetus to buy it. If they get these books, how many years will these be valid? Do they really want to spend that much on games any more? Do they want to spend the time to learn a whole new ruleset that's radically different (relatively speaking) from its predecessors?

They've asked such questions before, back when White Wolf revamped the World of Darkness. It's not that the changes weren't needed, or were bad, but there were enough changes that the decision not to invest in what was essentially a new RPG system was the result.

But, things change, nothing stays the same. Most of my friends haven't time for games any more. I'm down to one RPG game every other week. It may be that soon, it'll be time for this old gamer to hang up his dice and ride off into the sunset. So things go.

nagora
2008-06-10, 11:04 AM
While what you say has some truth, this is more because D&D was the first RPG and therefore had no idea what an RPG should be like. When D&D was the sole RPG on the market (a short period since it was cloned incredibly quickly), all an RPG could be was a wargame that involved individual people and allowed for roleplaying. Now that the idea of what an RPG is is more defined, why shouldn't D&D change to fit that new decision?
Original D&D was not a wargame, tactical or otherwise. Some of the terminology was carried over because the orginal players came from that background (chiefly the use of inches as a measurement system) but it was years before the tactical wargaming supplement was published.

I know that the "OD&D was a wargame with some roleplaying" trope gets wheeled out here a lot, but something doesn't become true no matter how often it's repeated.

I know of very few wars that were carried out exclusively in 10' wide corridors.

Stickforged
2008-06-10, 11:16 AM
What's Wrong With 4e?

Imho, miniatures and battlegrids are required to play it fully...

In 1st and 2nd editions, minis were entirely optional

In 3rd edition they were useful but not required (and i always regretted any use of them in my games)

In 4th can you use all that nifty monster/pc powers without?

I think no.

But i don't have the time or the money to use minis and battlegrids, nor i want to spend my game time calculating square distances all the time...

So i will borrow all of that good ideas form the new DMG (very good product) and trash the rest of it.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-10, 11:19 AM
Here's a set of 6rd level core-only Human Paladins. Let's see what we can do.

Pally 1 - Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample
- Uses a lance, goes for single high-damage hits on charges.

This can be good except in dungeons where horsie can't fit.



Pally 2 - Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Shield Bash, Improved Initiative, Extra Turning
- Fights with sword and shield, at his best holding the line against superior numbers.

Shield bash? Well, improved lets you keep AC bonud I guess. Still all that Dex bonus required for TWFing. That makes you pretty MAD (multi-ability Depedence).


Pally 3 - Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
- Uses his mount for mobility while picking off the leaders and spellcasters with arrows. Often takes Ready Action to interrupt casters.

Again, very MAD with the DEx required to be decent archer.


Pally 4 - Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Improved Grapple, Improved Turning.
- Focused on fighting tactically, holding his own in an archery duel due to Defect, or moving in and shutting down a particular threat with Grapple (or Turning if it's undead). Smites inside the Grapple for extra damage.

Grappler: Useful against humaniods (but giants and larger creatures win) though freedom of movement is issue.
Deflect Arrows blocks 1 successful hit/round. You can't use while using a 2 handed weapon like a bow (need a free hand).
Turning? As a Pally? The chance of success in Core by level 6 is low (Undead start gaining Turn Resistance).

I can't fathom this working.

Indon
2008-06-10, 11:24 AM
This can be good except in dungeons where horsie can't fit.
Unless you're a halfling and riding a devastating Riding Dog!


Turning? As a Pally? The chance of success in Core by level 6 is low (Undead start gaining Turn Resistance).
Turning only takes a couple of feats to pump to viability (and probably then some) for a Paladin, if I recall correctly.


In 1st and 2nd editions, minis were entirely optional

I dunno about entirely optional. You did have facing.

That's another thing I liked about the change to 3'rd edition - no facing led to less requirement for a battle mat.

hamishspence
2008-06-10, 11:27 AM
not anymore I fear: all steeds must now be large. No more riding dogs.

Indon
2008-06-10, 11:30 AM
not anymore I fear: all steeds must now be large. No more riding dogs.

Well, I'm not talking about 4'th edition D&D, where that canine knight from Labyrinth would have to be four feet tall, wield human-sized weapons, be as strong as the party human, and ride a horse to be playable.

nagora
2008-06-10, 11:31 AM
I dunno about entirely optional. You did have facing.
Why does facing need minis?

hamishspence
2008-06-10, 11:32 AM
now if dire wolves are allowed as a mount, might be more fun. I think Belkar said it best "how come HE gets to unleash the fury and I get a frigging wiener dog?"

Jack Zander
2008-06-10, 11:32 AM
Why does facing need minis?

Are you able to remember every direction each character and NPC is looking in the middle of a fight?

Dark Tira
2008-06-10, 11:34 AM
now if dire wolves are allowed as a mount, might be more fun. I think Belkar said it best "how come HE gets to unleash the fury and I get a frigging wiener dog?"

Dire Wolves are a mount in 4th. Only level 5 too.

nagora
2008-06-10, 11:37 AM
Are you able to remember every direction each character and NPC is looking in the middle of a fight?

Yes, if I assume that the characters and NPCs are not idiots and their actions make some sort of sense. It's generally pretty easy for the DM to decide who can flank who, and who can get behind who and who can't.

Mini's are a real drag on a game, by and large. They also give a totally false idea of what combat is like.

Indon
2008-06-10, 11:39 AM
Why does facing need minis?

So that you can tell who's facing what, who you can move into position behind, when you can get backstab damage, etc.

Now, you can run things without a mat, but facing can make things confusing. "Wait, which way was he facing?" "Well, towards you." "But Bob just attacked and didn't get his backstab bonus - isn't Bob behind him?"

That sort of thing.

Learnedguy
2008-06-10, 11:47 AM
Yes, if I assume that the characters and NPCs are not idiots and their actions make some sort of sense. It's generally pretty easy for the DM to decide who can flank who, and who can get behind who and who can't.

Mini's are a real drag on a game, by and large. They also give a totally false idea of what combat is like.

Meanwhile, playing it out in our head is the closest thing to reality you can get...


Here's a set of 6rd level core-only Human Paladins. Let's see what we can do.


Pally 1 - Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample
- Uses a lance, goes for single high-damage hits on charges.

Pally 2 - Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Shield Bash, Improved Initiative, Extra Turning
- Fights with sword and shield, at his best holding the line against superior numbers.

Pally 3 - Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
- Uses his mount for mobility while picking off the leaders and spellcasters with arrows. Often takes Ready Action to interrupt casters.

Pally 4 - Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Improved Grapple, Improved Turning.
- Focused on fighting tactically, holding his own in an archery duel due to Defect, or moving in and shutting down a particular threat with Grapple (or Turning if it's undead). Smites inside the Grapple for extra damage.

I'm genuinely surprised that no one had tried to take up his challenge:smallamused:
C'mon now, I wanna see how they compare:smallbiggrin:!

Zocelot
2008-06-10, 11:49 AM
But i don't have the time or the money to use minis and battlegrids, nor i want to spend my game time calculating square distances all the time...


In 3.x, a battlemat greatly enhanced play, so it seemed logical to buy one anyway. It costed less then a single splatbook. I believe it was about $20 Canadian.
In a group I play in, we've used poker chips with pictures taped on for minis for a very long time. Total Cost: $0
Although using a battlemat take slightly longer time then just moving a mini an amount that you think is about equal to it's speed, I find it organizes play much, much better. In addition, 4e has sped up play even more by eliminating diagonal movement.

Jack Zander
2008-06-10, 12:05 PM
In addition, 4e has sped up play even more by eliminating diagonal movement.

I fart at you 4e diagonal movement rules! How hard is it to remember that every 2 squares diagonal counts as 3?

Closet_Skeleton
2008-06-10, 12:08 PM
I know of very few wars that were carried out exclusively in 10' wide corridors.

It's a wargame shifted onto a differant scale which coincidentally doesn't include war.

nagora
2008-06-10, 12:10 PM
It's a wargame shifted onto a differant scale which coincidentally doesn't include war.

So, basically, not a wargame then.

Cainen
2008-06-10, 12:12 PM
I fart at you 4e diagonal movement rules! How hard is it to remember that every 2 squares diagonal counts as 3?

...a square grid is hardly representative of real life. Why on earth would you want diagonal movement that makes no logical sense? You aren't moving diagonally - you're moving five feet northwest, northeast, southwest, or southeast, and I have no clue how someone could get the idea that you move slower while walking one way than the other.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-10, 12:15 PM
...a square grid is hardly representative of real life. Why on earth would you want diagonal movement that makes no logical sense? You aren't moving diagonally - you're moving five feet northwest, northeast, southwest, or southeast, and I have no clue how someone could get the idea that you move slower while walking one way than the other.

Except that you are moving more than 5 feet when you move diagonally through squares since the diagonal of a square is longer than the sides. Hooray for pythagoras.

Also, this is why I prefer hexes.

Learnedguy
2008-06-10, 12:17 PM
Except that you are moving more than 5 feet when you move diagonally through squares since the diagonal of a square is longer than the sides. Hooray for pythagoras.

Also, this is why I prefer hexes.

Hexes are indeed made out of all that is good and fluffy in this world:smallamused:

hamishspence
2008-06-10, 12:17 PM
In which case, good. If I was converting direct: with characters continuing where they left off in 3.5, I would do a Giant and say: Your riding dog is now bigger (and technically, its a wolf)

While carrying on where you left off will probably not be too common, if it happens, I would favour rewarding rather than punishing conversion. So characters might be redesigned a bit, but mostly I would allow players to keep as much as possible.

Races, for example, would be renamed versions of existing 4th ed ones, if a convincing explanation can be thought up. Backgrounds would be mostly kept.

nagora
2008-06-10, 12:17 PM
...a square grid is hardly representative of real life. Why on earth would you want diagonal movement that makes no logical sense? You aren't moving diagonally - you're moving five feet northwest, northeast, southwest, or southeast, and I have no clue how someone could get the idea that you move slower while walking one way than the other.
Not to defend the ludicrous practise of representing the chaos of close-combat with a neat grid and regularised movement rules, but if I'm moving towards, say, a door, while keeping my shield and sword ready for an attack from a suspicious-looking skeleton, I might walk diagonally, sideways, or backwards as required, and it may be slower too.

Jack Zander
2008-06-10, 12:18 PM
...a square grid is hardly representative of real life. Why on earth would you want diagonal movement that makes no logical sense? You aren't moving diagonally - you're moving five feet northwest, northeast, southwest, or southeast, and I have no clue how someone could get the idea that you move slower while walking one way than the other.

Wha-? Maybe you don't know geometry. If you disect a square into two right triangles, their bases are going to be shorter than their hypotenuse.

See: Right Triangles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_right_triangles)

You aren't moving slower, you are traveling a longer distance.

darkzucchini
2008-06-10, 12:48 PM
I must admit that I have just gotten ahold of the 4e matrial so I am not that well versed in it, but after some quick skimming I must say that I have some major problems with it.

For one, what the hell happened to all my nice organized charts? Used to be that if I wanted to play a certain class I could just flip to it the PHB and there would be a nice chart that would tell me every ability that I would get from 1st to 20th level. Now I have to flip through 5 or more pages to get even a basic idea of what abilities a class has.

Then there are the double stat bonuses for races except humans. In 3e when a race got a stat bonus it at least got a stat penalty, giving every core race a +0 modifier. The new system really seems to disadvantage humans, especially when combined with the fact that there is no more multiclassing, one of the other great benefits of playing a human.

The stat generation. While the fact that the new PHB only offers pregenerated stats or the point buy method can be easily remedied, it is an indicator of the new style of this edition. It forgoes the randomness of character generation that was one of my favorite parts of generating a character. What will happen to all the half-orc barbarians too stupid to speak any word longer than two syllabus? What of the bent old wizards who seem ready to collapse under rather light load of spell books and scrolls? This new brand of D&D seems overly concerned with balance between characters and have forgotten that the PCs are a team, not just individuals, and through working together they compensate for each others weaknesses.

Templates... there aren't any. I know that a lot of people weren't that big of fans of monster templates. But, while the new system gives us many more prebuilt monsters to choose from, it has made it more difficult to make your own unique variations on monsters. What if I want a zombiefied dragon in my dungeon? I can't simple add a template to the base creature and call it a day, now I have to go homebrew something.

These all leave me with the impression that the system is geared more towards new players who want something quick and ready to go, something in which each player's character is equal in power to that of their peer, but seems to leave behind some of the magic and the grit and the blood that made 3e truly great. 3e brought us a welcome simplification from 2e, but 4e has brought only canned characters and many unnecessary changes.

Chronos
2008-06-10, 12:57 PM
Actually, if you're going to use a grid at all, a square grid has several advantages over a hex grid. First, so long as you use a reasonable and simple rule for diagonals (and 1.5 is a reasonable approximation to sqrt(2) ), a "circle" on a square grid is a hexagon, while a "circle" on a hex grid is a hexagon, making the square grid the better approximation. Second, it's a lot easier to represent most artificial structures on a square grid than on a hex.

Starsinger
2008-06-10, 01:06 PM
For one, what the hell happened to all my nice organized charts? Used to be that if I wanted to play a certain class I could just flip to it the PHB and there would be a nice chart that would tell me every ability that I would get from 1st to 20th level. Now I have to flip through 5 or more pages to get even a basic idea of what abilities a class has. That's because you're not a cookie cutter paladin anymore whose abilities were dictated at you by WotC with little choice beyond ACFs.



The stat generation. While the fact that the new PHB only offers pregenerated stats or the point buy method can be easily remedied, it is an indicator of the new style of this edition. It forgoes the randomness of character generation that was one of my favorite parts of generating a character. What will happen to all the half-orc barbarians too stupid to speak any word longer than two syllabus? What of the bent old wizards who seem ready to collapse under rather light load of spell books and scrolls? This new brand of D&D seems overly concerned with balance between characters and have forgotten that the PCs are a team, not just individuals, and through working together they compensate for each others weaknesses.
Method 3, rolling for stats. Well look at that! Still there.


Templates... there aren't any. I know that a lot of people weren't that big of fans of monster templates. But, while the new system gives us many more prebuilt monsters to choose from, it has made it more difficult to make your own unique variations on monsters. What if I want a zombiefied dragon in my dungeon? I can't simple add a template to the base creature and call it a day, now I have to go homebrew something. Templates are in the DMG

Talya
2008-06-10, 01:43 PM
That's because you're not a cookie cutter paladin anymore whose abilities were dictated at you by WotC with little choice beyond ACFs.


