A well written view on 3x vs. 4e

[Kabump]

I found this post over on EnWorld the other day, and I found it to be the best written post on 3x vs 4e I have seen yet. Obviously not everyone will agree with it, but give it a chance, its obviously been well thought out. It was originally posted by JDillard, and here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230509) is the link to the original thread it if you wish to read that.



Got a long one here for you all.

So I'm a long time lurker here on ENWorld. I decided it's finally time to start a thread. I've been playing 4th for a few months now, as an NDA'd friend of a couple WotC employees. While I can't discuss specifics, I can talk about impressions I've gotten, and I feel like I've got a good grasp of the feel of the game and how it works.

Anyway... I'll get around to my point now.

I keep seeing a lot of discussion on many, many threads regarding options. I see a lot of people, both pro and anti 4e, saying that the game is more constrained, you can't do as much with characters, so on and so forth.

I've seen a lot of people try to argue the opposite. They've discussed "party optimization" instead of "character optimization", or compared a 1st level 3e fighter to a 1st level 4e fighter.

Furthermore, in a not obviously apparent, related topic I've seen many, many arguments about how 4e is better in play than it looks from just reading the book. My own experiences agree with that one.

Despite that, I and many others are having an absolute blast playing the game. So, why is that? If the game really is constricting, if there really are less options, then why is it that it's still so much fun? And how does that relate to the recurring theme that it's more fun in play than in read-through?

Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm!

3e - What we're familiar with:

In the previous edition (3.x) which, to put it bluntly, the vast majority of us here are familiar with, the majority of character options were built into the character creation process. It started with the very strong modularity of the system. At any point, at any level, I can take my next level of whatever class I might want (assuming prereq's met). When I want to build a level 20 character, I've got 20 "units" of build, purely based off of class levels. I can take a bit here, a bit there, and go for it. Or I can take all 20 of one class.

Even further, you've got feats and skills. Spellcasters have spells. Tons and tons and tons of options. Given enough time, with just the PHB, I can create hundreds of level 20 characters, all noticeably different. Admittedly, a lot of them would be poor to unplayable (10 Ftr / 10 Wiz for example). Still, that's a *ton* of options.

However, once you've gotten your character built and you're actually playing the game, your options drop dramatically. With the exception of the open-ended spellcasters (and what I mean by that are the Wizard and Cleric types, who aren't constrained by a "spells known" maximum), the rest of the character types were still very limited in what sorts of actions they could take. This is definitely true in combat, but even expands into the non-combat arena.

While your melee fighter type character can choose from many different options to begin with, once he's in combat he's got his one or two things he does over and over again. The heavy armor fighter runs up and stands next to the monster, hitting with his greatsword. The spiked chain fighter does his tripping, or his moving with Opportunity attacks. The rogue gets into flanking position and proceeds to sneak attack. This does not generally vary from combat to combat either, except in situations where the monster is somehow "immune" to whatever your schtick is (undead for the rogue, for example), and then you generally spend the time trying to come up with creative solutions that vary from brilliant to extremely frustrating for the DM.

This isn't just in combat though. Given the lengthy skills list and the ability to have such variance in skill point allocation, you've got a couple different ways a character can be. You can specialize in a few select skills, maximizing their points for your level, or you can try to spread the points out into multiple skills. The first works throughout, but the second generally only works at lower levels. By the time you hit the double-digits your "ok at lots of things" concept starts to turn into "poor at lots of things", and then "barely able to do lots of things" at the top end.

So suppose you stick with the familiar specialist concept. Given how lengthy the skill list is (40ish, right?) you really can only be *really really* specialized in a couple things. You take hide/move silent and great, you're fantastic it it. What do you do in game? You try to solve problems by sneaking around. You take Jump and Swim? What do you do? You try to find ways to jump or swim your way past challenges. From level 1 to level 20 you're trying to sneak past things or jump past things.

So, to conclude and reiterate this point: 3e's paradigm is to provide you with maximal options at character creation. However, this comes at the cost of most characters losing options during actual play. The only exclusion to this is with the open-ended spellcasters, for whom options are maximized nearly throughout. I'll discuss this a bit later.

4e - The New Game:

Contrasting the 3e paradigm is the 4e one. And a contrast it definitely is, as the methods of the system seem designed to flip the situation around to its opposite.

As much as we want to argue that 4e has lots and lots of options, and it does, comparing the sheer number of characters I can create with a 3e PHB and a 4e PHB the 4e one comes out far behind. The system is not modular in the same way. Once I pick my starting class, that's my class throughout. Now, as I level I do have the retraining option, so I can switch things out that I don't like with things that I do. That's nice, but it doesn't mean much when I'm simply creating a new character from scratch.

There are a lot of feats, but they're largely restricted to a race or class. Multiclass options are there, but they mostly allow small uses of another class's power, not a full gaining of that class's skills. The skill list is significantly smaller and the mechanics of skill training and skill usage makes specialization difficult if not impossible in some cases.

The arguments that I've seen for the value of these changes from both posters and designers focus on a couple things: Game balance and Fun. Game balance is easy to see. The "economy of actions" concept keeps the length of a combat round down, and keeps each players turn length fairly similar. The redesign of the wizard, in particular, means that all characters have a "chance to shine", rather than the wizard being able to do basically anything, with the right spell. Hit points are standardized, BAB's are standardized, skill values are standardized, all these things prevent a lot of the swingyness and mean that most characters, of any level, are going to be at least useable if not excellent.

How about the Fun part though? Well, that comes in, in play. 4e's focus is not on Creation Options, but on Play Options. It's a hard concept to explain, but I'll do my best.

Take something simple. Say there's a rogue power that damages an enemy and slides them three spaces (I'm sure there is, but not having played a rogue I don't know the names off the top of my head). It sounds like a simple thing, in read through. In play, it has amazing versatility. I can slide the enemy into flanking position, so next turn I can get to do Sneak attack. I can slide the enemy around the fighter, so if it wants to attack me next turn it has to deal with the fighter's "stickiness". I can slide it away, trying to protect a squishier wizard or warlock in the back. I can slide it off a cliff, into a trap, into a damage zone cast by a warlock or wizard, into rough terrain, and so on, and so on.

It's one power with a simple read through, but once you're actually in combat it gives you a ton of options that are all dependant upon the specific combat situation you find yourself in.

And that's just one of your powers. You've got others. Some deal more damage. Some might blind or immobilize a foe. Others might hit more than one foe at a time. And you can use them in whatever order you want. I can put myself in a position where sliding my foe might be useful, or if it's not, I can merely go for maximum damage. Maybe *now* is a good time to immobilize rather than slide, so I can.

In 4e combat is constantly shifting. Monsters move around, traps and terrain change your ability to move or your reasons for it. The standard/move/minor action concept means you get just as much attack whether you stay in once place or you move around the field, so often it benefits you to reposition during a fight.

Skill use is also adjusted in a similar manner. A reduced number of broader skills means that you can do more with any individual skill. Thievery now covers pick pocketing, sleight of hand, trap disarming, forgery, and maybe even disguise in some cases. One skill, lots of usability. Stealth now covers both moving quietly and hiding. Nature now covers handling animals, knowledge local (in the woods), knowledge nature, and even some alchemy in potion brewing (with the right ritual). Arcana covers both knowledge and spellcraft and even detect magic, as well as lots of rituals. When I choose a skill to train in 4e, I'm now choosing to be better at a long list of different, related things. I'm getting blocks of skills for one training, rather than excelling at individual parts of that block at the expense of other parts.

And even further, rebalancing the way skills work to include the 1/2 level on a roll means that a character doesn't have to be highly trained and specialized to get use out of a skill. A wizard with decent dex can actually succeed at a sneak check now, just not as often as trained rogue. A non-charismatic dwarf might still be able to bluff his way through something. Sure, it'd be a difficult roll, but we're opening up more options during game play here. I wouldn't even try something like that in 3e because the way the system is designed, at mid-high levels your chance of success would be zero.