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4444201&postcount=110
Previous page. More variety in that there is in 30 levels of 4e's monotonous "choices" that are all identical anyway.

Stickforged
2008-06-10, 02:32 PM
In 3.x, a battlemat greatly enhanced play, so it seemed logical to buy one anyway. It costed less then a single splatbook. I believe it was about $20 Canadian.
In a group I play in, we've used poker chips with pictures taped on for minis for a very long time. Total Cost: $0

I used them too... but minis look better :smalltongue:

Anyway a pencil an eraser and square grid paper are cheaper. Really, it is not money the issue...


Although using a battlemat take slightly longer time then just moving a mini an amount that you think is about equal to it's speed, I find it organizes play much, much better. In addition, 4e has sped up play even more by eliminating diagonal movement.

The real problem is in my style of dm'ing. I like cinematic style, and find square grids and exact positioning not worthy enough for the trouble...

As an example, one of the last fight was something like:

2 Pc's in a magical external lift in Lyrandar Tower in Sharn (An Eberron's metropolis) having an argument with a corrupt church official, possesed by a Glabrezu demon. Feeling endagered the demon burst out and destroys half of the lift. The floor tilts sideways and starts to fall down level by level (1 level / round).

Meanwhile the 2 other pc's are pursuing the demon's summoner in a frantic flying gondola chase.

During the fight one of the pc got thrown out of the lift. He save himself catching a bannerpole. The 2 other pc's come in range, and a battle ensue.

I spare you the details... but imagine doing all of this with battlemats and minis... it would take an eternity!

Cainen
2008-06-10, 02:38 PM
Wha-? Maybe you don't know geometry. If you disect a square into two right triangles, their bases are going to be shorter than their hypotenuse.

I... don't think you understand. Square grids are abstract. Why is it that it's impossible to travel precisely five feet southwest under it? There's no reason to haphazardly apply 'realism' to something that's very, very abstract in the first place. People don't move diagonally, and only do it in particularly cardinal directions some of the time.

sonofzeal
2008-06-10, 02:46 PM
This can be good except in dungeons where horsie can't fit.
It's situation, but it's devistating when it works. And depending on the campaign, the limitations might not be much of a problem at all.




Shield bash? Well, improved lets you keep AC bonud I guess. Still all that Dex bonus required for TWFing. That makes you pretty MAD (multi-ability Depedence).
If multiclassing is okay you could do it with a two level dip in Ranger, which also gets you a lot of other nice goodies. That'd be my prefered way of doing this build, but it's technically legal as-is.


Again, very MAD with the DEx required to be decent archer.
Not really, since you're less dependant on Str and Con for this. It's manageable at any rate.



Grappler: Useful against humaniods (but giants and larger creatures win) though freedom of movement is issue.
FoM is not an issue at all at this level, and as an objection to Grapple builds is overrated anyway; the rings are obscenely expensive and I don't think I've actually seen a caster use it in any campaign I've been in.

Deflect Arrows blocks 1 successful hit/round. You can't use while using a 2 handed weapon like a bow (need a free hand).
Actually, I'm pretty sure you can remove one hand from a 2 handed weapon whenver you want. The only time you need two hands on it is while you're in the process of attacking, meaning the rest of the time you can deflect just fine. Ready Actions to shoot you when you go to shoot/swing are a problem, but that's just nitpicking at this point. The idea works. And you could always fake them out by going to swing (move action), deflecting the arrow (free action), then actually attack (standard action).

Turning? As a Pally? The chance of success in Core by level 6 is low (Undead start gaining Turn Resistance).
Granted, Turning becomes fairly weak later on. Improved Turning does keep it compeditive for a while. By lvl10 he's going to be aching for a retrain, but for now I think it's okay.


I can't fathom this working.
Hey, I wasn't asked for optimal Paladin builds. Heir's assertation was that I couldn't build even TWO pallys that would have distinct play-styles within Core, and I think I did that. Outside of Core I'd probably replace the Turning feats for things that let you use Turning for other purposes, and maybe rework Mr Shieldbashy. But for now, at least they're all distinct and useful within their various niches.

Learnedguy
2008-06-10, 02:54 PM
The real problem is in my style of dm'ing. I like cinematic style, and find square grids and exact positioning not worthy enough for the trouble...

As an example, one of the last fight was something like:

2 Pc's in a magical external lift in Lyrandar Tower in Sharn (An Eberron's metropolis) having an argument with a corrupt church official, possesed by a Glabrezu demon. Feeling endagered the demon burst out and destroys half of the lift. The floor tilts sideways and starts to fall down level by level (1 level / round).

Meanwhile the 2 other pc's are pursuing the demon's summoner in a frantic flying gondola chase.

During the fight one of the pc got thrown out of the lift. He save himself catching a bannerpole. The 2 other pc's come in range, and a battle ensue.

I spare you the details... but imagine doing all of this with battlemats and minis... it would take an eternity!

Eh, I think I could manage that with a bit of abstract thinking. You got what, three different spaces occupied by the PC's and NPC's (not counting the bannerpole). The gondolas and the lift (the lift might have a roof as well).

So I'd need three papers with pretty squares on them. If I'd want the shape of the gondola clear, then a few quick strokes with marker would do. Then I could move these closer or nearer each other to represent the space between these two spaces (if you want to get all fancy, add a ruler or something to get more exact).

The bannerpole is left completely abstract though. It will be a simple point that the PC hangs on to.

Yeah, I could run with that. I agree though that a battlemat would be a bit unwieldy.

Avor
2008-06-10, 02:56 PM
It has the dumbed down gameplay of D&D minitures. The story is just a story, this RPG is lacking RP. And the abilities, once per day, once per encounter, are strait from WoW.

The game feels like D&D minitures with a story mixed with WoW.

If you want a tactics game, 4e is ok, but I want a open ended RPG so I'm going to stick to 3.5.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-06-10, 03:08 PM
What's Wrong With 4e?

Imho, miniatures and battlegrids are required to play it fully...

In 1st and 2nd editions, minis were entirely optional

In 3rd edition they were useful but not required (and i always regretted any use of them in my games)

In 4th can you use all that nifty monster/pc powers without?

I think no.

But i don't have the time or the money to use minis and battlegrids, nor i want to spend my game time calculating square distances all the time...

So i will borrow all of that good ideas form the new DMG (very good product) and trash the rest of it.

In my gaming group's experience, we always used minis (or a close approximation - glass beads) for 3.X combat. The combat section of the 3.X PHB shows most examples of combat movement/targetting using minis and grids. The only different between 3.x and 4th that I see, mini wise, is that they use 'squares' instead of 'feet' to make grid square calculations more to scale.


Here's a set of 6rd level core-only Human Paladins. Let's see what we can do.


Pally 1 - Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample
- Uses a lance, goes for single high-damage hits on charges.

Pally 2 - Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Shield Bash, Improved Initiative, Extra Turning
- Fights with sword and shield, at his best holding the line against superior numbers.

Pally 3 - Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
- Uses his mount for mobility while picking off the leaders and spellcasters with arrows. Often takes Ready Action to interrupt casters.

Pally 4 - Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Improved Grapple, Improved Turning.
- Focused on fighting tactically, holding his own in an archery duel due to Defect, or moving in and shutting down a particular threat with Grapple (or Turning if it's undead). Smites inside the Grapple for extra damage.

This is one of the things I disliked about 3.X: IMO you were more often than not penalized for trying out an 'interesting' build.

Pally 1 - He's a bit of a one trick pony. This build relies on the DM not using a small/cramped area (for those that want non-halfling paladins) or using anything but clear terrain. For the situations where he has to fight on foot, he's pretty much a featless warrior that can smite and cast some minor spells.

Pally 2 - Terrible at holding the line. The paladin has to invest a 15 into dex, and going by point buy, that's quite the investment. Since his Str is likely to be somewhat lower (14 at MAX due to his MAD), his attack pattern at level 6 with a +1 longsword is: +7/+7/+2 (and one of the +7s is from his shield, which does even less damage). Also, the extra turning is pretty much wasted, since on average you can turn a 3 hit dice undead which you won't be fighting enough of to warrant the feat expenditure. This build is WAY better with PHBII though, since you can shield bash without needing Dex as a prereq.

Pally 3 - Same situation as pally 1, though if I pulled this off in my group, my character would be very unpopular -> cowardly paladin would likely become my new moniker.

Pally 4 - This has mostly already been addressed.

My biggest beef with 3.X was that a lot of ideas are neat on paper, but weak in practice. HOWEVER, this isn't a problem if you're playing with the right group. I'm just unfortunate enough to be mostly stuck with min/maxers that ridicule sub-optimal builds so my opinion is a tad biased (my 'sword and shield fighter' didn't last too long after a melee cleric joined the party).

sonofzeal
2008-06-10, 03:29 PM
My biggest beef with 3.X was that a lot of ideas are neat on paper, but weak in practice. HOWEVER, this isn't a problem if you're playing with the right group. I'm just unfortunate enough to be mostly stuck with min/maxers that ridicule sub-optimal builds so my opinion is a tad biased against sub-optimal builds (my 'sword and shield fighter' didn't last too long after a melee cleric joined the party).
And my biggest beef is that martial characters get screwed no matter WHAT they do. Seriously, what else can a paladin do with his feats, besides possible a Power Attack - Cleave build, or yet another Tripmonkey? All four of those builds, while non-optimal, are about as good as non-cheesed core Paladins get at that level. All have reasonable synergy between the abilities, and all make at least some use of Paladin-specific things (rather than just playing them as Fighters with less feats). I've seen most of these concepts in use, and all have proven to be solidly effective in practice, in a low-level group. Actually, come to think of it, #2 was the single most dominant force in his group, and #4 was an NPC with the same level and character generation rules as the part, who very nearly beat them all by himself. Seriously, how much can you really expect out of a Core-only paladin?

And, back to the origional point - can anybody come up with four low-level 4e Pally builds that are more diverse in playstyle?

Matthew
2008-06-10, 03:49 PM
Are you able to remember every direction each character and NPC is looking in the middle of a fight?

Facing actually doesn't work that way in AD&D 2e (and in 1e it could, but didn't have to). Basically, facings get 'filled up' from best protected to worst protected. So if your character is attack by six enemies then, zones "a, b, c, d, e and f" are filled, if he's attack by six "a, b, c, d and e," etc... It's an abstraction that brings it's own interesting tactical choices.

SmartAlec
2008-06-10, 03:49 PM
It has the dumbed down gameplay of D&D minitures. The story is just a story, this RPG is lacking RP. And the abilities, once per day, once per encounter, are strait from WoW.

The game feels like D&D minitures with a story mixed with WoW.

If you want a tactics game, 4e is ok, but I want a open ended RPG so I'm going to stick to 3.5.

I don't think my understanding of what 'RP' means is the same as yours. Why is 4th Ed not open-ended?

Jerthanis
2008-06-10, 04:04 PM
Haters: We lost the realistic and gritty feel for our game. The fact that so many aspects of the game that made a campaign setting seem like a feasible world were cut makes 4e inferior to 3e. Furthermore, the game is becoming a miniatures game, suggesting that 4e was made more to sell miniatures rather than to fix problems.

Actually, as a supporter of 4th edition, I think one of its greatest strengths is that it promotes a much grittier and more realistic campaign world. No, I'm serious. 3rd edition magic was broken in every possible fashion, in combat and out. It did everything, and did it easier than anything else. There was no reason for a society to seek anything else than magical solutions to every problem. The only excuse for there not to be permanent teleportation circles in every city was either that no magicians of sufficient level existed in the setting (why then, do the highest level spells exist then?), or those same magicians were uninterested in making embarrassing amounts of money by commercializing their powers. D&D 3rd edition was gilded and glamorous with spectacular magic around every turn; it was a true utopia of modern conveniences, or it was ignoring what magic could really do.

Meanwhile, with 4e rituals being rare, costly, and time consuming, magic is only useful for things that can not be performed easier with mundane means, and even then, only by those with access to the material wealth required to go through with them.

Also, the accepted world: in 3rd edition, ANYONE can just go out and oppose the forces of darkness, and if they're a little bit lucky, they survive and make more money than god, and become powerful enough to push back more powerful forces of darkness and make even more money... so on and so forth.

In 4th edition, it takes a special kind of badass, who has trained their entire life and is special down to their core to even make the attempt. And then, for them, it's hard. They have to be smart and have several trustworthy blades at their sides to succeed. With this is the only hope to change a world shrouded by darkness on all sides.

Which one sounds grittier and more realistic?

Now: Things that are wrong with 4th edition: Already there are mentions of one class outperforming others, some abilities seem underpowered or overpowered for their level, and certainly powers don't progress in strictly linear order from weakest -> strongest from low -> high level. There isn't enough focus on weapon choice in terms of fighting style, since there's only a choice between a few Fighter powers and a few feats. I was hoping, based on the previews that there'd be extensive powers which would be of a certain weapon style in each class. The speed and enjoyability of battles depends too strongly on the terrain. Too open and there's very little strategy possible... pushing and pulling has no relevance if you're not pushing them or pulling them somewhere that they don't want to be. Too closed off and no one can attain any tactical advantage, or make use of the more mobile/area powers, and it boils down once again to "I attack. d20 roll..." again and again. The pressure to make interesting terrain could mean it's actually still very difficult for DMs to plan memorable fights, since now the terrain is so vital. Also, combat is now so fun that I worry that people will mistakenly think you can't RP as well. It's resolved quickly if you don't have a very large party, so I view it as an increase in RP potential.

Talya
2008-06-10, 04:06 PM
I don't think my understanding of what 'RP' means is the same as yours. Why is 4th Ed not open-ended?

4e does not lower your ability to RP. I don't understand this idea, and I'm one of 4e's more vocal critics.

4e does lower the versatility of your design and storytelling, however, as it greatly limits what can be done. Yes, the balance of what you can do is more even (I won't call that better in all cases), but you have far fewer assets to work with.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-10, 04:19 PM
4e does not lower your ability to RP. I don't understand this idea, and I'm one of 4e's more vocal critics.

4e does lower the versatility of your design and storytelling, however, as it greatly limits what can be done. Yes, the balance of what you can do is more even (I won't call that better in all cases), but you have far fewer assets to work with.

Oh darn, we can't fix every problem in the game by telling the wizard to snap his fingers while the rest of us sit around twiddling our thumbs.

I guess we'll just have to be innovative. Damn.

RTGoodman
2008-06-10, 04:29 PM
And, back to the origional point - can anybody come up with four low-level 4e Pally builds that are more diverse in playstyle?

Sure.

- Lawful Good Dragonborn Paladin of Bahamut (or LG Dwarf Paladin of Moradin): Standard D&D Paladin. Very honorable and likes to go one-on-one with enemies. Uses holy strike, radiant smite, and such to lay the holy beatdown on that one enemy. Eventually gains stuff like wrath of the gods for extra divine goodness. Definitely bound for Champion of Order Paragon Path. Really, this one's pretty standard, and can benefit from most of the Paladin powers.

- Good Human Paladin: Everyone's best friend. He focuses on prayers and attacks that hurt enemies, draw them to him, and bolster allies at the same time. Uses lay on hands and paladin's judgement to heal folks, martyr's blessing (Paladin Utility 2 - you take damage instead of an adjacent ally) and shielding smite to protect allies, and maybe even takes the Cleric or Warlord multiclass feats to be better at healing or directing allies. Probably goes for the Hospitaler Paragon Path later, and maybe picks up Ritual Casting and learns to remove diseases and bring people back from the dead. Actually, this could probably even break into two different characters - one that's healing-focused, and one that's strictly a defense-oriented character.

- Unaligned Hobgoblin Paladin: Likes to tussle with a bunch of guys at once. Uses valiant strike (Paladin At-will Attack 1 - you get better the more enemies are surrounding you), arcing smite, and other multi-target powers to great effect. Probably uses a reach weapon for more carnage. Uses more healing powers to stay afloat and gets a boost regarding saves because of his racial power, and probably spends feats on doing more damage. Later on, grabs stuff like crown of glory (Paladin Daily Attack 9 - any enemy that starts adjacent to you is slowed; sustain minor). Not sure about a Paragon Path, though.

- Evil Tiefling Paladin of Asmodeus: Basically, he's a blackguard. He smites foes with hellfire attacks (i.e., evil Radiant damage, or Necrotic if your DM won't let you use evil Radiant damage) and focuses on destructive and debuffing powers. Enfeebling strike, fearsome smite, on pain of death (Paladin Daily Attack 1 - 3d8+CHA, and target takes 1d8 every time it attacks until it makes a save) are his favorite tools. Eventually he might pick up the Infernal Pact Warlock multiclass stuff, and he'll probably go Astral Weapon (with minor modifications).

webgem
2008-06-10, 04:40 PM
I'm still out on my verdict until I play an actual game, but I really think that the players hand book has a strange sort of cheesy feel to it sometimes, that might be a little off to me.

My main example is that one of the reasons to play a dragonborn is

"If you'd like to play a character that looks like a dragon."

Oooookay. Thank you folks, I got it.

That probably isn't an exact quote, so I'm sorry, but its close.

THAC0
2008-06-10, 04:57 PM
I'm going to preface this with two things: I haven't bothered reading this entire thread, nor have I actually played 4e yet, since my husband is reluctant to run for just me, and we do not currently have a group.

I've been whining about 4e for months, but the only thing I REALLY dislike, honestly, is the healing surges. I like to be able to nova my healing if I want to, darnit!

I am not a huge fan of the new spell system, but I understand where it came from.

I don't like lots of the fluff (especially dragonborn), but whatever. Fluff is easily changed.

A lot of the system takes some getting used to, since it endeavors to provide a cinematic style of play. I'm trying not to think too hard about why my buddy gets to move three squares whenever I smack a bad guy. If I don't think about it, it's okay.

I like the new multi-classing rules. It goes back closer to the 1e style. I also like the new skill system. Honestly, 3.5 provided far far too many choices. And many of them were stupid choices.

turkishproverb
2008-06-10, 05:04 PM
Supporters: No one is forcing you to convert to 4e, or even to continue playing DnD if you are so miffed. However, keep in mind that from the beginning, there have always been rules that have not made sense or that have been glossed over. Although not necessarily the mark of a good DM, for example, many games forget that players have to eat and drink and don't keep track of projectiles like arrows and bolts. 4e houserules should be about as simple.

At least, that is how I percieve the arguement.

Not only is your entire argument painfully skewed, but the fact is this is not exactly golden

Have you tried to get games to play 2nd Edition in the last oh, 5 years? Virtually noone will, because the mythical stance of just how bad the game supposedly is has been built up.

Most likely the same thing will happen to 3.5/3.0.

I think people have a right to be worried about railroading if they want to play D&d.

Gamebird
2008-06-10, 05:30 PM
Why do the egg-hatched reptiloid females have breasts?

Why are the fearless demons, spawned from the forces of chaos and living only to destory, terrified of the balor because he might destroy them?

First blush: minion, skirmisher, thug, etc. not clearly defined.

Index sucks.

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

The games I've been in used skills frequently. The example given early in this thread about the broken wagon wheel was a staple. So much so that the wizard always carried a Mend spell when we were on the road. It wasn't that the DM had our wagons breaking down all the time, but we'd have some sort of breakdown every month or so of traveling. It was a breakdown that could be fixed with a day of labor and running around to get parts, which was what the NPCs usually did when it happened to them, but for us high-powered adventurers, we used magic.

In purchasing things, the DM would want to know what skills we had in related abilities (assuming we didn't have Appraise, which no one, for the duration of the campaign, ever got for some reason). Otherwise our ability to judge good from bad was impaired. Sure, we wouldn't get total malfuncational crap if we had no related skills, but someone with a lot of Blacksmithing could judge which sword was best-made and someone with a lot of Handle Animal or Knowledge: Nature could pick out which horse was the highest quality. For the horse this was really important because it might come with stat modifiers from the normal horse and would definitely act better. On the sword, the difference was less vital and more one of flavor and description. NPCs who were important and experienced would notice that you had a well-made weapon compared to a cheap one.

Skills came up on all kinds of things. They were almost never vital to character's survival. Instead they allowed us to have a mechanism to do something that, without a skill check, was just arbitrary. I'd rather not have "arbitrary". The skill check enhanced the array of options to the characters.

nagora
2008-06-10, 05:40 PM
Facing actually doesn't work that way in AD&D 2e (and in 1e it could, but didn't have to). Basically, facings get 'filled up' from best protected to worst protected. So if your character is attack by six enemies then, zones "a, b, c, d, e and f" are filled, if he's attack by six "a, b, c, d and e," etc... It's an abstraction that brings it's own interesting tactical choices.

I didn't want to get into it in detail, but in addition to that, good players and DMs running intelligent monsters will come up with plans (that's p-l-a-n-s made with a b-r-a-i-n, not f-e-a-t-s made with a n-a-n-n-y) to force facing to their advantage. In a general melee, though, the system you give is effectively what I think most AD&D players and DMs use.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-10, 05:51 PM
4e does lower the versatility of your design and storytelling, however, as it greatly limits what can be done. Yes, the balance of what you can do is more even (I won't call that better in all cases), but you have far fewer assets to work with.

It greatly limits your design, yes. It's much less flexible than 3.5 in this regard. It does *not* limit your storytelling because (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the only limit on your storytelling is your imagination.

Ultimately saying that 4E limits "storytelling" is functionally identical to saying it limits roleplaying (which is an assertion you say you don't understand). The one is a function of the other.

The fact that my Wizard can no longer cast overland flight or teleport at will does not affect the ability to *tell stories* with the game, only the superficial details of those stories.

Heck, if you go that route, giving the players too *many* options can restrict storytelling. Every couple of months somebody will show up on the official D&D boards trying to work out how to do a murder mystery in a world with easy access to resurrection.

Chronos
2008-06-10, 05:52 PM
The other thing with non-combat skills like Craft and Profession is, if you think they're useless, you're perfectly free to not take them. Meanwhile, if someone else thinks that a particular Knowledge skill is useless, or Escape Artist, or whatever, they're free to not take those, too. And if you want your 20th level paladin to be better at noticing things than he was at 1st level, then you can put a few ranks into Spot and Listen, or pick up the Alertness feat somewhere along the way.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-10, 06:04 PM
The other thing with non-combat skills like Craft and Profession is, if you think they're useless, you're perfectly free to not take them. Meanwhile, if someone else thinks that a particular Knowledge skill is useless, or Escape Artist, or whatever, they're free to not take those, too. And if you want your 20th level paladin to be better at noticing things than he was at 1st level, then you can put a few ranks into Spot and Listen, or pick up the Alertness feat somewhere along the way.

You seem to be taking the position that the usefulness of different skills is a subjective matter, and to a degree it is, but I defy anybody to put their hand on their heart and say that they *genuinely* believe that "Craft: Baker" is actually likely to come up in an adventuring context unless the DM explicitly engineers a situation so you get to use the skill.

By putting making you buy "flavour" skills out of the same points pool as actually useful skills, the system forces you to make an unnecessary and unfair choice between effectiveness and character. This (and I've used this analogy before, and I will do so again) is functionally equivalent to docking XP for good roleplaying. You either sink points into things your character will never use, or you don't, and if you do, you wind up being *fundamentally less effective* than if you had just maxed a couple of skills from the get go.

Hurlbut
2008-06-10, 06:11 PM
"Craft: Baker"
*ahem* that would be Craft: Baking or Profession: Baker :smallbiggrin:

Jerthanis
2008-06-10, 06:22 PM
*ahem* that would be Craft: Baking or Profession: Baker :smallbiggrin:

Not if your name was Doctor Frankenstein!

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-10, 06:25 PM
*ahem* that would be Craft: Baking or Profession: Baker :smallbiggrin:

The difference being that Craft: Baking would allow you to bake things and sell them for money, while Profession: Baker would allow you to make money working as a baker *without* baking things...

Indon
2008-06-10, 06:26 PM
It greatly limits your design, yes. It's much less flexible than 3.5 in this regard. It does *not* limit your storytelling because (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the only limit on your storytelling is your imagination.

Okay. 4'th edition doesn't limit your storytelling, it just facilitates it less, causing you to spend more time for the same amount of quality or lose quality for the same amount of time.

World of difference, that.

Also: Craft and Profession, together at last: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4444211&postcount=33

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-10, 06:32 PM
Okay. 4'th edition doesn't limit your storytelling, it just facilitates it less, causing you to spend more time for the same amount of quality or lose quality for the same amount of time.

World of difference, that.


How, exactly?

For a start, how does 3.X *remotely* facilitate storytelling, and how does getting rid of save-or-suck or giving all the monsters more hit points some how make storytelling less facilitated?

The only "stories" you can "tell" in 3.X that you can't tell in 4E are ones which revolve around specific game mechanics which are no longer in the system, and a game mechanic is never a good basis for a story (which is why all RPG fiction ever written totally ignores the mechanics of the game it's based on).

Nu
2008-06-10, 06:35 PM
As far as I can tell, the only complaint about 4E is that it is "different than 3.5."

People fear change, and whenever changes are made to an existing system, there are detractors. Many are extreme enough to marginalize or entirely omit the potential positives of the new edition and focus wholly on what they perceive to be the negatives.

As for what I THINK is wrong with 4E, here is my entire, complete list of complaints:

I'm not sure I like how Small races are handled, but I'll wait and see before passing judgment.
I think Second Wind should give temporary hit points rather than healing.

That's all.

sktarq
2008-06-10, 06:39 PM
Those are honest questions; I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I don't have 4e yet, but I'm finding it hard to understand, reading these forums, how what appears to be a complete and total reworking of the combat system could affect roleplaying that much. The 3.5 combat rules never had really any effect at all on the interactions my players had with the NPCs I created, so how is it that the 4e combat rules change this?

Firstly I didn't say that it couldn't be done just that in 3.5 there were plenty of more book space, feats, and general attention paid to noncombat parts of the game. It is as if the the combat system got a rework and the noncombat was left to mostly rot away as "Not Fun". Such as the Craft and Profession classes. Which I and my little group of gamers have used plenty of times in ways that were, for us at least, very cool fun, and story driving. Things like Craft (trapmaking), Craft (clockwork)(to rework/ repair the clockworks that were sent to kill us) Craft (Locksmith)(actually used to make new thieves tools while incarcerated), Craft (Cooking) (used to work my way up in the Kitchen to serve the kings dinner after getting the job with Diplomacy and bluff) and a bunch of other stuff (like not poisoning ourselves when I cooked the fish we found in the underground river-DC25). And franky if I could cook a dinner well enough to serve to the king having NOT spent the skill points I'd consider it a flaw in logic. And no the DM didn't explicitly set it up for us to let me use the skill...we just needed access. Someone else was infiltrating the guards, the wizard was working on becoming a construction contactor via wall of stone spells. I just used the skills I had.
Also skills don't have to be based around adventering. Like a character who uses Perform (Dance) to flirt with a count's daughter and eventally land himself a wife, nobility and a bunch of adventure hooks. Or the Bunch of Characters who were reluctant heros who were trying desperatly to live quiet lives as forces around them tried to mess with their home village and between threats used Profession (*******) checks to actually gain gp in the downtime. As for it being a kind of XP dock for doing this....That is where an XP bonus for good roleplaying comes in and a focus on game "fun" instead of game "win". That right there is a balance that is different for each group. In the pre-release they flat out declared several parts of the game (craft, the paladin's cure disease) not fun. I rather found that insulting and can see how they changed it away from those things that kept me playing for 19 years now, long after I outgrew the thrill of a dungeon crawl.

I found the Templates and the Advancment stuff last night when my friend finally let me grab the DMG (we split initial purchases and pass em around).

I actually Like the new spell system. I like the Rituals and the fact that the Wizard makes every other character feel useless after about 12th lvl.