So to conclude this part: 4e reduces the number of character creation options in the name of game balance, but vastly makes up for it in the amount of "in play" options available.

Still reading? Thanks. Last part!

Finally, to tie up the beginning with the end, here we go. So we keep seeing people saying "it doesn't read well, but when you play it, it's great!" Why? Well, look at what I just said. They took the options we're familiar with, and replaced them with options we're less familiar with. I look at the book and see only a few races, a few classes (both less or equal to what the 3e PHB had), with the removal of a lot of the complexity that character creation used to have. It's more simple to make, easier to "throw something together" and completely lacking in the beloved modularity of the previous game.

You see powers that say "Do 2(w) and slide the target 3 spaces". Does that give you an excited tingle up your spine? No. It sounds pretty bland on paper.

How about "Switch places with an ally as a move action", "Close burst 1, do some damage and teleport 5 + Int mod squares", "Gain concealment when you move more than 3 spaces", and "Gain +5 to sealth checks until the end of your next turn". Individually they all sound pretty simple, not very exciting...

Then I see my buddy's fae-lock use a minor to activate his +5 to stealth checks, do a move to switch places with the fighter who's surrounded and getting beat on, use otherworldy stride to damage everyone around him and uses the teleport it gives to get himself out of being surrounded as a standard action, and then rolls a stealth check at the end because he trained in that skill and has concealment from his other warlock power. He makes a high stealth roll and the enemies can't see him.

The fighter is saved, the monsters are hurt, confused, and can't retaliate on the guy who just screwed them, the DM is boggled and the warlock can sit back and bask in it. Those were "just encounter powers", he's still got his "powerful" dailies left.

Bring on the 4e, bring on the in game options. I loved sitting around tinkering with character builds for hours, but I don't think I'll miss it much. I'm having too damn much fun actually playing the game!

[Goober4473]

I pretty much entirely agree with that.

In playing 4th Edition, I've noticed players have a ton of options all the time, and have all kinds of cool choices to make and tactics to consider, and these things always vary by encounter and situation. You make less choices making a character, but so many more during play.

[JaxGaret]

This pretty much says what I've been saying, but in an expanded form and with more clarification.

Excellent read. Thanks, Kabump. :smallsmile:

[Bag_of_Holding]

OK... so THAT's what I was missing! The all-so-fun creation process! I might give 4e yet another go... :smallbiggrin:

[Kabump]

This pretty much says what I've been saying, but in an expanded form and with more clarification.

Excellent read. Thanks, Kabump. :smallsmile:


Your welcome, although I did nothing more than bring this piece to attention. Agree or disagree with what it says, you will be hard pressed to deny it is very well written. Jdillard obviously put a lot of thought into that post, and its refreshing to see that after seeing some of the mindless stuff spewed out by both the pro and anti 4e people.

[wodan46]

Indeed. I've spent the last week or 2 seeing exactly how far class builds can be stretched, and it isn't very far. Multiclassing feat in order to take another class's paragon path is about the limit of multiclassing.

However, the powers are more than meets the eye, with regards to their flexibility. sure, most of them can be summarized into short term status effects and movement manipulation, but when and how to use them is the real issue. Utilities are even more unpredictable, and Dailies are the most unpredictable of all (Summoning, Teleportation, Stances, environment altering effects that last till end of encounter).

[Vortling]

He has some good points. However I'm still waiting. I'm playing in a 4e game and I'm waiting for my powers to be more than meets the eye or give me this amazing variety of in-combat options that he talks about. Playing as a rogue in 4e I haven't done anything I didn't do in 3.x. My 2 cents.

[Kizara]

It misses the part where 3e is designed to give you a simulation to play out your fantasy/character, and 4e is designed to give you a fun, easy, casual game.


If you play D&D to play a game with your friends, don't want to have to think about it too much, and want something that will facilitate your attitude, 4e is for you.

If, on the other hand, you 'play' it to have a robust and modular ruleset to simulate your fantasy world and character in order to enable your roleplaying, 3e is for you.

[Kabump]

It misses the part where 3e is designed to give you a simulation to play out your fantasy/character, and 4e is designed to give you a fun, easy, casual game.


If you play D&D to play a game with your friends, don't want to have to think about it too much, and want something that will facilitate your attitude, 4e is for you.

If, on the other hand, you 'play' it to have a robust and modular ruleset to simulate your fantasy world and character in order to enable your roleplaying, 3e is for you.

I disagree COMPLETELY with this assessment. Its obvious you don't like 4e, Ive seen as much from your posts, but this is just incredibly insulting. Maybe its your limitations, I see nothing in 4e that prevents me from roleplaying. Also, by your own logic, you are stating that 3e is neither: fun, easy, or casual.

[Jack Zander]

That's a nice review of the DnD minis game he posted there.

[Bleen]

That's a nice review of the DnD minis game he posted there.
:smallconfused: And how does that contribute ANYTHING to the thread aside from attempting to be antagonistic?

Anywho, my problem with the article..post..thing presented by the OP is that it concedes that there are two wholly-different design goals yet attempts to claim one set of goals as having more merit, whereas I've largely seen 3.X vs. 4ed as a matter of taste.

[Iethloc]

I disagree COMPLETELY with this assessment. Its obvious you don't like 4e, Ive seen as much from your posts, but this is just incredibly insulting. Maybe its your limitations, I see nothing in 4e that prevents me from roleplaying. Also, by your own logic, you are stating that 3e is neither: fun, easy, or casual.

I think you're reading between the lines a little bit too much here. He merely stated that 4th edition caters to a more casual audience, leaving behind the more "hardcore" RPers who were attracted to 3.x. And Kizara never stated roleplaying was impossible in 4th edition, merely that it seems like it's meant to attract people who are not as interested in heavy, in-depth roleplaying. Also, just because 4th Edition was labeled as fun, easy and casual and that 3.x was contrasted with it does not mean they share no properties; 3rd edition was most definitely fun, though perhaps not as casual (easy is subjective; I find it very easy to make a 3.5 edition character, but I pick up new things very easily).


Also, I enjoyed reading this article. And I wasn't aware you could use multiple powers in conjunction. That's pretty cool, and I already thought the power system was a nice innovation.

[Crow]

I disagree COMPLETELY with this assessment. Its obvious you don't like 4e, Ive seen as much from your posts, but this is just incredibly insulting. Maybe its your limitations, I see nothing in 4e that prevents me from roleplaying. Also, by your own logic, you are stating that 3e is neither: fun, easy, or casual.

I'm not sure what the guy meant exactly, but I think it's part of "I want a character who can do these things. But the system sticks you so firmly into one role that can't do these things effectively without gimping yourself.

"I want a Ranger who has dabbled in magic."

Ok, pick one to be good at, and suck at everything else. Whereas in 3.5, you could play a Ranger and pick up a few levels of Sorcerer or Wizard or whatever and pick up some utility spells which would be useful even if your INT was only 13.

[Crow]

*Double Pene- er... Post*

[Gavin Sage]

While one of the better defenses of 4e I've seen I think there is a weakness in his basic point. I don't think that 4e provides all that much in the way of more options in play. Sure the Fighter now has lovely super attacks to use in combat versus just swinging his sword x number of times per round. However looking through the book I find that most of these options really don't amount to much. Many are just different ways to attack, which yeah rah-rah that's still attacking. Others seemed to be ways of moving and attacking.

In 3.5 a Fighter attacked and moved around, in 4e this is still so. Now understand I don't think there is any real way to avoid this and still have the Fighter be a Fighter. However between 3.5 and 4e its only moderate improvement in options as I see it. Numerically there may be plenty, but redundancy moderates that. And having so many abilties dilutes those abilities from being as special an achievement. Its a lot of fluffy powers to keep track of for the same basic idea.