But fundamentally it has become a Herocentric, Cinamatic, Combat Focused (istead of allowing for as much combat focus as you wanted). Which isn't the kind of game I find any fun to play. When the PC's are special then when they do special things, so what? But when a character not fundamentally different does something special then it makes their acomplishments worth something. Then again I'm the kind of guy who find a dungeon not very fun if its economy and food base don't make sense. Literally it eats away at the believability enough. I pretty much ask myself why every damn Orc is doing what it does...like setting up its home just down the hall from incredibly hungery semi inteligent creatures that may not consider him lunch put could be rather painful-why not go down the cliff face a ways and make a few lean tos?

and with more reading I feel like they expect me to have ADHD, which would be okay if they had that enough to run the game and more depth availibe if you were more focused but it seems to be Here is the game for the ADD generation and if you want more okay homebuild it but we won't support you.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-10, 06:53 PM
Firstly I didn't say that it couldn't be done just that in 3.5 there were plenty of more book space, feats, and general attention paid to noncombat parts of the game.

I would point out that 4E actually has *quite a lot* to say about noncombat parts of the game, what it does not have is a bunch of otherwise useless flavour skills.


It is as if the the combat system got a rework and the noncombat was left to mostly rot away as "Not Fun". Such as the Craft and Profession classes.

The noncombat part also got a rework. What it got was (a) an actual system for noncombat challenges and (b) streamlined.


Which I and my little group of gamers have used plenty of times in ways that were, for us at least, very cool fun, and story driving. Things like Craft (trapmaking), Craft (clockwork)(to rework/ repair the clockworks that were sent to kill us) Craft (Locksmith)(actually used to make new thieves tools while incarcerated), Craft (Cooking) (used to work my way up in the Kitchen to serve the kings dinner after getting the job with Diplomacy and bluff) and a bunch of other stuff (like not poisoning ourselves when I cooked the fish we found in the underground river-DC25). And franky if I could cook a dinner well enough to serve to the king having NOT spent the skill points I'd consider it a flaw in logic. And no the DM didn't explicitly set it up for us to let me use the skill...we just needed access. Someone else was infiltrating the guards, the wizard was working on becoming a construction contactor via wall of stone spells. I just used the skills I had.

I must have missed the bit in the PHB where it says "if a skill does not exist in this game, it is physically impossible for players to perform that action".

You can do *all* of the things you describe in 4E, you just don't need to spend skill points to be able to do them.


Also skills don't have to be based around adventering. Like a character who uses Perform (Dance) to flirt with a count's daughter and eventally land himself a wife, nobility and a bunch of adventure hooks. Or the Bunch of Characters who were reluctant heros who were trying desperatly to live quiet lives as forces around them tried to mess with their home village and between threats used Profession (*******) checks to actually gain gp in the downtime.

Which again, you can do perfectly well *without* the intrusive, nonsensical Profession rules. You don't need a rule to let you flirt with a girl, you really don't.


As for it being a kind of XP dock for doing this....That is where an XP bonus for good roleplaying comes in and a focus on game "fun" instead of game "win".

I love the fact that in the space of one sentence you talk about "focus on fun instead of win" and about XP bonuses as a suitable reward. If it's not about "win" why do you care how much XP you get?


That right there is a balance that is different for each group. In the pre-release they flat out declared several parts of the game (craft, the paladin's cure disease) not fun. I rather found that insulting and can see how they changed it away from those things that kept me playing for 19 years now, long after I outgrew the thrill of a dungeon crawl.

I find it remarkable that the 3.X skill system has managed to keep you playing for 19 years, given that it has been out for less than half that time.

Indon
2008-06-10, 09:42 PM
For a start, how does 3.X *remotely* facilitate storytelling,
By providing monster descriptions rather than having me, as DM, spend my time writing them when I could be doing something more important? As an example.


and how does getting rid of save-or-suck or giving all the monsters more hit points some how make storytelling less facilitated?
How about Wish, Quest, and Polymorph? "Just make them yourself!" you say. "Your imagination is limitless!" you say. Yeah, but my time sure ain't. Here we go back to the facilitation portion - when I have to make something from scratch, I'm not being facilitated. When I don't have to make something from scratch, or heaven forfend it's made available to me outright, I can spend more time on constructing a detailed, living world for my players to interact in.

So, in at least one way, 4'th edition is a waste of my time (and that of many other DMs).

Helgraf
2008-06-10, 10:07 PM
By providing monster descriptions rather than having me, as DM, spend my time writing them when I could be doing something more important? As an example.


How about Wish, Quest, and Polymorph? "Just make them yourself!" you say. "Your imagination is limitless!" you say. Yeah, but my time sure ain't. Here we go back to the facilitation portion - when I have to make something from scratch, I'm not being facilitated. When I don't have to make something from scratch, or heaven forfend it's made available to me outright, I can spend more time on constructing a detailed, living world for my players to interact in.

So, in at least one way, 4'th edition is a waste of my time (and that of many other DMs).

Or, heaven forfend, you can just say it's so, and leave it as a mystery how it occured. Anything in 3.x or prior that you handwaved by saying it was done with wishes or polymorphed you can still bloody well use. Just because your players don't get access to the ubercheese doesn't mean it can't have been used in your campaign's distant past to create the 'wonderous / unusual / inexplicable' things'

Oh no - there isn't a rule to back me up. I'd better not create anything I can't nail down within the rule structure then.

Hell, for most wonderous weird stuff, it's there - you put it there. You can always blame gods, primordials, demons, artifacts, et cetera if your players want to know how it happened or why it works. Or you can just smile and tell them "Well, you can't seem to figure it out."

There's still plenty of mysteries we in our wonderous scientific world haven't solved. I expect there's plenty more within a worldview that adds magic, directly provable gods (eg ones you don't need to rely on faith to observe in action), and other fantastic and horrible things to the mix.

Chronos
2008-06-10, 10:27 PM
You can do *all* of the things you describe in 4E, you just don't need to spend skill points to be able to do them.So I can make a first-level character who can cook as well as a high-end gourmet chef, build as well as an experienced master carpenter and mason, plan a siege as well as a high-ranking siege engineer, identify every plant in the forest and what its medicinal uses are, and play a fiddle well enough to fill Carnegie Hall to listen to me? If none of those things cost skill points, I might as well take all of those abilities. And you know what? If I can do all of those things, I can probably come up with a way to use them to beat any first-level challenge without using any of my "combat-related" abilities.

All of those things are useful, and I can do any of them in 3rd edition. But if I want to be able to do them, I have to choose not to be able to do other useful things. Or I could choose to focus in them to different degrees: I could be a good enough chef that the eggs don't burn onto the pan, be able to nail some boards together into a crude bench, know enough not to pull the bottom stones out of a wall if I don't want it to collapse, be able to find jewelweed to rub on poison ivy-exposed skin, and plink out Chopsticks on a piano (and still have plenty of skill points to spend on other things).

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-10, 10:45 PM
So I can make a first-level character who can cook as well as a high-end gourmet chef, build as well as an experienced master carpenter and mason, plan a siege as well as a high-ranking siege engineer, identify every plant in the forest and what its medicinal uses are, and play a fiddle well enough to fill Carnegie Hall to listen to me? If none of those things cost skill points, I might as well take all of those abilities. And you know what? If I can do all of those things, I can probably come up with a way to use them to beat any first-level challenge without using any of my "combat-related" abilities.

All of those things are useful, and I can do any of them in 3rd edition. But if I want to be able to do them, I have to choose not to be able to do other useful things. Or I could choose to focus in them to different degrees: I could be a good enough chef that the eggs don't burn onto the pan, be able to nail some boards together into a crude bench, know enough not to pull the bottom stones out of a wall if I don't want it to collapse, be able to find jewelweed to rub on poison ivy-exposed skin, and plink out Chopsticks on a piano (and still have plenty of skill points to spend on other things).

Wow, way to take things to extremes

Hey, if your DM is fine with you being MacGyver, more power to you. It's terrible role-playing... but after an argument like that I'm not exactly expecting anything better from you.

Kabump
2008-06-10, 10:50 PM
So I can make a first-level character who can cook as well as a high-end gourmet chef, build as well as an experienced master carpenter and mason, plan a siege as well as a high-ranking siege engineer, identify every plant in the forest and what its medicinal uses are, and play a fiddle well enough to fill Carnegie Hall to listen to me? If none of those things cost skill points, I might as well take all of those abilities. And you know what? If I can do all of those things, I can probably come up with a way to use them to beat any first-level challenge without using any of my "combat-related" abilities.


You could, if you want to take advantage of the system, though I doubt any DM would let that get by. You can do all of those skills in 4e, you just have to police yourself about it, since there are no hard rules to do it for you. If you want to be a decent cook, role play it and do it fairly. If you want to be Wolfgang Puck, put it in your background, or make up a feat and take it. Its not like you cant spare a feat with as many as you get in 4e. It all comes down to if you want to take advantage of a system that doesnt focus on those specific skills.

*edit* ninja'd by previous poster :smallbiggrin:

Helgraf
2008-06-10, 11:14 PM
So I can make a first-level character who can :

1. cook as well as a high-end gourmet chef,
Yes


2. build as well as an experienced master carpenter and mason,
Yes


3. plan a siege as well as a high-ranking siege engineer,
And what 3.5 skill are you using here, since it looks like you're trying to show off 3.5 skills that 4.0 doesn't profile?


4. identify every plant in the forest and what its medicinal uses are,
No - This would be a function of the Nature skill.


5. and play a fiddle well enough to fill Carnegie Hall to listen to me?
Sure.


If none of those things cost skill points, I might as well take all of those abilities. And you know what? If I can do all of those things, I can probably come up with a way to use them to beat any first-level challenge without using any of my "combat-related" abilities.

See prior two posters. Yeah, you could do all those things in 3.5. And give up on being able to See anything coming at you - or hear it anywhere near soon enough to matter. Find stuff (search). Or even know stuff (knowledge skills - which still exist in 4ed).

Of course, if you did all of these things, you were almost certainly an NPC of the expert class, not a PC at all.

Having a choice that you never take because you realize how suicidal it is not to invest your skill points in the skills that let you do things in your primary adventure environment - _whether urban, outdoor or dungeon_, is not really having a choice. You have the freedom to choose skills with practically zero game application and suck at the things that adventurers do in 3.5. Well sir, bless you and your freedom.

I'll take my limited skill set and choose not to be a munchkin in every category just because there's no rules saying I can't take _every_ skill that doesn't have a skill entry in the PHB.



All of those things are useful, and I can do any of them in 3rd edition. But if I want to be able to do them, I have to choose not to be able to do other
useful things. Or I could choose to focus in them to different degrees: I could be a good enough chef that the eggs don't burn onto the pan, be able to nail some boards together into a crude bench, know enough not to pull the bottom stones out of a wall if I don't want it to collapse, be able to find jewelweed to rub on poison ivy-exposed skin, and plink out Chopsticks on a piano (and still have plenty of skill points to spend on other things).

Or you could look at the hard fact that if you wanted to have any real chance of managing the scaling difficulty Listen and Spot checks, you'd need to keep them at max ranks per level.

Or the fact that if you wanted to have any chance of working the increasingly difficult locks - or finding and disarming the increasingly more complex traps that you needed to keep max ranks per level.

And heaven forfend you want your knowledge skills to keep up with the monsters you're encountering as you gain levels. If you want to learn anything more than "what it's name is", you'd better be keeping near max ranks per level in those skills too.

Oh, but we have soo many skill points. I can do this and still take ranks in Craft (horse manure) and Profession (Stableboy), right?

Have we forgotten that you're looking at between 2-8 skill points per level -
plus intelligence mod, plus 1 if human?

Senses Skills (good for everyone): Spot, Listen, (possibly Sense Motive)
Hazard navigation skills (decline in utility only when flight is commonplace): Climb, Jump, Swim, Balance, Tumble (the latter two remaining useful for longer)
Social Skills (if you're an urban adventurer): Bluff, Diplo, Gather Info, Knowledge (local), Knowledge (Nob/Roy),
Magic Skills (Concentration, Spellcraft, Knowledge (arcana), poss UMD)

Oh, but rogues get that juicy 8 ... I'll play a human rogue high Int.

Spot, Listen, Search, Disable Device, Open Lock. That's 5 must have skills right there. And doesn't even count classics like : Hide, Move Silently, or newer, useful mobility skills : Jump, Tumble, Balance (maybe Climb).

Ahh, look - ignoring climb, I've used up 10 skills already, all of which, except for Tumble (eventually), you're going to need to keep at max ranks/level. And that's assuming you're not needing Bluff for feinting to get more sneak attacks - or just to lie your way out of compromising situations (or into them). Or Use Magic Device, a heavy skill rank soaker in its own right.

Yeah, I'd love to have casual background skills. But in pretty much any build I'm making I'm either shorthanded or barely covering the vital skill bases needed to survive in the highly dangerous adventurer's lifestyle.

If 3.5 had Shadowrun 3rd Edition's pool of skill points for skills like that _seperate from_ the rest, I'm sure you'd see a helluva lot more characters who'd actually invest in Craft, Profession, Perform (excluding bards), and Knowledge skills that aren't critical to their craft. Sadly, because of skill point deficiency (and burning a Feat for Open Minded is not a viable trade-off, given the extreme scarcity of fully selectable feats in 3.x), it's not going to happen.

Well, 4th ed went a different route. They boiled down the skill lists to ones that are actually relevant to the PCs. If you want your PC to have some skill at making/performing/professing, fine, make it up within reason. Likewise, the DM can simply spot-fly declare what 'off paper' skills the NPCs have as needed.

And simply trust both sides to use this authority within reason and not abuse it simply because they 'can'.

SmartAlec
2008-06-10, 11:18 PM
As far as roleplaying Craft and Profession skills go, or using off-the-cuff stat checks with modifiers for appropriate character background, I'd just like to add that Neverwinter Nights players have been doing that for years (because NWN, although it's a mostly-faithful interpretation of 3rd Edition, completely lacks craft or profession skills) and it's worked fine.

marjan
2008-06-10, 11:34 PM
As far as roleplaying Craft and Profession skills go, or using off-the-cuff stat checks with modifiers for appropriate character background, I'd just like to add that Neverwinter Nights players have been doing that for years (because NWN, although it's a mostly-faithful interpretation of 3rd Edition, completely lacks craft or profession skills) and it's worked fine.

Hint: Install expansion pack.

Now a few more things that bother me about 4e:

1.Paladin paragon tier: Justicar. If I'm reading this right, Just Shelter offers immunity only to your allies, not you. This can lead to the following situation:

Paladin: "Be not afraid of that dragon, blah blah blah".
Paladin: *"fails save" and then runs away.

2.You apply ACP to Endurance skill. This skill allows you to resist certain effects such as bad weather, poison, etc. Why do you have problems enduring effects because of your armor.

3. Multiclassing feats. Some feats give you a choice of skill that you receive as trained, some don't. I understand that in order to become cleric/wizard you need to learn some things about religion/arcane mysteries, but if you already know those, why can't you choose a different skill?

Just to say I just started reading 4e and most things there I like, but they still have some things that don't make much sense.

turkishproverb
2008-06-10, 11:37 PM
Hint: Install expansion pack.

Now a few more things that bother me about 4e:

1.Paladin paragon tier: Justicar. If I'm reading this right, Just Shelter offers immunity only to your allies, not you. This can lead to the following situation:

Paladin: "Be not afraid of that dragon, blah blah blah".
Paladin: *"fails save" and then runs away.

2.You apply ACP to Endurance skill. This skill allows you to resist certain effects such as bad weather, poison, etc. Why do you have problems enduring effects because of your armor.

3. Multiclassing feats. Some feats give you a choice of skill that you receive as trained, some don't. I understand that in order to become cleric/wizard you need to learn some things about religion/arcane mysteries, but if you already know those, why can't you choose a different skill?

Just to say I just started reading 4e and most things there I like, but they still have some things that don't make much sense.

Actually, Just shelter's little flaw was one of the things I LIKED about 4th

marjan
2008-06-11, 12:09 AM
Actually, Just shelter's little flaw was one of the things I LIKED about 4th

Any particular reason for that?

turkishproverb
2008-06-11, 12:11 AM
Any particular reason for that?

Something about the picture of The Justicar Using his faith/force of will to protect those around him at his own expense.

Nu
2008-06-11, 12:11 AM
Of all the complaints, I find the complaining about Craft/Profession being gone the most confusing.

First of all, Profession was, by RAW, almost entirely useless. The only way it could work out for you is if the DM allowed very creative uses of the skill, which means it was more roleplaying than anything, and now something like that is relegated to the roleplaying aspect of the game as it should be. Mechanically, Profession just didn't belong.

Craft wasn't all that great for the most part as well, though some sort of crafting system would've been nice. It's hardly the end of the world that it's gone, however, something like that begs to be abused and this isn't a game where economics should be a major concern (as far as Core rules are concerned, anyway).

marjan
2008-06-11, 12:30 AM
Something about the picture of The Justicar Using his faith/force of will to protect those around him at his own expense.

OK, I like that concept, too. It is better represented with his powers, though. Just Radiance and Strike Me Instead do much better job, as well as some other paladin powers. I just don't understand imagine how is your cowardice inspiring courage in others?

Chronos
2008-06-11, 01:02 AM
And what 3.5 skill are you using here, since it looks like you're trying to show off 3.5 skills that 4.0 doesn't profile?Profession: Siege Engineer, of course.

See prior two posters. Yeah, you could do all those things in 3.5. And give up on being able to See anything coming at you - or hear it anywhere near soon enough to matter. Find stuff (search). Or even know stuff (knowledge skills - which still exist in 4ed).In other words, 3rd edition makes it extremely hard to excel in all of those disparate areas at once. Which is as it should be: That's my point. But I could nonetheless excel in one or two of them, while still keeping up the skills that 4e considers important.


You could, if you want to take advantage of the system, though I doubt any DM would let that get by. You can do all of those skills in 4e, you just have to police yourself about it, since there are no hard rules to do it for you.This is like saying that 3rd edition wizards are balanced just fine; they just have to police themselves to use Magic Missile and Fireball instead of Sleep and Haste. If the system lets you do things that you shouldn't be able to do, that's a sign that the system is broken. Or maybe you're saying that folks should add a rule to 4e to prevent things like this? 3e already had such a rule, and here folks are saying that it's unnecessary.

marjan
2008-06-11, 01:10 AM
Two more things that bother me:

1. Diplomacy. The DC is set by DM. In most 3.xe games this was probably done the same way, but at least you could use DCs presented in rules as a guidelines.

2. Holy symbol. Price for it is 10 gp, which is 10% of starting gold. This would be fine, except for the fact that it doesn't do anything. You can use your class features without one and you don't get any benefit from it unless it's magical. So, why even buying one?

Nu
2008-06-11, 01:13 AM
This is like saying that 3rd edition wizards are balanced just fine; they just have to police themselves to use Magic Missile and Fireball instead of Sleep and Haste. If the system lets you do things that you shouldn't be able to do, that's a sign that the system is broken. Or maybe you're saying that folks should add a rule to 4e to prevent things like this? 3e already had such a rule, and here folks are saying that it's unnecessary.

That's because skills like Siege Engineer, Gourmet Chef, and Liontamer are not things that the Core rules need to really define, as games rarely concern themselves with such things.

If you want to do those sort of things, you gotta work them out with your DM in advance.

Say, isn't that exactly how it worked in 3.5 as well, considering it wasn't at all defined how such skills worked by raw?

TheTargeter
2008-06-11, 01:36 AM
So I can make a first-level character who can cook as well as a high-end gourmet chef, build as well as an experienced master carpenter and mason, plan a siege as well as a high-ranking siege engineer, identify every plant in the forest and what its medicinal uses are, and play a fiddle well enough to fill Carnegie Hall to listen to me? If none of those things cost skill points, I might as well take all of those abilities. And you know what? If I can do all of those things, I can probably come up with a way to use them to beat any first-level challenge without using any of my "combat-related" abilities.



See, I don't get it. You can use skills, ability checks, and skill challenges to do pretty much anything you could in 3rd, if you actually want to have to roll checks to do more mundane stuff, you can do that in your campaign.

Let's look at your examples...

Gourmet cooking: skill challenge. Amount of succesful checks you need to make depends on how complex the meal is. Let's say first you need to make an INT skill check to remember the correct recipe, the more complex the harder the DC. If you have the recipe right in front of you you get a large bonus on the check, failure means you follow the instructions incorrectly or out of order. Next a dexterity check or a series of dexterity checks(depending on what you're making) to make sure you are carefully measuring ingredients, failure might mean you accidentally pour too much flour into the bowl. Use a few perception checks when cooking to gauge when the food is just right. Failure might mean you undercook or burn it. Trying to impress a food critic or the King? Make a history check, maybe you'll recall hearing that the King likes spicy foods, or the critic is a sucker for food arrangement. You pass the history check, you get a free success to add to your total. You fail and there's no penalty, as it won't hurt the recipe itself. If you have made the recipe before and/or have been professionally trained, you get a small bonus to each skill check.

Enough successes, and you cook a delicious meal. Fail too much, and you serve them burned or bitter food. Those wishing to pursue a career in cooking would want to train perception, seek training in the field, and either have a high intelligence or buy recipes.

Carpentry: skill challenge. Depending on the task, multiple checks using Athletics(for the physical labour), dexterity(proper nail placement and similar tasks), Endurance(if working in poor weather, or pushing yourself to finish faster and taking less breaks), and dungeoneering(coming up with proper plans for structure/etc.) Those wishing to pursue a career in carpentry would want to have good scores in the physical abilities, and take training in dungeoneering. Like cooking, getting real training would provide a small bonus to your checks.

Passing enough skill checks means you make a strong, stable building. Too many failures and there may be some weaknesses in the foundation, or it's just plain ugly.

Planning a siege: skill challenge. Dungeoneering to study your target(s) and know the best ways to break through defenses, perception to spot or think of weak points, and history to recall similar situations in the past that might help you with your plan of action.

Indentifying forest plants and their medicinal uses: skill challenge with several nature and heal checks. This one is simple and straightforward.

Performing music: Skill challenge involving diplomacy(since you are trying to impress a crowd), intelligence checks to remember the song if you don't have the sheet music in front of you. Insight checks to read the crowd to see if they're bored or listening intently. Maybe throw in a dexterity check if you want to add a little pizaz(like playing that fiddle with your teeth rockstar style :xykon:).

Using skill challenges, you can put together a combination of easy, moderate, and hard skill and ability checks for pretty much any task. the added bonus is that instead of just rolling your perform check once and if you roll good you put on a good show, you can use the skill challenge to actually roleplay through it.

Say you're performing a flute solo for the King's court. Before your performance, you decide to wander the city and study up on some popular music. The DM has you roll a streetwise check with an easy DC. You pass the check and find out that the King has an unhealthly love for "Hot Cross Buns". You start your performance later, and the DM has you roll a moderate diplomacy check. You pass, and you begin playing well. The King grins as he hears his favorite tune start to play. Now you have to roll an intelligence check to see if you remember how to play the song, and you didn't bother buying the sheet music. It's an easy DC, since it's an easy song. But oh crap, you fail your check! Suddenly you stutter on the notes, not quite sure how the rest of the song goes. The King looks less than pleased, you're wrecking his favorite song! You need to think fast. You tell the DM you want to make a history check to try and think of another song you could use that the King would like. He sets a moderate DC, and you pass. It comes to you: the famous anthem of the royal family. Another passed diplomacy check lets you seamlessly flow into the new song, and your performance is back on track. You make an insight check to try and gauge the King's reaction, and pass it. The King seems somewhat satisfied, but still a little dissapointed, it may take a little extra flash to win him back. After passing an acrobatics check, you run to the edge of the stage, jump, do a front flip off of it, and land in front of the king kneeling, as you play the final notes. You passed enough checks to put on an entertaining performance, and you're met with the King's applause and his approval. If you failed the acrobatics check for your big finish, you fell flat on your face and humiliated yourself in the middle of the King's court.

I mean, personally, something like what I described above sounds a lot more fun than "roll a performance check, you rolled an 18 so you did good".

Kompera
2008-06-11, 04:56 AM
But fundamentally it has become a Herocentric, Cinamatic, Combat Focused (istead of allowing for as much combat focus as you wanted). Which isn't the kind of game I find any fun to play.
I don't have my books handy, but I'm pretty sure that 3.5 recommends exactly 4 encounters per day, yes? How is four encounters per day in any way "allowing for as much combat focus as you wanted?"

I don't see much freedom in the encounters per day rules within 3.5, and yet you seem to be saying that 4e is somehow more restrictive. Can you explain how? In what way does 4e forbid the GM from having as much or as little combat prepared for any given evening's adventures as he wishes? How are the players forced into more combat than they are interested in participating in?

As for "herocentric" and "cinematic", I see exactly the same potential for any 3.5 game to be either or both of those as I see in a 4e game. There are no rules forcing these things down anyone's throats! Play the way you like to, and enjoy.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-11, 05:34 AM
You pass the history check, you get a free success to add to your total. You fail and there's no penalty, as it won't hurt the recipe itself.
I think that's a good houserule, but it's not actually part of the skill challenge rules. That means we're back to Oberoni again.

Note that it's very silly to claim that cooking involves dexterity, carpentry involves athletics or dungeoneering, siege planning is based solely on history and perception, or that performance even remotely resembles diplomacy. Effectively, you're admitting that the 4E skill list is too short, and picking the first thing that comes to mind on a very tenuous excuse.

This kind of fallacy is common on the board these days: "being able to make up a convoluted and highly unlikely hand-waved excuse for some rule in some situation" does not equate to "it is a good rule for that situation". It only means that "good DMs know when to ignore the rules". Like I said, Oberoni.

Aotrs Commander
2008-06-11, 07:19 AM
Me, I want my non-directly combat related skills because a) I actually use them; hell I FIND a way to use them in game and more importantly b) I hate HATE HATE having to be totally arbitary.

I don't buy games. I buy sets of rules. If said rules say "hey, make it up" I get really tweaked because I'm not spending money on stuff to be told to do it myself. The "feel" of a D&D game is dependant entirely on where I set it and to be honest, doesn't change much like for like (my earliest fantasy world proper was played in as diverse systems as HeroQuest, Dungeoneer, AD&D and Rolemaster. The feel did not change, only the mechanics.)

I want simulationist rules. They don't have to necessarily realistic; but they do need to have their base there and show me the games designers care more about the wider game world than the combat system. Most wargames - and most RPGs - don't, and that's why there's so much crap on the market. Decent rule sets are like roc's teeth. 4E is very much a game-ist ruleset, not a simulatationist one. 3.5, despite it's flaws, is a better simulationist set, because the numerous abtractions are reasonable and, importantly, apply equally to everything.

"Magic did it" and it's ilk is the quickest excuse to break my suspension of disbelief and immersion and to spoil my enjoyment of the game. Yes, it does spoil the game - or anything else - when stuff boils down to "hey chill, dude it's just a[game/film/tv show], don't think about it". MST3K notwithstanding. I want to see a well-thought out final article. I don't even care if the excuses are fairly thin (e.g. Heisenburg Compensators) so long as it's clear some thought has gone into it. ! do not, sadly, get that impression from 4E. And unlike a CRPG, the lack of pretty explosions and sound make me rely more on my own brain which then consequently demands an answer. Even if I'm DM and the players never find out. There's always a reason. That's part of my fun.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-11, 07:23 AM
I want simulationist rules. They don't have to necessarily realistic; but they do need to have their base there and show me the games designers care more about the wider game world than the combat system. Most wargames - and most RPGs - don't, and that's why there's so much crap on the market. Decent rule sets are like roc's teeth. 4E is very much a game-ist ruleset, not a simulatationist one. 3.5, despite it's flaws, is a better simulationist set, because the numerous abtractions are reasonable and, importantly, apply equally to everything.


There's a quote in either the PHB or the DMG that sums up to "Don't let realism get in the way of your story, this is fantasy, feel free to pull inspiration from movies, epic novels and video games to make your world seem more fantastic.

I love that quote.

Aotrs Commander
2008-06-11, 07:29 AM
There's a quote in either the PHB or the DMG that sums up to "Don't let realism get in the way of your story, this is fantasy, feel free to pull inspiration from movies, epic novels and video games to make your world seem more fantastic.

I don't and I do. BUT I don't throw realism out the window. So when I bypass realism, I work out how and why, even if it's a black box (FTL drives in sci-fi, for example). I expect the same from any entertainment or hobby I pursue if it wishes to hold my attention.

See Avatar, Naruto, Stargate, Lord of the Rings, Discworld, Final Fantasy (pretty much any), Mass Effect...not necessarily realistic (especially in the Naruto's case, far from it!) but they do work in their own level of internal realism. And that's what I want to see. Out of anything.