Now for the other classes in 3.5... well so help me I think every other class had either skills, spells, or special abilities of some sort. I'm not going to say that all of these abilties were as good as they could/should be, but they were there to be used. If they were too low on the balance, then that can be corrected by tweaking the basic 3.5 system. The very modular design talked about in the first post allows you to correct for imbalances without changing the structure. A mage spell is broken, rewrite that spell's descripton then wash rinse and repeat for others.

I understand what WotC was trying to do with 4e, but its a case of trying too hard. Or maybe trying to do too many things at once without thought.

[Skyserpent]

I'm not sure what the guy meant exactly, but I think it's part of "I want a character who can do these things. But the system sticks you so firmly into one role that can't do these things effectively without gimping yourself.

"I want a Ranger who has dabbled in magic."

Ok, pick one to be good at, and suck at everything else. Whereas in 3.5, you could play a Ranger and pick up a few levels of Sorcerer or Wizard or whatever and pick up some utility spells which would be useful even if your INT was only 13.

Well you could totally pick up the Ritual Caster feat... but then you can suddenly raise the dead, which might be a bit further than "Dabbling" ought to bring you... Anyway, it's working out okay for one of our characters who's a Rogue who dabbles in simple rituals to help with his lootery...

[Skyserpent]

While one of the better defenses of 4e I've seen I think there is a weakness in his basic point. I don't think that 4e provides all that much in the way of more options in play. Sure the Fighter now has lovely super attacks to use in combat versus just swinging his sword x number of times per round. However looking through the book I find that most of these options really don't amount to much. Many are just different ways to attack, which yeah rah-rah that's still attacking. Others seemed to be ways of moving and attacking.

In 3.5 a Fighter attacked and moved around, in 4e this is still so. Now understand I don't think there is any real way to avoid this and still have the Fighter be a Fighter. However between 3.5 and 4e its only moderate improvement in options as I see it. Numerically there may be plenty, but redundancy moderates that. And having so many abilties dilutes those abilities from being as special an achievement. Its a lot of fluffy powers to keep track of for the same basic idea.

Now for the other classes in 3.5... well so help me I think every other class had either skills, spells, or special abilities of some sort. I'm not going to say that all of these abilties were as good as they could/should be, but they were there to be used. If they were too low on the balance, then that can be corrected by tweaking the basic 3.5 system. The very modular design talked about in the first post allows you to correct for imbalances without changing the structure. A mage spell is broken, rewrite that spell's descripton then wash rinse and repeat for others.

I understand what WotC was trying to do with 4e, but its a case of trying too hard. Or maybe trying to do too many things at once without thought.

You have a point there... by trying to do EVERYTHING it runs the risk of being bland across the board...

However one thing I'd like to note about 4e's design strategy is, indeed a reduction of overall options... in that in 3.5 it was a little intimidatiing to say "I want to be a WIZARD" and then your DM plops 4 books in front of you and says "Pick some level 0 and 1 spells now." you've now got to sift through 4 books every time you want to pick your spells to put into your spellbook. God help you if you're a Cleric, because then you can choose ANY of them...

Which means every time you want to prepare a spell list for a unique occasion you need to go through all of these books repeatedly, comparing spells to eachother and figuring out which ones to pick, which can either bog down game time, or fill up your out of game time, and some people have better things to do. Quite a few people find this trait of the game endearing, as there's a sort of Kickass feeling one can get from knowing they made the right choice... However others are just irritated at having to wait a half-hour for the cleric to get his sheet together... An issue that can be solved easily by doing it beforehand, but not everyone has that kind of time...

4e decided to do away with that complexity and simplify it's ruleset with a very set number of abilities at specific levels. Streamlining the system for speed and more tactical fun than speculative fun. It's now become a matter of taste. Which I am completely okay with.

[Jack Zander]

However one thing I'd like to note about 4e's design strategy is, indeed a reduction of overall options... in that in 3.5 it was a little intimidatiing to say "I want to be a WIZARD" and then your DM plops 4 books in front of you and says "Pick some level 0 and 1 spells now." you've now got to sift through 4 books every time you want to pick your spells to put into your spellbook. God help you if you're a Cleric, because then you can choose ANY of them...

Or he might plop one book in front of you, flip to the chapter titled "Spells" and tell you to pick from there.

3.5's problems with splat books are not 4.0's successes. Likewise, 3.5's successes with splat books are not 4.0's problems.

People need to compare core with core, on both sides.

[JaxGaret]

3.5's problems with splat books are not 4.0's successes. Likewise, 3.5's successes with splat books are not 4.0's problems.

True, but this ignores the fact that while we have only the core books now, there will be splatbooks released for 4e.


People need to compare core with core, on both sides.

Sure.

And then, when the splatbooks come out, we can compare splats to splats.

[Kizara]

I'd like to clarify my post a bit, and respond to some people's comments on it.
(the forums died for me for the past like 3 hours)

1) I don't actually disagree with the OP article's primary points, although I feel some details are off. However, I feel its tone slants towards 4e and is not neutral. Although I will echo the sentiments that the "we have so many more options in play now!" is not really true. I was pointing out a very important aspect of system difference he didn't cover, and attempting to cover it myself very briefly.

2) What I meant by easy is the following:
-Less to learn.
More stripped-down ruleset is easier to learn, because there is less of it. It is also, more-or-less clearly written and with a tone that is easy to understand, although less professional then 3e.

-You can't make a bad character, only marginally less optimal ones.
Retraining rules coupled with very limited character build/creation options and having most abilities improve automatically with level (attack bonus, skills, etc) means you can't screw up your character without actively trying to. In 4e, everyone is important and contributes, largely to the same degree, and you can't really change that signifigantly by better design choices. This is intentional.

-Harder to die.
Lots of hp and healing ability means its very hard to die if you play remotely intelligently. Coupled with alot less save-or-screwed spells around, and monsters relying on winning via numbers and attrition instead of singular power means that the world in general is a bit less threatening.

-Less shopping decisions.
Items matter less, you have less of them, and they are less powerful.
Thus, it is very easy to decide on what item to get when all you can afford at level 8 is a +1 sword and thats also all that's available. I haven't actually read the DMG, so I don't know what other utility items are still around, but I can assume the list is MUCH smaller then all the rings/rods/wonderous items and such we used to have.

-Less to figure out and apply properly.
You only have 4 powers + a few dailies + a couple at-wills even at higher levels. Compare this to 5 1st-level spells, 3 2nd-level spells and 2 3rd-level spells, at a relatively low level. A ToB battle character also has many more options and things going on in comparison to even a higher-level 4e one. That's in addition to special feat options (many possible) or item usage. Obviously, with less options to choose from in general, you have less helmet-fire and its harder to make the wrong choice. Also, what power to use in what situation is often fairly obvious, from what I've heard.


Ok, a couple other things:


Ok, pick one to be good at, and suck at everything else. Whereas in 3.5, you could play a Ranger and pick up a few levels of Sorcerer or Wizard or whatever and pick up some utility spells which would be useful even if your INT was only 13.

For one, rangers in 3.5 already dabbled in magic. But yes, you are talking about the moduality of the class system which is a major assest, and was addressed in the OP's article.


As for what I meant in regard to 3e facilitating my roleplaying is really simple to understand if you look at it from my perspective:

The entire point of an RPG system is to provide a simulation of a fantasy world and provide a robust system for me to represent and develop my character. Things like optimization are fun extras, but are besides the point.

Was that clear enough?

No? Ok, I will elaborate a bit more.


4E IS AN INFERIOR SYSTEM FOR SIMULATION. The designers themselves have admitted to this, and the evidence within the system itself is so staggering I feel like I'm wasting time by pointing it out.


Why is simulation important for roleplaying? Honestly, I feel nothing could be more obvious and intuitive, but I will attempt to explain.

-Everything that works to define my character aids in my roleplaying. Everything that abstracts an aspect of my character takes away from my roleplaying. Yes, this is an absolute statement, and it means things like 3E's HP system detracts from my RPing.