Stickforged
2008-06-11, 07:46 AM
Gourmet cooking: skill challenge. Amount of succesful checks you need to make depends on how complex the meal is. Let's say first you need to make an INT skill check to remember the correct recipe, the more complex the harder the DC. If you have the recipe right in front of you you get a large bonus on the check, failure means you follow the instructions incorrectly or out of order. <cut>Enough successes, and you cook a delicious meal. Fail too much, and you serve them burned or bitter food. Those wishing to pursue a career in cooking would want to train perception, seek training in the field, and either have a high intelligence or buy recipes.

Carpentry: skill challenge. Depending on the task, multiple checks using Athletics(for the physical labour), dexterity(proper nail placement and similar tasks), Endurance(if working in poor weather, or pushing yourself to finish faster and taking less breaks), and dungeoneering(coming up with proper plans for structure/etc.) <cut>Passing enough skill checks means you make a strong, stable building. Too many failures and there may be some weaknesses in the foundation, or it's just plain ugly.

Planning a siege: skill challenge. Dungeoneering to study your target(s) and know the best ways to break through defenses, perception to spot or think of weak points, and history to recall similar situations in the past that might help you with your plan of action.

Indentifying forest plants and their medicinal uses: skill challenge with several nature and heal checks. This one is simple and straightforward.

Performing music: Skill challenge involving diplomacy(since you are trying to impress a crowd), intelligence checks to remember the song if you don't have the sheet music in front of you. Insight checks to read the crowd to see if they're bored or listening intently. Maybe throw in a dexterity check if you want to add a little pizaz(like playing that fiddle with your teeth rockstar style :xykon:).
<cut>
I mean, personally, something like what I described above sounds a lot more fun than "roll a performance check, you rolled an 18 so you did good".

I cannot disagree more to your examples. I'm the first to appreciate the new skill challenge rules, and i'm going to incorporate them in my 3.5 games, but i spot a fatal flaw in your reasoning.

Just anyone with the same stats can do the same things...

So the 4th level court ministrel is lesser in musical capability to the 8th level prime minister of the kingdom? The prime minister has probably high intelligence and charisma and high history and diplomacy... so he is a terrific bard by your example!!!

The poor court ministrel, only 4th level and not skilled in diplomacy, will always be ridiculed for his incompetence, and the prime minister wil go on a singing tournee! :smallbiggrin:

Same reasoning for all of your examples...

Seriously, man... The 4th edition is Warhammerquest (an old miniatures boardgame with roleplaying extras) with better rules... good ones too. But of no interest to me.

Indon
2008-06-11, 08:31 AM
Oh no - there isn't a rule to back me up. I'd better not create anything I can't nail down within the rule structure then.
Yes, I am fully aware that I can free-form things. Your statement is not some kind of surprise to me.

But you know what? I don't need a system to free-form things. I can do it without buying 60+ dollars worth of books! And if I am free-forming things, then that 60 dollar system is worth absolutely nothing to me, now isn't it?

So again, we come back to my original point about facilitation, and how 4'th edition doesn't have it. Maybe I should just handwave the entirety of 4'th edition - I can play it without actually using any of the rules, and that would fix all my problems with the system, right?

Kabump
2008-06-11, 08:46 AM
This is like saying that 3rd edition wizards are balanced just fine; they just have to police themselves to use Magic Missile and Fireball instead of Sleep and Haste. If the system lets you do things that you shouldn't be able to do, that's a sign that the system is broken. Or maybe you're saying that folks should add a rule to 4e to prevent things like this? 3e already had such a rule, and here folks are saying that it's unnecessary.

No, thats not what I'm saying at all. All Im saying is you should be able to be reasonable about skills not specifically stated. If you need specific RULES to be able to handle the lack of fluff skills, then that stems from how you play the game, as it just does not seem to be a problem for me. Again, this illustrates one of the big issues here that cause the difference in opinion on 4e, whats good for one is not good for all. I love the slimmed down skill system. A lot of people hate it. I like the defined roles in combat. A lot of people complain that it limits their creativity. (I dont agree, but again, im not saying you are wrong) Are you going to tell me Im wrong? Of course im not wrong, any more than you are wrong. You can't really be wrong with an opinion.

Talya
2008-06-11, 09:09 AM
The fact that my Wizard can no longer cast overland flight or teleport at will does not affect the ability to *tell stories* with the game, only the superficial details of those stories.

The flexibility to build a character who can do certain things allows you to tell stories you can't otherwise tell. Sometimes those abilities are core to the story you're trying to tell.

Skyserpent
2008-06-11, 09:17 AM
The flexibility to build a character who can do certain things allows you to tell stories you can't otherwise tell. Sometimes those abilities are core to the story you're trying to tell.

I'm gonna have to go with Talya on this one. 3.5 has significantly more options than 4e currently does, and it's still a question as to whether the system will EVER match the almost silly amount of versatility that was present with all the 3.5 supplements. Part of the reason is that with a focus on mechanical balance, flavorful, if unbalanced, abilities are not going to be made, or if they are, they may well be unrecognizable. Some of these abilities are quite fun and with really unique design... I miss Defenestrating Sphere...

Don't get me wrong I still support 4e, but Talya has a point.

Dacia Brabant
2008-06-11, 09:31 AM
There's a quote in either the PHB or the DMG that sums up to "Don't let realism get in the way of your story, this is fantasy, feel free to pull inspiration from movies, epic novels and video games to make your world seem more fantastic.

I love that quote.

Some people happen to like realism in their epic fantasy worlds. "A wizard did it" just doesn't cut it for many who want mechanics spelled out for them that make sense consistently for a variety of simulated real-world actions.

That's the real issue that I have with 4e (well, besides pidgeonholing characters into four concrete roles with thus far only two class options for each), that it's all Ad Hoc outside of combat, and Ad Hoc decisions often lack any internal consistency/verisimilitude because they're so situational and spontaneous. "House rules" can suffer from that problem, too, though at least there's usually more thought going into them if they're developed as part of world-building or through playtesting.

You may like Ad Hoc rulings, you may not think verisimilitude is a necessity for fantasy-based gameplay and stories, but clearly not everyone agrees--and the fact that they don't agree and spell out their reasons why doesn't mean that they're attacking either 4e or its fans (although some people here are, but some on the 4e-supporter side are just as antagonistic if not moreso).

Everyone's going to want to play their games differently, and 4e just doesn't look like it's going to be a system that works for those who want spelled-out mechanics for roleplaying simulations and many different character roles.

okpokalypse
2008-06-11, 09:53 AM
I've gotten all 3 books and read them cover to cover, and here are my problems with 4E:

1. Alignments. Where did CG, CN, LN and LE go? Why, did Deities like Corellon Larethian become UNALIGNED?!?!? This was Slap #1 to the Fantasy Genre - making Elven Deities non-Good.

2. Movement. Running is +2 to Speed, and at most a PC can take is a double move. So a standard human running unencumbered moves 16 Squares (80') per 6 Seconds. That means that the average human runs a 9 Second 40-yard. That means the average human runs a 6:30 Mile. I guess in the 4th Edition D&D World everyone can be outrun by a 14-year-old equivalent from the 20th Century. Also - getting rid of Sprinting Speeds (x4, x5) for short durations will greatly hinder archers and mages who've used the hit and run tactic against heavily encumbered foes.

3. Saving Throws. Fail under 10, Succeed on a 10+. Few modifiers.

4. Races. How Vanilla. Everything Non-Human has +2 to Two Stats. The MM made it worse with it's Racial Stat Blocks for Alternate PC Races in the end. Kobolds get a +2 Con and +2 Dex. Minotaurs get a +2 Str, +2 Con. This is Slap #2 to the Fantasy Genre. Nothing is special anymore. A Human who puts a +2 in Strength is AS STRONG AS A MINOTAUR. Wrong. So Wrong.

5. Clerics. Well, how useless is this class now? If you want a healer, play a Warlord. They're just as good at it, and far better in Combat. If you want a Blaster, play a Warlock or Wizard - they're far better. Oh, and Wizards can learn any Ritual Spell, so they can cast Raise Dead. Did I just hear a death knell for the Cleric? Sounds like we're back in Advanced D&D from 1981 - where NO ONE wanted to play a Cleric.

6. Powers. For a Caster, having 2 Utility, 4 Encounter and 4 Daily powers known is just flat-out stupid. The fact that they can't have a large repoitiore and select 2/4/4 daily available powers just makes them so narrow and un-fun it's rediculous. This feels like a bad online game.

Anyhow - I could keep going on, but I need to stop... I will not be playing 4th Edition D&D at all. It's not that I don't think it will work, as it does seem relatively balanced. It just doesn't seem fun at all - especially for those who think in terms of playing the traditional fantasy caster. Having grown up on D&D and played through the Basic Set, Advanced, 2nd Edition, 2nd Edition Combat & Tactics, 3rd Edition and 3.5e - I can honestly say for the first time in 30 years that Dungeons & Dragons, in it's current guise, has taken a woeful step backwards, and has become a game I would rather leave on a shelf and go play World of Warcraft.

I've already listed my 4th Edition Collectors Box Set on Ebay. I will continue to play a house-ruled version of 3.5 that prohibits Divine Meta-Magic, Natural Spell and Arcane Disciples - among quite a few other things introduced via splatbooks which unbalanced a very good system.

tumble check
2008-06-11, 10:32 AM
Well, how useless is this class now? If you want a healer, play a Warlord...

Sounds like we're back in Advanced D&D from 1981 - where NO ONE wanted to play a Cleric.



I agree with all of your post except this. The problem with 3.5 was that if no one wanted to play a Cleric, your party was in trouble. The stripping of the "heal-b!itch" title from the Cleric has made it so that someone doesn't always need to play one. However, I DO agree that there should have been some healing-heavy option for the 4e Cleric.

Also, if you can get past all of the changes that the class abilities have undergone, you'll find that (within the scope of the new 4e system), Clerics are one of the most interesting classes to play.

So in the end, I agree that the changes (as with everything in 4e) are drastic and disheartening, but relatively speaking, I still think there is plenty of incentive to play a Cleric.

Talya
2008-06-11, 10:37 AM
I agree with all of your post except this. The problem with 3.5 was that if no one wanted to play a Cleric, your party was in trouble.

Our saturday night gaming group currently has 3 player characters:

My sorcerer (Bard 2/Sorcerer 6/Heartwarder 7).
A dwarf paladin (Paladin 15)
A human ranger (Ranger 9/Fighter 6)

Between the paladin and my cohort (9HD half-celestial Paladin with the "Magic in the Blood" feat), we don't actually need a cleric in the party. For over a year we had a dwarf cleric (who thought he should melee all the time) in the party. We don't miss him much.

okpokalypse
2008-06-11, 10:46 AM
I agree with all of your post except this. The problem with 3.5 was that if no one wanted to play a Cleric, your party was in trouble. The stripping of the "heal-b!itch" title from the Cleric has made it so that someone doesn't always need to play one. However, I DO agree that there should have been some healing-heavy option for the 4e Cleric.

The thing about Clerics is that they get an Encounter Power that Triggers a Healing Surge (Up to 2x per Encounter) - so that's kinda cool. Their Cure Light and Cure Critical are straight Encounter Powers, and they've got a single AoE Cure Light. In the end, that's really not a lot of Healing. The fact that each class already has a 2nd Wind, and the Warlord can allow the entire Group to get another 2nd Wind per Encounter essentially negates the usefulness of a Healing Cleric.


Also, if you can get past all of the changes that the class abilities have undergone, you'll find that (within the scope of the new 4e system), Clerics are one of the most interesting classes to play.

So in the end, I agree that the changes (as with everything in 4e) are drastic and disheartening, but relatively speaking, I still think there is plenty of incentive to play a Cleric.

I won't deny Clerics aren't interesting - but they're not great at anything except buffing. If that's your schtick, great. But they're inferior in Weapon Damage to all Melee Types. They're inferior in Casting Damage (And Especially Range) compared to Warlocks and Wizards. They no longer have sole access to Non-Combat Healing (Raise Dead) as Wizards have access to all Ritual Spells. *sigh*

One of the arguments against Cleric is 3.5 was always this: Would you rather run a 2nd Cleric as the Tank, or Wizard Sub, instead of the classes associated to the archetype. In terms of the Tank it was always yes, and it was often 50/50 when it came to the Wizard.

In 4E, I would always rather run a Warlord in place of the Cleric if I wanted a battle-healer on the front lines, and I'd always rather run a Wizard if I wanted a Blaster / Utility Caster. If I remember Correctly, Warlords also get the ability to cycle Encounter Powers so they'll never run out of them. Incredibly powerful for longer combats since Encounter Powers are far superior to at-will powers.

I just don't see the Cleric being a useful healer - at least any moreso than the Warlord. That really bothers me as that's always been what the Cleric was for 30+ years of gaming. It's their niche. It's their archetype. Now, with every PC being able to do a Healing surge on themselves once per combat, and Warlords renewing that every combat as well... It just takes a lot away from the Cleric as a whole.

okpokalypse
2008-06-11, 10:55 AM
Our saturday night gaming group currently has 3 player characters:

My sorcerer (Bard 2/Sorcerer 6/Heartwarder 7).
A dwarf paladin (Paladin 15)
A human ranger (Ranger 9/Fighter 6)

Between the paladin and my cohort (9HD half-celestial Paladin with the "Magic in the Blood" feat), we don't actually need a cleric in the party. For over a year we had a dwarf cleric (who thought he should melee all the time) in the party. We don't miss him much.

You bring up a good point. There were a lot of ways around needing a Cleric if you didn't want one. Arcane Disciple (Healing) was one way for an Arcane Caster to get Healing Spells. Many classes had access to lower-level healing. Psions, once they hit L11 were as good at Healing as most Clerics if they chose to be.

The thing I loved about the 3.5 Cleric was the versatility. You could fulfill two (or more) roles as Healer / Buffer or Healer / Melee or Healer / Blaster or Buffer / Blaster, etc.. I personally liked playing the latter.

TheTargeter
2008-06-11, 10:57 AM
I think that's a good houserule, but it's not actually part of the skill challenge rules. That means we're back to Oberoni again.

Note that it's very silly to claim that cooking involves dexterity, carpentry involves athletics or dungeoneering, siege planning is based solely on history and perception, or that performance even remotely resembles diplomacy. Effectively, you're admitting that the 4E skill list is too short, and picking the first thing that comes to mind on a very tenuous excuse.

This kind of fallacy is common on the board these days: "being able to make up a convoluted and highly unlikely hand-waved excuse for some rule in some situation" does not equate to "it is a good rule for that situation". It only means that "good DMs know when to ignore the rules". Like I said, Oberoni.

The skill challenge rules say to pick the most appropriate skill for what the players are attempting. They describe what they want to try, you tell them what they need to roll. What I did was exactly part of the skill challenge rules. The skill challenge rules are open and flexible.

Skills are broader and more varied now. Why couldn't some aspects of performance be part of diplomacy? You're using your talents with the instrument to try and win over the approval of a person or a group of people, That's diplomacy in my book. Dungeoneering sounds like the perfect skill to cover things like buildings and structure. If your recipe involves precise measurements that could make or break it, there's no doubt it would involve dexterity(which hand-eye coordination falls under).

The skill list isn't too short, IMO. They are if you're trying to look at them like 3rd edition skills, and make them all more specific, specialized things. But I see 4th edition skills as covering more broad range of talents. And I see skill challenges using a combination of these skills to do the more complex out-of-combat stuff as a more fun way of doing it instead of "you roll your carpentry check and build a house".

I mean, how does this not make sense: the performance for the King I suggested. The performance takes a combination of diplomacy(you're not just playing an instrument, you're trying to use your performance to win his favor), either sheet music or intelligence(so you can remember what notes to play), insight(to read your audience and adjust your performance accordingly). The situation also involves the player using creative applications of streetwise and acrobatics to improve his performance.

If the PC has experience with the instrument, the DCs range from easy to moderate. If this is an attempt to just pick up an instrument and wing it, the DCs are all hard and the complexity goes up, and you've got to make bluff checks, too.

If it's a matter of simply playing the flute while you're walking down the road for the hell of it, that's just flavour, and somthing mundane would need no check at all.

IMO, basic talents in professions are something that should just be worked out with the DM at the start of the campaign, and basic applications of said talents shouldn't need rolls. When you get into complex stuff, skill challenges not only fill the gap just fine, it makes things a lot more fuin and involved for the players. And everything I've suggested follows the skill challenge rules as presented.

I'll take the skill challenge system over a billion mundane skills any day.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 10:58 AM
I just don't see the Cleric being a useful healer - at least any moreso than the Warlord. That really bothers me as that's always been what the Cleric was for 30+ years of gaming. It's their niche. It's their archetype. Now, with every PC being able to do a Healing surge on themselves once per combat, and Warlords renewing that every combat as well... It just takes a lot away from the Cleric as a whole.

I must respectfully disagree. In 3.5, anyone who played their cleric as a healbot was not making full use of the class, IMO. In 1e, healing was a much more necessary role, since alternate healing was more difficult to come by - but I never ever played a cleric whose main function in the party was healing! How boring!

3.5 provided many ways for other characters to heal themselves, so regarding that, I do not see what the big deal about healing surges is.

tumble check
2008-06-11, 11:06 AM
I won't deny Clerics aren't interesting - but they're not great at anything except buffing.


That is one of the many unforunate effects of the WotC's outlining of the 4 roles.

marjan
2008-06-11, 11:12 AM
If I remember Correctly, Warlords also get the ability to cycle Encounter Powers so they'll never run out of them. Incredibly powerful for longer combats since Encounter Powers are far superior to at-will powers.


That is class ability of Demigod. It would be too much for normal class. At level one this would mean that you get 3 at-will powers.

TheTargeter
2008-06-11, 11:13 AM
I cannot disagree more to your examples. I'm the first to appreciate the new skill challenge rules, and i'm going to incorporate them in my 3.5 games, but i spot a fatal flaw in your reasoning.

Just anyone with the same stats can do the same things...

So the 4th level court ministrel is lesser in musical capability to the 8th level prime minister of the kingdom? The prime minister has probably high intelligence and charisma and high history and diplomacy... so he is a terrific bard by your example!!!

The poor court ministrel, only 4th level and not skilled in diplomacy, will always be ridiculed for his incompetence, and the prime minister wil go on a singing tournee! :smallbiggrin:

Same reasoning for all of your examples...

Seriously, man... The 4th edition is Warhammerquest (an old miniatures boardgame with roleplaying extras) with better rules... good ones too. But of no interest to me.

Easy. The ministrel gets moderate and easy DCs because it's his job and he has plenty of experience. The prime minister gets hard DCs and a higher complexity.

Jack Zander
2008-06-11, 11:19 AM
Easy. The ministrel gets moderate and easy DCs because it's his job and he has plenty of experience. The prime minister gets hard DCs and a higher complexity.

Rule 0 Fallacy.

Indon
2008-06-11, 11:20 AM
Easy. The ministrel gets moderate and easy DCs because it's his job and he has plenty of experience. The prime minister gets hard DCs and a higher complexity.

You're setting different DC's for two characters to do the exact same thing?

I'd call that ridiculous, but it's basically how 4'th edition's skill system works, so I guess it's not a bad judgement call for the system.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 11:27 AM
You're setting different DC's for two characters to do the exact same thing?

I'd call that ridiculous, but it's basically how 4'th edition's skill system works, so I guess it's not a bad judgement call for the system.


It makes perfect sense. Think about it this way: A minstrel, in 3.5, would theoretically have skill ranks in the requisite skill. A prime minister, not so much, but they'd have the same DC. This way, the minstrel doesn't have the skill points, but does have a lower DC. It amounts to pretty much the exact same thing.

TheTargeter
2008-06-11, 11:35 AM
You're setting different DC's for two characters to do the exact same thing?

I'd call that ridiculous, but it's basically how 4'th edition's skill system works, so I guess it's not a bad judgement call for the system.

How is that ridiculous? Should a task not be harder for someone who has no experience in the field?

Part of the skill challenge system(and skill checks in general) involves the DM setting DCs based on how difficult he believes the task should be to the player(s) attempting it. If part of the player's fluff background involves musical training, then I would set the DCs lower than I would set them if they player was a burly brute with no love for music.

I don't see what's wrong with that. the system mixes actual roleplay and game mechanics quite well, IMO. I find it far more interesting than just having to roll one skill against a flat number that never changes.

marjan
2008-06-11, 11:39 AM
How is that ridiculous? Should a task not be harder for someone who has no experience in the field?


Because experience is supposed to be represented by the characters skills, not task DC.

Indon
2008-06-11, 11:44 AM
It makes perfect sense. Think about it this way: A minstrel, in 3.5, would theoretically have skill ranks in the requisite skill. A prime minister, not so much, but they'd have the same DC. This way, the minstrel doesn't have the skill points, but does have a lower DC. It amounts to pretty much the exact same thing.

Except now you're having to houserule that customizability by treating characters fundamentally differently.

You're basically defeating the purpose of having skill DC's in the first place. Why not just say, "If you're going to do a task, roll a D20. For an easy task, roll a 9 or higher to succeed. For a moderate task, roll a 14. For a hard task, roll a 19." and be done with it?

TheTargeter
2008-06-11, 11:46 AM
Because experience is supposed to be represented by the characters skills, not task DC.

Both ways work fine. Like THAC0 said a few posts ago, you essentially get the same result either way you do it.

The main difference is doing things the 3rd edition way involves a more specific game mechanic, while the 4th edition way involves more fluff, character background, and rp. Both ways are valid, IMO.

TheTargeter
2008-06-11, 11:52 AM
Except now you're having to houserule that customizability by treating characters fundamentally differently.

But it's not a houserule. Skill challenges involve the DM selecting the DC based on how had he feels the task should be for the players. The DM would obviously select a harder DC if it would be a hard task for the players.

Stickforged
2008-06-11, 11:57 AM
Part of the skill challenge system(and skill checks in general) involves the DM setting DCs based on how difficult he believes the task should be to the player(s) attempting it. If part of the player's fluff background involves musical training, then I would set the DCs lower than I would set them if they player was a burly brute with no love for music.

I don't see what's wrong with that. the system mixes actual roleplay and game mechanics quite well, IMO. I find it far more interesting than just having to roll one skill against a flat number that never changes.

And who decides? The DM's arbitrary whim? So, if it is all in the hands of the DM, why we must use any rules at all?

Simply use a single stat ---> "Level" and roll under that number for anything.

When you create a pc, chose a number (equal for all players) of skills/powers and go on with creativity...

And trash the 4th edition books in the meantime...

Sorry but this is the "What's wrong with 4th edition" thread, not "Defend the 4th edition"... you cannot persuade me. I really like this rules as a miniature tactical boardgame, and i will probably use them as such. Other rules, especially in the new DMG, like the new skill challenge ones, are very good and i will use them in my 3.5 campaigns, but it ends here.

Indon
2008-06-11, 11:57 AM
But it's not a houserule. Skill challenges involve the DM selecting the DC based on how had he feels the task should be for the players. The DM would obviously select a harder DC if it would be a hard task for the players.

Yes. You select the DC based on how hard the task is. A given task does not magically become harder if a higher-level character does it - except in 4'th edition D&D.

TheTargeter
2008-06-11, 12:01 PM
Yes. You select the DC based on how hard the task is.

Exactly. The task is easy to moderate for a ministrel, and hard for a prime minister.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-11, 12:01 PM
I'm confused on all this hate on the Cleric.

They look FANTASTIC to me. I couldn't get the dragonborn cleric to work the way I wanted, but I'm going to try human next and see if I like what that race brings.

But the Clerics look to be amazing.

marjan
2008-06-11, 12:03 PM
Both ways work fine. Like THAC0 said a few posts ago, you essentially get the same result either way you do it.


Except for the fact that one doesn't make sense.


The DM would obviously select a harder DC if it would be a hard task for the players.

That should be done by the skill level, not DM.

marjan
2008-06-11, 12:07 PM
I'm confused on all this hate on the Cleric.


Probably, because they compare it to the 3e cleric. I haven't taken a close look at 4e cleric, but it seems that class is designed to buff, heal and do damage. Priority in that order. So it is probably that cleric should switch names with warlord. That's at least my opinion.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 12:07 PM
Except for the fact that one doesn't make sense.



That should be done by the skill level, not DM.

It makes perfect sense. You just have to think differently!

Note: I am over simplifying this example for ease of typing and discussion and using random numbers.

"A system that uses skill ranks"

Assume no stat bonuses for ease of comparison.

The task: Performing a concerto for a king! DC 20.

Minstrel: Obviously a musician. Lets say he has 5 ranks in the relevant skill.

Prime Minster: NOT a musician. Has no ranks.

To hit DC 20, the minstrel needs to roll a 15. The PM needs to roll a 20.

"System that does not use skill ranks"

Minstrel: Obviously a musician. DC 15.

Prime Minister: NOT a musician. DC 20.

See? Same thing. Different way of thinking.

TheTargeter
2008-06-11, 12:09 PM
Well I don't know what else to say. When I look at the skill challenge system, I see an incredibly flexible way to use skills in non-combat situations that is far more fun and engaging to me than the way 3rd edition did it. I find it ecourages more actual roleplay and doesn't penalize people for trying to excell at non-combat tasks. I love it. If you don't then fine, but nothing you can say can make me change my mind, either. It all makes perfect, logical sense to me.

So moving, on...what I DON'T like about 4th Edition? That's easy. No Druids. To me, Druids are one of the iconic classes, and in almost every campaign I've been a part of, someone has been a Druid. I know they're going to eventually come back, but they should be Core, IMO.

marjan
2008-06-11, 12:16 PM
It makes perfect sense. You just have to think differently!

Note: I am over simplifying this example for ease of typing and discussion and using random numbers.

"A system that uses skill ranks"

Assume no stat bonuses for ease of comparison.

The task: Performing a concerto for a king! DC 20.

Minstrel: Obviously a musician. Lets say he has 5 ranks in the relevant skill.

Prime Minster: NOT a musician. Has no ranks.

To hit DC 20, the minstrel needs to roll a 15. The PM needs to roll a 20.

"System that does not use skill ranks"

Minstrel: Obviously a musician. DC 15.

Prime Minister: NOT a musician. DC 20.

See? Same thing. Different way of thinking.

Here's the problem with that. You still have prime minister who sucks at playing guitar. But now you have lamberjack who is not minstrel, but plays guitar in his spare time and he does it decently. This is where skill ranks come into play.

Indon
2008-06-11, 12:27 PM
Exactly. The task is easy to moderate for a ministrel, and hard for a prime minister.

But it isn't hard for the prime minister, because the prime minister is better at it than the minstrel. The prime minister apparently picked up more about music while learning to be a prime minister than all the minstrel's training can account for (well, not really, he's not 10 levels higher, but still).

This is an absurdity directly caused by the skill system of 4'th edition. How do you fix it? By, as that one guy on that D&D blog says whose name I don't recall at the moment (something alexandrian? or is that the name of the blog?), disassociating the mechanics - removing their actual meaning in the context of the game, and in the process making them worthless.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 12:29 PM
Here's the problem with that. You still have prime minister who sucks at playing guitar. But now you have lamberjack who is not minstrel, but plays guitar in his spare time and he does it decently. This is where skill ranks come into play.

No, that's where backgrounds and reasonable decisions by players and DMs come into play. If playing guitar as a hobby is part of your background, it's completely reasonable to (using my earlier example) set a DC of 17 or 18, which is the same thing as the character putting two or three skill points into it.

Stickforged
2008-06-11, 12:32 PM
Well I don't know what else to say. When I look at the skill challenge system, I see an incredibly flexible way to use skills in non-combat situations that is far more fun and engaging to me than the way 3rd edition did it. I find it ecourages more actual roleplay and doesn't penalize people for trying to excell at non-combat tasks. I love it. If you don't then fine, but nothing you can say can make me change my mind, either. It all makes perfect, logical sense to me.