-When you do something as a character, and you want to know if you succeed, you need to be able to know how the world works. This both enables you to execute better judgement and allows for your DM to run a more consistant and immersive world. This is not just a general statement, it is an absolute statement, and applies to everything from grappling to breaking a weapon to swimming a raging river. Any vagueness or abstraction detracts from this.

-Everything must flow from logic and all mechanics must be internally consistant. Anything that is illogical, non-sensical or inconsistant with previously establish precedent ruins immersion. Every level of abstraction detracts from immersion, accuracy and consistancy.

Yes, even 3e breaks these rules, but 4e breaks alot MORE of them and breaks them much further.

Example: Even 3e's skill system is an abstraction, since Survival encompases many related tasks that you are assumed to be knowledgable in. It also does not take into account differences in environment and so forth. However, this is still better then 4e's Nature Lore that is merely a blanket term for anything related to, well, Nature.

[InaVegt]

Kizara, one question, if you want simulation, why are you playing D&D at all?

D&D has never been about simulation, and 3.x isn't very good at simulation either. In fact, no class based system will properly do simulation.

Instead, I'd suggest you look into something like GURPS, which is much better at simulation than any class based system can ever hope to be.

[epicsoul]

:smallconfused: And how does that contribute ANYTHING to the thread aside from attempting to be antagonistic?

Anywho, my problem with the article..post..thing presented by the OP is that it concedes that there are two wholly-different design goals yet attempts to claim one set of goals as having more merit, whereas I've largely seen 3.X vs. 4ed as a matter of taste.

To be fair, actually, the point is made: what if you don't like gaming with minis?

The battle part of 4e is kinda ... limited, then. I grant that some of the powers are pretty cool for taking advantage of this.

But I don't play with minis.

[Kizara]

Kizara, one question, if you want simulation, why are you playing D&D at all?

D&D has never been about simulation, and 3.x isn't very good at simulation either. In fact, no class based system will properly do simulation.

Instead, I'd suggest you look into something like GURPS, which is much better at simulation than any class based system can ever hope to be.

Well, as for why I'm playing 3e, I have only a few things to say about that:

1) It seemed to do a pretty good job to me. Although it has alot that needs to be fixed. My 46 page, 12pt font, single-spaced Tome of House Rules (that is so far from done it depresses me) attests to that.

2) I like character archtypes, when done in moderation. I really like 3e's spellcasting, multiclassing, feat and skill systems. I've only made minor tweaks to them. The magic item system and lists are pretty good too, with some bad apples.

3) I generally like the playstyle, power level and core design of 3e. That said, I point at my Tome again for all the things that need correction. My desire for good simulation does not mean I want to play 'average' characters. Indeed, one of the things that 3e does so well is that it allows you to be better then other people by virtue of more then just being higher-level.

4) I am hesitant to try new things. Just a personallity trait, and noone I know plays GURPS. Thus, the reason I don't play it is because I've had no exposure to it. Also, I've heard that GURPS, being a generic system by design, has to be worked with alot in order to make it work like a game designed for a certain playstyle.


That being said, I admit myself that 3e does not really do as good a job of simulation as I would like, just that its a helluva lot closer to it then 4e.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The entire point of an RPG system is to provide a simulation of a fantasy world and provide a robust system for me to represent and develop my character. Things like optimization are fun extras, but are besides the point.

Ah, you don't want D&D at all. You'd be happier with Fantasy GURPS, to be honest. I mean, Hit Points? And worse, D&D only simulates a Tolkeenesque Fantasy World well. I mean, that's what its roots are.

I've seen this sentiment a lot, but truly, 3e is a terrible simulation game, compared to what's in the marketplace. It lacks to robustness of weapon characteristics you see in 2e (and the interactions between different types of armor!), has embarrassingly simplified social encounter rules (Diplomacy allowing you to convert Hostile to Friendly at, what, 3rd level?) and completely leaves out any system to address NPC morale or full-scale warfare.

Now, to be honest, I'm not looking for a "simulation" and I don't feel the need for Heroes to need to worry about spending "points" for Craft or Profession skills. I agree with the OP here. But if you're really interested in simulation, D&D is not the place to get it. 3e has many gross oversimplifications of its own (made in response to the detailed system of 2e) and the whole game was born out of a tactical wargame (which has never been known for its verisimilitude). If you take simulation seriously, you are doing yourself a disservice by playing D&D - pick up any of the GURPS systems and you'll be far happier.

EDIT: Just read your post above. Well, then it sounds like you just like using the system you have, which is fine, but it's not because it "simulates" better - it's because you're comfortable with it. Pick up an old 2e PHB and you'll see instantly that it does a better job of simulating a fantasy world; but like GURPS it fell out of favor because the rules were just too darn complicated to have fun with. Most 2e players ignored vast swathes of the system just to keep things running because of this.

Now, it's fine to keep playing something 'cause you are comfortable with it, but do yourself a favor and don't say you do it because it "simulates" well. Say you do it because you like it, and it's what you know. That's why I never upgraded to 4e Shadowrun, and resisted moving up to 3e D&D.

[H0L7]

being someone that has played gestalt in over 80% of the games ive been in will not be switching. My melee characters already have the sort of play options cited in the original post just feat up on your secondary class and start with atleast a +2 in int and you can at the least turn a barb into an acrobatic death machine with enough ranks in tumble to pull of crazy stunts.

[Kizara]

Oracle:

I guess I really should check out GURPS fantasy, as apparently I don't know what I'm missing.


As for you saying
but do yourself a favor and don't say you do it because it "simulates" well. Say you do it because you like it, and it's what you know.

Well, I feel both are true. I feel it does a pretty good job of simulation, in the context of what it's trying to simulate (heroic fantasy). The terms heroic and simulation are a bit at-odds with one-another, I'm aware of this. :)
But, you see, I want to simulate RPing a hero, which requires one's concept of "real" to be redefined a bit.


Thus, I suppose what I'm saying is "3e seems to do a pretty good job of simulation, and its the demon I know and enjoy".


Also, as far as 2e goes, the problem there is that its not written very consistantly. Part of a good simulation is that its consistant with itself and clean and easy to understand. 2e fails here. There's no reason rules can't be detailed and complex as well as clean and understandable at the same time. 3e for the most part does a good job here in my opinion.
Oh, and "set a D% for the check, here's some examples to help you guess" isn't really giving me very useful tools.

[marjan]

being someone that has played gestalt in over 80% of the games ive been in will not be switching. My melee characters already have the sort of play options cited in the original post just feat up on your secondary class and start with atleast a +2 in int and you can at the least turn a barb into an acrobatic death machine with enough ranks in tumble to pull of crazy stunts.

Gestalt is not the best ground for comparing as it basically merges two classes into one. Do this with 4e classes and you will get more versatile classes than base, even though 4e classes aren't exactly best to use gestalt on.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Thus, I suppose what I'm saying is "3e seems to do a pretty good job of simulation, and its the demon I know and enjoy".

And that's fair enough. Gaming is, first and foremost, doing what you enjoy - and if your mountain of House Rules does that for you, then by all means rock on!

Me, I've always had trouble coming up with house rules that didn't break the game. Why, thinking back to my homebrewed 2e Archery Specialist... :smalltongue:

[Kizara]

And that's fair enough. Gaming is, first and foremost, doing what you enjoy - and if your mountain of House Rules does that for you, then by all means rock on!

Me, I've always had trouble coming up with house rules that didn't break the game. Why, thinking back to my homebrewed 2e Archery Specialist... :smalltongue:

I would be more then happy to share with you my latest copy of my Tome if you are interested. I feel its written with the same tone and consistancy as the core books. It needs to be re-formated a bit now that its gotten so large, but its still well-presented IMO.

Please PM me if you are interested.


Oh, and thank you for displaying a shinning example of why GitP is such a great community. Our difference of opinion would more likely result in a flame war then a very pleasant reaching of common ground, that we have attained here, had this been on a different forum. Enjoy 4e with my compliments. :)

[JaxGaret]

Kizara, I understand your point, and I agree that 3e is more systemically simulationist than 4e.