Perfectly fine with me, "de gustibus non est disputandum". :smallsmile:

Edit: Oh, and by the way, i like the new skill challenge system... it is the skill system i don't like... just to make things clear. :smallwink:

Serpentine
2008-06-11, 12:32 PM
I would just like to say that someone had a go at me for suggesting that in 3.5, Chaos was considered more Evil and Law more Good. Considering what I've seen (admittedly just in someone else's post), it seems I was completely correct :smallcool:
Also: Bugger Law being more Good than Chaos :smallyuk: That's gone, straight away.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-11, 12:33 PM
I think I missed something. What 4e skill would performing anything fall under?

marjan
2008-06-11, 12:37 PM
No, that's where backgrounds and reasonable decisions by players and DMs come into play. If playing guitar as a hobby is part of your background, it's completely reasonable to (using my earlier example) set a DC of 17 or 18, which is the same thing as the character putting two or three skill points into it.

And here are two more problems with that:

1. I don't want for a game system to assume that I'm reasonable.
If I don't feel particularly reasonable ATM I want a system to tell me what to do. If on the other hand I feel I am more reasonable than rules I can adjust them easily.

2. Background shouldn't influence mechanic.
I mean if I just write tons of strange things I have done in past, does that mean I can do them better than anyone else? And if it is allowed how many things am I able to put in my background?

marjan
2008-06-11, 12:43 PM
I think I missed something. What 4e skill would performing anything fall under?

NullPointerException. I don't think that is stated anywhere, so it might be simple CHA check.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 12:44 PM
And here are two more problems with that:

1. I don't want for a game system to assume that I'm reasonable.
If I don't feel particularly reasonable ATM I want a system to tell me what to do. If on the other hand I feel I am more reasonable than rules I can adjust them easily.

2. Background shouldn't influence mechanic.
I mean if I just write tons of strange things I have done in past, does that mean I can do them better than anyone else? And if it is allowed how many things am I able to put in my background?

I feel the opposite way.

1. By quantifying everything, you end up wading through a morass of rules, ala 3.5. That's a huge waste of my time.

2. Again, you have to be reasonable (or your DM does). Or bring back secondary skills table from 1e. This gets back to number 1 - quantifying everything. I firmly believe that no system can truly do this, and ones that try just get bogged down in rules. 4e made the conscious decision not to try. However, if you feel you need such stringent guidelines, I can see how you might not like this system.

marjan
2008-06-11, 12:45 PM
I feel the opposite way.

1. By quantifying everything, you end up wading through a morass of rules, ala 3.5. That's a huge waste of my time.


You can always ignore the rules if you choose so. Point is: you have a choice.

TheTargeter
2008-06-11, 12:49 PM
But it isn't hard for the prime minister, because the prime minister is better at it than the minstrel. The prime minister apparently picked up more about music while learning to be a prime minister than all the minstrel's training can account for (well, not really, he's not 10 levels higher, but still).



What? The Prime Minister has to make much higher rolls to succeed than the ministrel. That's why the DC would be different: to reflect how hard the task is for them.

Even if the PM is a few levels higher, that's only going to make his bonus a little better. The only way the ministrel is going to not be far better than the PM, is if the ministrel doesn't train diplomacy and insight(and given the nature of his job, not being trained in these skills would make him a shoddy ministrel in the first place), or if the level difference is huge.

I think the disconnect here is that the 4th edition way requires more DM involvement and is less about mechanics. The DC reflects the situation and the people in it as well as the task, whereas in 3rd the DC represets the specific task and remains a flat rate. 4th is more about broader skills that need to be combined and applied to more specific tasks, while 3rd has a specific mechanical skill for pretty much each individual task. I LIKE how 4th does it. You don't. That's fine, I personally think both ways are valid and interesting.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-11, 12:49 PM
You can always ignore the rules if you choose so. Point is: you have a choice.

How is "ignoring the rules" and "adding a rule you feel is needed" any different?

You've effectly houseruled/homebrewed either way... so why is the argument going on?

Stickforged
2008-06-11, 12:50 PM
I feel the opposite way.

1. By quantifying everything, you end up wading through a morass of rules, ala 3.5. That's a huge waste of my time.

No problem with that... Just use my new rule system! Only one good simple stat: Level

Describe your background to the DM, and if he feels you are within reasonable limits roll under Level to do anything!

I must copyright this! :smalltongue:

AKA_Bait
2008-06-11, 12:52 PM
NullPointerException. I don't think that is stated anywhere, so it might be simple CHA check.

If so, then yes, there is a problem. This really wouldn't be an issue if it were a specific separate skill. Then things like being trained and skill focus in addition to the DM difficulty adjustment would solve the problem.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 12:53 PM
You can always ignore the rules if you choose so. Point is: you have a choice.

You can always make a rule if you want to. You still have a choice.

And this way you don't have to argue with rules lawyers who say "But in THIS splat book on page 73, third paragraph, it says THAT." ;)

nagora
2008-06-11, 12:53 PM
"System that does not use skill ranks"

Minstrel: Obviously a musician. DC 15.

Prime Minister: NOT a musician. DC 20.

See? Same thing. Different way of thinking.

Another option is to base the character's base success/fail on one of their abilities (Dex or Cha in this case perhaps) and modify by skill and difficulty.

For example: the skilled player needs to roll under Dex on 2d6; the unskilled rolls 4d6 (the amateur Lumberjack rolls 3d6). Playing for the king adds 1d6 to all three for "pressure". Whoever rolls under their ability score by the most wins the prize.

Characters have a number of things that the can be "skilled" at, another number of things they can be "amateur" and anything else has to be a class-based ability with its own rules.

Just a thought. The d20 skill system sucks and always has, right from 1ed Oriental Adventures through to today. One possible fix is to make all skill tests iterative (ie, more than one roll) to limit the luck level a bit. As it stands, a level 5 minstrel will roll less than a level 1 lumberjack almost a third of the time.

I've yet to see a good skill system in an RPG. Adding numbers just gives the illusion of accuracy, just like adding hit locations allows people to kid themselves that a combat system is "gritty and realistic".

THAC0
2008-06-11, 12:56 PM
Another option is to base the character's base success/fail on one of their abilities (Dex or Cha in this case perhaps) and modify by skill and difficulty.

For example: the skilled player needs to roll under Dex on 2d6; the unskilled rolls 4d6 (the amateur Lumberjack rolls 3d6). Playing for the king adds 1d6 to all three for "pressure". Whoever rolls under their ability score by the most wins the prize.

Characters have a number of things that the can be "skilled" at, another number of things they can be "amateur" and anything else has to be a class-based ability with its own rules.

Just a thought. The d20 skill system sucks and always has, right from 1ed Oriental Adventures through to today. One possible fix is to make all skill tests iterative (ie, more than one roll) to limit the luck level a bit. As it stands, a level 5 minstrel will roll less than a level 1 lumberjack almost a third of the time.

I've yet to see a good skill system in an RPG. Adding numbers just gives the illusion of accuracy, just like adding hit locations allows people to kid themselves that a combat system is "gritty and realistic".

Oh, there are lots of possibilities, certainly. I was just using that example to try and convey that this "ridiculous" method actually had the exact same results as the "regular" method.

marjan
2008-06-11, 12:58 PM
You can always make a rule if you want to. You still have a choice.



How is "ignoring the rules" and "adding a rule you feel is needed" any different?


Guess which one is easier.



You've effectly houseruled/homebrewed either way... so why is the argument going on?

Going by that route why are you giving away your money when you can create rules yourself?


And this way you don't have to argue with rules lawyers who say "But in THIS splat book on page 73, third paragraph, it says THAT." ;)


You show them rule 0. And not having rules doesn't mean they won't think their judgment is better than yours.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-11, 01:02 PM
For example: the skilled player needs to roll under Dex on 2d6; the unskilled rolls 4d6 (the amateur Lumberjack rolls 3d6). Playing for the king adds 1d6 to all three for "pressure". Whoever rolls under their ability score by the most wins the prize.


Arrg. All those d6's make me feel like I'm playing GURPS...

SamTheCleric
2008-06-11, 01:11 PM
Guess which one is easier.

Depends on who you are. I have an easier time introducing new rules to my group than I do just arbitrarly taking things away from them.




Going by that route why are you giving away your money when you can create rules yourself?

That's not a very good argument. The world isn't black and white. I bought the game system to play the game, because it functions as intended. If that intention isn't how you like... play something else. You don't need to go on a personal crusade anytime something comes out that is different and you don't like it. (If that were the case, I wouldve been raising cain when they decided that mushrooms are good on pizza!)

Craig1f
2008-06-11, 01:15 PM
I haven't played yet, but this whole 1 hit minion thing bothers me too. A mage with a dagger shouldn't be able to drop anything in one hit. A Fighter with a Greataxe should be cleaving through them like butter, and an archer doing standard damage (not skirmish or insane composite damage) should be able to one shot *most* of them, but occasionally require a second shot.

Everything about 4e feels like it was designed to be run by a computer. I have yet to play, but it just feels like an entirely different game from what I've read.

Aotrs Commander
2008-06-11, 01:20 PM
I feel the opposite way.

1. By quantifying everything, you end up wading through a morass of rules, ala 3.5. That's a huge waste of my time.

2. Again, you have to be reasonable (or your DM does). Or bring back secondary skills table from 1e. This gets back to number 1 - quantifying everything. I firmly believe that no system can truly do this, and ones that try just get bogged down in rules. 4e made the conscious decision not to try. However, if you feel you need such stringent guidelines, I can see how you might not like this system.

Me, I take the attiude that if I'm going to part with my hard earned cash, the rules better damn well cover as much as frackin' possible.

Because, honestly, if I have to be completely artibitary about my mechanics, I'll seriously use HeroQuest (and sometimes I still do use HeroQuest); which works perfectly fine because, just like 4E, it has no roleplaying rules (nor, like 4E - or any other RPG for that matter, needs any). And it's really, really simple and with one page of house rules (really just a points buy for Body and Mind points and combat dice) Bob's your Uncle; a flexible (enough) RPG.

If I'm paying £39 quid for the thing, it had either better be full of rules or quite astonishingly magnificent background material.

I've got an engineer's mindset coupled with a streak of perfectionism a mile wide. I take my entertainment very seriously, so it has to be Done Right. Making Stuff Up Out Of My Skeletal Arse just does not, and never has, sat right with me.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-11, 01:21 PM
I haven't played yet, but this whole 1 hit minion thing bothers me too. A mage with a dagger shouldn't be able to drop anything in one hit. A Fighter with a Greataxe should be cleaving through them like butter, and an archer doing standard damage (not skirmish or insane composite damage) should be able to one shot *most* of them, but occasionally require a second shot.

Everything about 4e feels like it was designed to be run by a computer. I have yet to play, but it just feels like an entirely different game from what I've read.

First, why is a Mage using a dagger?
Second, Minions are supposed to be things that you fight in large groups. Hell a group of 4 PCs can go against 15 Goblins at first level and still be presented a challenge.
Third, They only die if they are hit, so you might still have to attack one of them more than once

Fourth, Why is running like a Computer a bad thing? Computers are efficient and fast.

And yes, the game is almost entirely different, but it's still fun and now it's also less complicated.

marjan
2008-06-11, 01:23 PM
Depends on who you are. I have an easier time introducing new rules to my group than I do just arbitrarly taking things away from them.


If a good explanation doesn't help that might be problem with your group.



The world isn't black and white. I bought the game system to play the game, because it functions as intended.

So if I write "Play the game whatever you like" on a peace of paper, will you give me 2$ for it? Yes, this is exaggeration, but I hope you get my point.


You don't need to go on a personal crusade anytime something comes out that is different and you don't like it.

I find this a bit insulting. Where do you get the idea that I am going on personal crusade (for the record I like 4e so far, but that doesn't mean there aren't things that don't bother me and I try to point them out)?


If that were the case, I wouldve been raising cain when they decided that mushrooms are good on pizza!

This is more the case of the following: Every pizza has has mushrooms on it and costs 2$. Then you invent a pizza without mushrooms and sell it for 3$.

Serpentine
2008-06-11, 01:28 PM
It's harder to make up something from scratch than it is to just decide not to use something.

The DC reflects the situation and the people in it as well as the task, whereas in 3rd the DC represets the specific task and remains a flat rate.But that's not completely true. Most checks in 3.5 have modifiers for specific situations, and it states loud and clear in the DMG that the DM can add modifiers as s/he deems necessary.
I think the question, in this particular issue, is this: Does the difficulty of a task vary depending on the skill of the person doing it, or does the skill necessary to do a task depend on its difficulty? I don't know if I worded it quite right, but I think I got it close enough to get the idea across. In 3.5, from what I've seen of this discussion, the difficulty of the task is set (aka, the tasks are relative to each other - it's harder to break a wagon wheel than to get into a heavy-duty safe (assuming they both come under the same skill now, I don't know whether that's so)). In 4.0, the... skill level is set? I know what I mean kinda, I just can't quite get it across. Anyway, the characters are relative to each other, not the tasks (it's harder for a librarian to get into a heavy-duty safe than a cat burglar).
Similar to my opinions of the Save modifier vs. Save AC thing, it is pretty much the same either way, really. However, to me, the 3.5 version is much more intuitive and makes better logical sense. Furthermore, I play a character and a personality, not a class and a race, and it feels like 4.0 is, in this regard, expecting me to do the latter.

edit: With minions, I think I like the idea but not so much the execution. If there's a bunch of thugs that are there just to look impressive, scare the players and soften the heroes up a bit, then there's no point worrying about everything to do with them. If a character hits one, they may as well just die cuz they've served their purpose and it'll make the player feel tuff (Tea you eff eff Tuff). As I said elsewhere, this seems more like a good idea, a bit of common sense, a good DM's shortcut, than something worth making strict rules for.

tumble check
2008-06-11, 01:32 PM
Oh, and by the way, i like the new skill challenge system... it is the skill system i don't like... just to make things clear. :smallwink:


Yes, the new skill system and skill challenges are two separate entities.

Whereas the skills are a completely new mechanic, the skill challenge system is really just a neat idea that could be applied to 3.5e just as easily to 4e.

This means that skill challenges are not a supporting argument for why the 4e skill system is an improvement.

nagora
2008-06-11, 01:32 PM
Making Stuff Up Out Of My Skeletal Arse just does not, and never has, sat right with me.
Well, it's not going to matter much to you; it's really a DM's thing and DMing is all about making stuff up.


Fourth, Why is running like a Computer a bad thing? Computers are efficient and fast
And totally without imagination or flare.


Arrg. All those d6's make me feel like I'm playing GURPS...
I'm just thinking that something that relates to the character's innate abilities more would be nice to have, if you're going to insist on a skill system at all.