However, I have found that 3e's vast inter-class power imbalance creates situations in which the simulationism of 3e goes right out the window. One simply cannot have a party with disparate power levels without either a) causing some players to contribute far more than others and consequently stealing the spotlight, or b) those same players metagaming their way out of it, by self-nerfing their character's actions to be in line with the power level of the rest of the party, when that is not at all what the character would be doing.

If everyone in the party is at the same power level in 3e, then yes, I will agree with you, it is inherently better at simulation than 4e. But if there is a significant difference in the power level of party members (and it's quite difficult to avoid that, at least in my experience), that tends to break down, unless everyone roleplays without metagaming, and some party members are left out in the cold in terms of party contribution. But then another question arises: why are the more powerful members traveling with these weak links? Not every party is built where they're all age-old friends or relatives. That in itself is a metagame issue.

Or do you disagree?


Oh, and thank you for displaying a shinning example of why GitP is such a great community. Our difference of opinion would more likely result in a flame war then a very pleasant reaching of common ground, that we have attained here, had this been on a different forum. Enjoy 4e with my compliments. :)

I have found the same. I used to post a lot on the Wizards boards, and the difference in tone between these two forums (especially in recent times, they used to be a lot better) is marked. I actually haven't posted over there in weeks, basically since they destroyed the boards as we all knew them.

And thank you, I will enjoy 4e :smallsmile:

[Kizara]

Kizara, I understand your point, and I agree that 3e is more systemically simulationist than 4e.

However, I have found that 3e's vast inter-class power imbalance creates situations in which the simulationism of 3e goes right out the window. One simply cannot have a party with disparate power levels without either a) causing some players to contribute far more than others and consequently stealing the spotlight, or b) those same players metagaming their way out of it, by self-nerfing their character's actions to be in line with the power level of the rest of the party, when that is not at all what the character would be doing.

If everyone in the party is at the same power level in 3e, then yes, I will agree with you, it is inherently better at simulation than 4e. But if there is a significant difference in the power level of party members (and it's quite difficult to avoid that, at least in my experience), that tends to break down, unless everyone roleplays without metagaming, and some party members are left out in the cold in terms of party contribution. But then another question arises: why are the more powerful members traveling with these weak links? Not every party is built where they're all age-old friends or relatives. That in itself is a metagame issue.

Or do you disagree?

Oh, I agree with your completely. Let me give you a great example:

My current character, Clarissa Heartsbane, a LE cleric of Zarus was in a party with:
CE Crusader (sword and broad, going for ruby knight vindicator)
NE Shadowcaster (so inferior to a wizard it hurt)
CE barb/bard/ragemage (marginally useful)
CE Dread Necromancer (after I retrained his character for him not too bad)

Of which, only the crusader kept up. Clarissa is probably the most optimized character I've ever made, with DMM (quicken), Strength and War domains, etc etc. Trust me, really solid character. She was constantly annoyed at the lack of ability and professionalism of her party members (and I was too at times out of game). Eventually, through a lack of real planning or foresight, they got TPKed after engaging a frost worm at level 8. She alone survived, and is now being run as a solo character with my friend. She is much happier now.

I didn't tone down her abilities, or play her as anything other then the hyper-aggressive crusader-type that she was. Indeed, the party would often bicker around and generally come up with garbage tactics about how to deal with a straight forward problem (monster in next room) and spend so much 'committe time' that she would just buff and go in herself. This caused some friction, but my point I suppose is that I agree completely that you destroy your own immersion if you don't play your character true to form.


To this I have a couple of things to say:

1) 3e definately has some balance issues. The grossest ones can be easily fixed (ban natural spell, DMM, knock, polymorph, etc), but to come close to solving the problem at an acceptable level requires quite a bit more work. See giant tome. :)

2) If you knowingly make an ineffective character or are one of those people that believe you can't be powerful and RP at the same time I really couldn't give less of a **** if I outstage you: you deserve it. But we are getting into Stormwind Fallacy territory here, and its totally besides the main point of this thread.



I have found the same. I used to post a lot on the Wizards boards, and the difference in tone between these two forums (especially in recent times, they used to be a lot better) is marked. I actually haven't posted over there in weeks, basically since they destroyed the boards as we all knew them.

And thank you, I will enjoy 4e :smallsmile:

Although I was takling to Oracle, I'm glad you see what I mean. :)


Honestly, my antagonism towards 4e, aside from simulationist concerns, stems from that I cannot stand things designed to be easy, casual and light. I take everything intensely and seriously, and its generally self-destructive. :)

[kamikasei]

"I want a Ranger who has dabbled in magic."

Ok, pick one to be good at, and suck at everything else. Whereas in 3.5, you could play a Ranger and pick up a few levels of Sorcerer or Wizard or whatever and pick up some utility spells which would be useful even if your INT was only 13.

:smallconfused:

Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that 4e multiclassing is good at? How is taking a multiclass feat into Wizard or Warlock, and maybe another power or two via feats, more damaging to a build than mixing in a handful of full-caster levels in a full-BAB class?

[Vikazc]

Just wanted to comment on one thing that struck me strongly.

"4E IS AN INFERIOR SYSTEM FOR SIMULATION. The designers themselves have admitted to this, and the evidence within the system itself is so staggering I feel like I'm wasting time by pointing it out."

Statements like this are not helpful, useful, or accurate for anyone. To be absolutely technical, 4e is a perfectly fine simulation, it is just not a simulation of the same world view as 3.5 is. Just because you cannot create the characters and situations you want to, does not mean a system is inferior for simulation. It simply means that it does not support that particular thing within its game world.

And just to be contrary, anyone who thinks 3.5 is an accurate and gritty simulation of it's own system, can try to explain why anyone without an int penalty, would not be a wizard. A party of 4 wizards, even if they all had Intellects of 10, and could only cast cantrips, would be more effective both in and out of combat then a group of fighters. yet we have mercenary bands and armies everywhere?

Even better, why don't these groups of 10 intellect wizards just sit about and grind rats with ray of frost for the 3 levels needed to up their intellect and get access to level 1 spells? In a world where anyone of average intellect can slowly gain in magic power that outstrips martial prowess easily, there is no reason or excuse for martial classes to exist. So by the *simulation* logic, 3.5 fails abysmally as a system.

[Kizara]

Just wanted to comment on one thing that struck me strongly.

"4E IS AN INFERIOR SYSTEM FOR SIMULATION. The designers themselves have admitted to this, and the evidence within the system itself is so staggering I feel like I'm wasting time by pointing it out."

Statements like this are not helpful, useful, or accurate for anyone. To be absolutely technical, 4e is a perfectly fine simulation, it is just not a simulation of the same world view as 3.5 is. Just because you cannot create the characters and situations you want to, does not mean a system is inferior for simulation. It simply means that it does not support that particular thing within its game world.

The whole concept of 'simulation' is supporting "that particular thing within its game world". What do you think it means? It doesn't mean "working game mechanics." Reading the rest of the post you quoted might give you some more insight into what it means.




And just to be contrary, anyone who thinks 3.5 is an accurate and gritty simulation of it's own system, can try to explain why anyone without an int penalty, would not be a wizard. A party of 4 wizards, even if they all had Intellects of 10, and could only cast cantrips, would be more effective both in and out of combat then a group of fighters. yet we have mercenary bands and armies everywhere?

-Although not the total joke that 4e is in this regard, 3e isn't gritty. I never claimed otherwise.
-Being a wizard is extremely expensive, and although not explicitly stated, one could easily extrapolate that the training to become a 1st-level wizard would also be very expensive. So, just like not everyone was a Knight back in the day, not everyone is a wizard in D&Dland because it costs too bloody much. Also, most people aren't smart enough.
-Wizards aren't even that great before level 5, and they certinally aren't wroth jack with only cantrips. I would take a party of 4 fighters with decent Str/Con scores over 4 Int 10 wizards (of any level) any day. And I'm an optimizier, I assure you.
Out of combat? You have a bit of a point I suppose, depending on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to make magical lights, wierd sounds or do 1d3 points of cold damage, I guess the wizard has a fighter beat...
-I would say most mercenary bands of a decent level would include both divine and arcane casters, such only makes sense. Just like real life mercenaries include munitions experts and medics.


Even better, why don't these groups of 10 intellect wizards just sit about and grind rats with ray of frost for the 3 levels needed to up their intellect and get access to level 1 spells? In a world where anyone of average intellect can slowly gain in magic power that outstrips martial prowess easily, there is no reason or excuse for martial classes to exist. So by the *simulation* logic, 3.5 fails abysmally as a system.

Honestly, this is horrendeously silly and only theorectically possible. Normal rats aren't even wroth XP, and I would say Dire Rats would likely kill a lvl 1 wizard with only like 4 rays of frost (that he probably sucks at hitting with).

You somehow think you can gain 3 levels this way? REALLY? Come on dude, use a bit of common sense here.

Wizards do outstripe straight warrior-types before long, but its not as crazy as you are making it out to be.
And also, if you applied some common-sense, learning magic is obviously very intellectually hard, people of lower intelligence would likely not have the drive or capacity to do it. Again, that's not RAW, its a slight extrapolation.

[SmartAlec]

Honestly, my antagonism towards 4e, aside from simulationist concerns, stems from that I cannot stand things designed to be easy, casual and light. I take everything intensely and seriously, and its generally self-destructive. :)

One thing the article makes clear (as well as actually playing the game) is that 4th Ed has a fair amount to offer when it comes to battle tactics and teamwork. Is that something you could take seriously?

[Vikazc]

The point being, 4e simulates a different world then 3.5, so it is not inferior because it doesn't simulate 3.5s world effectively.

As for the wizard bit, you sort of prove my point in that every argument is "well, not by RAW, but if you use common sense...". Being a wizard is horribly expensive in the sense that a spell pouch and ray of frost means hunting without ever having to buy an arrow again. Not to mention being able to use prestidigitation is pretty much the best out of combat spell for an average person that's ever been created.

As you point out, by RAW it costs absolutely nothing to train to be a wizard. Quite possibly a week of staring into a corner and thinking magical thoughts can accomplish the feat. This is the part that sorta rubs wrong with all the multiclassing that 3.5 so effectively simulates. Gotta love that "assumed to have been looking over the shoulder of the possibly non-existent party wizard" when you decide to multiclass to it.

Not to mention, it would be pathetically easy to gain 3 levels as a 10 int party of wizards. At level one the group would be able to collectively destroy any CR 1 or 2 monster just by concentrating their Ray of Frost or other 1d3 cantrip. So theres nothing stopping a group of said wizards, finding a goblin cave, waiting at the entrance, blasting a goblin or two to death until they run out of spells, running like girls, and doing it again every 8 hours. It's not even remotely unreasonable.

As for common sense, anyone possessing any would never consider picking up a sword in a world full of demons, dragons, and other creatures who can literally flay the flesh from your bones with a thought. Any system that contains powerful magic, without dramatic costs associated with it, is inherently flawed unless every single intelligent person uses it, because only a moron wouldn't.

[Eldariel]

The thread makes a point about how combat is more versatile and mobile in 4.0 than it is at 3.X, but frankly that's only true if you go with PHB melee classes; with Tome of Battle added to the mix, there's suddenly a larger amount of versatility and just the same amount of mobility in 3.5 combat as there is in 4.0, and that is precisely why Tome of Battle is so well-liked; it adds the "fun" and the "strategy" to melee combat in 3.5.

If that's the selling point of 4.0, I'd rather just stick with ToBbed 3.5. One splatbook fixed the primary problems 3.5 had (and incidentially, took away the primary advantage 4.0 had mostly because 4.0 system is based on ToB); I wonder if one splatbook will be able to make character creation interesting in 4.0?

[Morty]

Funny how "well written" apparently translates to "one I agree with".
Anyway, the author's premises and expectations are so utterly different from mine I can't really relate to this article. Mainly because for me more options mean more fun and I don't give much of a crap for simplicity.

[tumble check]

Alot of people are saying that you can't compare 4e CORE to 3.5 splat compendium.

However, this is only true in terms of breadth. Phrases like "What do you mean that 4e doesn't have Fatespinners? Candle-casters?? BEAR WARRIORS????" isn't really a valid criticism.

However, even though 4e is far from being a spiritual successor of 3.5 or even an improvement on it, WotC certainly had free range to take whatever it wanted from 3.5 splats that they thought were a good idea and implement it in a sensible way in 4e, which they did do to a limited extent.

So for the arguments on 4e mechanics as compared to 3.5 splats is completely fair, especially Tome of Battle, which is easily one of the best and sensical 3.5 splats, and also considering that even a bit of the flavor and style of ToB was indeed implemented in 4e.

[Indon]

This individual makes one very, very incorrect assumption which appears to be the crux of his view of 4'th edition:


3e's paradigm is to provide you with maximal options at character creation. However, this comes at the cost of most characters losing options during actual play.

This individual seems to think that by increasing choice in one area of the game, it decreases choice in others. However, there is no mechanism for this scenario, and in fact there are blatant counterexamples: The Tome of Battle classes being one many would be familiar with from 3.5.

4'th edition did not reduce choice in one area so they could raise it in another - no such tradeoff is necessary. As such, 4'th edition's reductions in choices should be viewed for precisely what it is: A loss of an entire, major feature of a game system. Nothing is gained from this removal. It's all, 100% loss.

The same is true with many of 4'th edition's cullings. People may argue that by removing features, one reduces problems caused by the features - and this is, on a very primitive level, true. But removing features introduces the problem of needing to reimplement them from scratch, or simply having a less capable game. And implementing game features well should not be the job of a DM - it should be the job of a professional game designer, such as one finds working at Wizards of the Coast.

It is hard to determine the motives of a game designer, but it appears to be that 4'th edition lost features because the game designers would prefer to have a game that can do less, rather than work to create a good game that can do more.

[purepolarpanzer]

This individual makes one very, very incorrect assumption which appears to be the crux of his view of 4'th edition:



This individual seems to think that by increasing choice in one area of the game, it decreases choice in others. However, there is no mechanism for this scenario, and in fact there are blatant counterexamples: The Tome of Battle classes being one many would be familiar with from 3.5.

4'th edition did not reduce choice in one area so they could raise it in another - no such tradeoff is necessary. As such, 4'th edition's reductions in choices should be viewed for precisely what it is: A loss of an entire, major feature of a game system. Nothing is gained from this removal. It's all, 100% loss.

The same is true with many of 4'th edition's cullings. People may argue that by removing features, one reduces problems caused by the features - and this is, on a very primitive level, true. But removing features introduces the problem of needing to reimplement them from scratch, or simply having a less capable game. And implementing game features well should not be the job of a DM - it should be the job of a professional game designer, such as one finds working at Wizards of the Coast.

It is hard to determine the motives of a game designer, but it appears to be that 4'th edition lost features because the game designers would prefer to have a game that can do less, rather than work to create a good game that can do more.

Did you just call the "4th is an improvement" argument primitive? Wow, that's insulting, for one. (Not to mention wrong.)

The main fallacy of your argument is where you said "no such tradeoff was necessary." Yes, we know about Tome of Battle. And even with it, the wizard was broken as crap. As was the cleric. As was the druid. Huh. Three major classes in the game are horrible outclassing the rest of the game. I guess we shouldn't fix that at all. No need really. Unless you want to play a fighter, paladin, monk, etc. Since there seem to be a lot of supporters of 4th edition, dare I say more than enemies, it seems there WAS a need, that Wizards, for comercial interests, filled.

And I have no sympathy for anyone who can't do a bit of homebrew, or (horror of horrors) some storytelling. Since I've started D+D, I've been tinkering with everything from monsters to spells. 4th made this so much easier- take a spell, look at the effect, compare to something of a like effect, make spell of level X. Repeat with monsters. And when homebrewing didn't work, I just did storytelling. The big evil wizard can't cast wish? Oh, then I guess he has to do a special magical ritual that the PC's have to interfere with. The party wizard wants wish? Think about it for a few minutes, then have HIM go on a quest for items/materials/etc. for the ritual, and as a DM keep him in check. DM magic is often the most spectacular, awesome, fun kinda magic, because whatever you can imagine you can do (corny, I know). Placing a system on epic spells is what made them BROKEN in the first place.

[Crow]

:smallconfused:

Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that 4e multiclassing is good at? How is taking a multiclass feat into Wizard or Warlock, and maybe another power or two via feats, more damaging to a build than mixing in a handful of full-caster levels in a full-BAB class?

Actually, it's not good at it at all. Almost all the classes now have some degree of MAD now, and since Attack Bonus is king in 4e (because most powers require a hit to function), you cannot afford to cover every attribute you need, since they all need to be high.

Take an Archer Ranger for instance that wants to dabble in magic:

Dexterity needs to be his highest stat since his ranged attacks will be keyed off this. He still can't neglect his strength because all of his melee powers are based on it (and he'll want to have something to fall back on), a lot of his powers have effects determined by his wisdom score, and finally, he will need a high (probably his second highest stat) intelligence to have a chance of hitting anything with his spells (you don't get proficiency bonuses with implements). A two-weapon ranger would be better off as a /Wizard, since he could dump dexterity to some degree because it won't effect him as much. But then he'll need be picking up some heavy armor proficiency to make up for the loss of AC.

And jeeeze what would he need to multiclass in Warlock? ... At least STR or DEX + CON + CHA + WIS + INT? If he limited himself to one "type" of power, he could eliminate either CON or CHA though.

What if you want to play a human and you are working with only one +2? What if your race doesn't give you bonuses in the attributes you need?

Whereas in 3.5, if you wanted a Ranger who could cast a few wizard spells, he could get by with an Int of 12 and still find some spells that could come in handy for him. Bear in mind, we're talking about *dabbling*, so he's not looking for 9th level spells, but just a couple useful utility type spells. He did have the problem of Arcane Spell Failure though...which is thankfully gone. Further though, you could pick just about any race and create a servicable character out of any class which was itself not gimped.

You can do a lot in 4e, but due to the horrid dependence upon attack bonus for almost everything, you can't do a lot of it very well at all.

[Indon]

Did you just call the "4th is an improvement" argument primitive? Wow, that's insulting, for one. (Not to mention wrong.)
Firstly, 4'th edition contains things one could claim to be improvements that do not involve removing entire features of the system - the table of page 42 of the DMG, for instance, or the trap system, or the changes from saves to defenses.

Meanwhile, what I said was:


People may argue that by removing features, one reduces problems caused by the features - and this is, on a very primitive level, true.

Do you honestly believe that the only improvements to 4'th edition involved removing parts of 3'rd edition? Because if you do, you don't need to play 4'th edition, now do you - you can just remove parts of 3'rd edition to get what you want.

I imagine that's not the case, however, because that's not an argument that 4'th edition is a better system.



The main fallacy of your argument is where you said "no such tradeoff was necessary."
Do you even know what a fallacy is? A non-sequitur, an argument that does not follow, is an example of a fallacy. An argument that is wrong (because it uses a fallacy, perhaps) is just a wrong argument.


Yes, we know about Tome of Battle. And even with it, the wizard was broken as crap. As was the cleric. As was the druid. Huh. Three major classes in the game are horrible outclassing the rest of the game. I guess we shouldn't fix that at all. No need really.
You don't seem to get it. We didn't need to eviscerate build options to balance classes - we could have just balanced the classes. The two have nothing to do with each other. To claim that one has something to do with each other (without evidence, I might add) is to make an argument that does not follow.

To reiterate: Balancing classes has nothing to do with removing, say, the ability to multiclass freely. Nothing. At. All. The castration of that feature provided zero benefit to the system. Zero. Benefit.


And I have no sympathy for anyone who can't do a bit of homebrew, or (horror of horrors) some storytelling.
I can do plenty of homebrew. I've already homebrewed a skill system just for 4'th edition users, 'cause I'm awesome like that (it's a really great skill system, I might add).

But I buy a system so that I don't have to build large facets of it from the ground up to make it work. In order to do that, I'd buy a more comprehensive system.

If I didn't buy a system for that reason, then I wouldn't need a system because I could just free-form everything.


Since I've started D+D, I've been tinkering with everything from monsters to spells. 4th made this so much easier- take a spell, look at the effect, compare to something of a like effect, make spell of level X. Repeat with monsters. And when homebrewing didn't work, I just did storytelling.

You should ask yourself why it's so easy. Maybe it's because there's barely a system there in the first place, and you could probably have homebrewed up something similar, if not outright better, in the space of a few hours?


Placing a system on epic spells is what made them BROKEN in the first place.

Actually, a poor resource-return on non-exploitive epic spells made them broken, and that certainly wasn't helped by the fact that people on internet forums seemed to always forget that almost all uses of epic magic required DM approval.

But thanks for perfectly illustrating my point - If you can't even percieve the causes of a problem (or don't even try), there's no possible way you can fix it correctly or competently. This is an error Wizards appears to have commited repeatedly - not merely for this version of this game, but particularly badly in this version because they have made so many attempts to fix things in the first place.

TL, DR version: Fixing something is better than getting rid of it - after all, if all we get is some bare-bones system we could cook up ourselves in the space of an hour, what's the benefit of using it over absolutely no system in the first place? (Edit: Also, I think they need way better improvement processes)

[marjan]

Actually, it's not good at it at all. Almost all the classes now have some degree of MAD now, and since Attack Bonus is king in 4e (because most powers require a hit to function), you cannot afford to cover every attribute you need, since they all need to be high.

Take an Archer Ranger for instance that wants to dabble in magic:

Dexterity needs to be his highest stat since his ranged attacks will be keyed off this. He still can't neglect his strength because all of his melee powers are based on it (and he'll want to have something to fall back on), a lot of his powers have effects determined by his wisdom score, and finally, he will need a high (probably his second highest stat) intelligence to have a chance of hitting anything with his spells (you don't get proficiency bonuses with implements). A two-weapon ranger would be better off as a /Wizard, since he could dump dexterity to some degree because it won't effect him as much. But then he'll need be picking up some heavy armor proficiency to make up for the loss of AC.

And jeeeze what would he need to multiclass in Warlock? ... At least STR or DEX + CON + CHA + WIS + INT? If he limited himself to one "type" of power, he could eliminate either CON or CHA though.

What if you want to play a human and you are working with only one +2? What if your race doesn't give you bonuses in the attributes you need?

Whereas in 3.5, if you wanted a Ranger who could cast a few wizard spells, he could get by with an Int of 12 and still find some spells that could come in handy for him. Bear in mind, we're talking about *dabbling*, so he's not looking for 9th level spells, but just a couple useful utility type spells. He did have the problem of Arcane Spell Failure though...which is thankfully gone. Further though, you could pick just about any race and create a servicable character out of any class which was itself not gimped.

You can do a lot in 4e, but due to the horrid dependence upon attack bonus for almost everything, you can't do a lot of it very well at all.

MAD? You ever tried making Pal/Wiz in 3e? Or monk maybe? That's what MAD is. In 4e you have one primary stat, one secondary (you can live with it even as a dump stat usually) and that's it. All other stats are useful but nothing that gimps you too much if you dump them. If you multiclass, you'll need one more and that's it. You picked up worst example for multiclassing. And even in 3e rangers weren't the best choice for multiclass with wizard. They were even MAD by themselves: STR(no extra source of dmg so you need this), DEX(light armor only so this is what keeps your AC up), CON(never heard of any even semi-optimized build that made this dump), INT(not necessary but helps your skills), WIS (you need decent score if you want to cast your spells), CHA(unless you want to do kinky stuff with animals you can dump this). So out of 6 abilities you cannot dump 4, 1 hurts if you dump it and 1 is useless. And that's even without mixing archery and melee. In 4e you need dex and wis if you are archer, or str and wis if you are TWFer plus int or dex (your choice). And for you to be effective in combat you only really need str or dex.

[Artanis]

Funny how "well written" apparently translates to "one I agree with".
Anyway, the author's premises and expectations are so utterly different from mine I can't really relate to this article. Mainly because for me more options mean more fun and I don't give much of a crap for simplicity.
Did you actually read the article, or did you just glance at it, say "4e r teh sux i haet this" and then make your post? Because the ENTIRE EFFING POINT of the article was that 4e may have less options in some areas, but has more options in others.

So if "having options" is what you crave, the only possible way you can dismiss the article by saying "4e has no options" is if you didn't actually read it.

[fendrin]

Do you even know what a fallacy is? A non-sequitur, an argument that does not follow, is an example of a fallacy. An argument that is wrong (because it uses a fallacy, perhaps) is just a wrong argument.

Funny, I don't think purepolarpanzer said anything about your argument being a fallacy... just that it contained fallacies, and identified the location of one such fallacy.

While you may be technically correct in it not being a fallacy, it is however uncorroborated. you state it as a fact without providing any evidence for it whatsoever. That doesn't make it wrong per se, but it is awfully close to a fallacy of authority, with you very clearly setting yourself as the authority.


TL, DR version: Fixing something is better than getting rid of it - after all, if all we get is some bare-bones system we could cook up ourselves in the space of an hour, what's the benefit of using it over absolutely no system in the first place?

You assume 'fixing it' is possible. You also seem to have a very high opinion of your abilities (and a rather low opinion about how much work game design is) so why don't you go spend a couple of hours and 'fix it', which you can then share in the homebrew forum to be admired and loved by all.

[Morty]

Did you actually read the article, or did you just glance at it, say "4e r teh sux i haet this" and then make your post? Because the ENTIRE EFFING POINT of the article was that 4e may have less options in some areas, but has more options in others.

So if "having options" is what you crave, the only possible way you can dismiss the article by saying "4e has no options" is if you didn't actually read it.

I did read the article, thank you. And what I get from it is "You get less options in character creation, but the options during gameplay make up for it". And I disagree, because while more options in combat is a good thing, it doesn't make up the fact that character creation is much more dull now. That's right, options in combat- because the part about skills I disagree with even more. How is any character being able to do everything a good thing? The skill system in 4ed is bad and I won't change my mind on that.
To conclude: yes, options during combat are good, but removing all the tinkering and diversity in character creation is still a huge boop-up and the former don't make up for it sufficently.
Happy now?

[Indon]

While you may be technically correct in it not being a fallacy, it is however uncorroborated. you state it as a fact without providing any evidence for it whatsoever.
Asserted: That one can have both strategic choices and tactical choices without sacrifice of either.

Provided as evidence: The Tome of Battle.

How do the ToB classes fail to provide depth of tactical choices comparable to that of characters in 4'th edition D&D? And how can they possibly fail to provide depth of build choices, being classes in 3'rd edition D&D?

My support was right there, plain as day.


However, there is no mechanism for this scenario, and in fact there are blatant counterexamples: The Tome of Battle classes being one many would be familiar with from 3.5.


You assume 'fixing it' is possible. You also seem to have a very high opinion of your abilities (and a rather low opinion about how much work game design is) so why don't you go spend a couple of hours and 'fix it', which you can then share in the homebrew forum to be admired and loved by all.

People are already doing that for 3'rd edition. For my part, I've decided to homebrew a better version of 4'th edition. I've already done the skill system (and posted it on a thread in this forum), and when I get around to it I'll do the rest.

[Artanis]

Oh, right, I should respond to the actual topic. I didn't forget, I was just...uh...taking extra time to compose my response. Yeah, compose. That's the ticket. *shifty eyes* :smallwink:


At any rate (and to finally get myself on-topic), last night I experienced exactly what the article describes. It was the first session of a new campaign in which I'm playing an Eladrin Wizard. When making the character, I obviously took Magic Missile (hey, it's the Wiz's official Ranged Basic Attack), and couldn't decide which other at-will to take. I finally said "screw it" and took Thunder Wave, figuring that I'd never actually use it (what with me being squishy and it being point-blank and all), but hey, an AoE might be handy and I didn't have any other Thunder powers chosen.

That session, we were fighting the goblin crew of a boat that was about 20 squares long and 12 squares wide. I was surprised at how hard I actually was to kill (needing two hits, rather than just a housecat looking at me wrong), so I was able to survive getting close enough to use Thunder Wave. That being the case, I used it. A LOT. I used it to take out Minions by the pair or trio, I used it to knock enemies into the melee characters' range, and I even used it to push a couple clear off the boat.

Thunder Wave wasn't the only thing that let me do creative stuff. With a mere six powers - Magic Missile, Thunder Wave, Acid Arrow, Ray of Enfeeblement, Fey Step, and the staff-mastery defense thing - I was able to:
-Thunder Wave a goblin clear off the boat on two seperate occasions (for a total of two knocked off)
-Magic Missile enemies as we crossed the distance to the boat en route to boarding it.
-Ray of Enfeeblement the boat's captain who was blasting the hell out of us
-Thunder Wave three enemies at once, instantly killing two of them (minions) and pushing the third next to one of his buddies, thus letting the Dragonborn torch both at once
-Fey Step to a clear LoS to the captain and hit him with Acid Arrow, catching two others in the AoE. The splash damage was enough to let the TWF Ranger stab the second (non-Captain) one to death soon thereafter.
-Use my staff thingy to make the difference between standing still and being flung off the boat when the helmsgoblin veered hard to starboard
-Magic Missile to return fire against a sniper who was picking apart the Dragonborn, AP, and shoot him again to finish him off

All of this as opposed to having nothing better to do than saying "I cast Magic Missile" every single turn the way a level 1 blasty caster would've in 3e.

[Matthew]

A less positive review:



Dungeons & Dragons 4e Player's Handbook Review (http://nitessine.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/review-dungeons-dragons-4th-edition-players-handbook/)

Well, it’s out, and I can talk now. Not too much, but enough.

I got my Player’s Handbook a couple of days ago, and have been poring over it.

And, well, it’s not as bad as I originally surmised, based on the two Wizards Presents preview books. A lot of the sheer stupidity packed into those volumes has been cut.

However, it’s still not a good game. Originally, I was going to just type out the word “****” eight thousand times, but then I was told Warren Ellis did that already, so we’ll have to do this the old-fashioned way.

Let’s start with the cover. Yeah, it’s that bad.

I like the art of Wayne Reynolds. His best illustrations have energy and animation, and I like his use of colour, and light and shadow. In the cover of the PHB, though, we are greeted by something big, ugly and scaly that’s wielding something that looks like a piece the Fire Department had to cut off a Toyota Avensis to get the trapped driver out. It is accompanied by a scantily clad wizard chick.

The big ugly is, apparently, supposed to be a dragonborn, one of the game’s new races. It still looks bad.

On we move, through some preface blather, to page 7. Here, we have a sidebar titled “The History of D&D”. It says, among other things, this:

Throughout the 1980s, the game experienced remarkable growth. Novels, a cartoon series, computer games, and the first campaign settings (FORGOTTEN REALMS and DRAGONLANCE) were released, and in 1989 the long-awaited second edition of AD&D took the world by storm.

As every D&D player worth his salt knows, the first campaign setting was Greyhawk. WotC has even sold the setting with that tagline. So, what the hell is this?

It’s either an editing error, in which case they are incompetent, or intentional, in which case they are immoral. The tin foil hat wing of the Greyhawk fandom are already frothing at the mouth that WotC wants to destroy their setting.

Now, a few notes… Firstly, I’m usually not someone who’s interested in the crunch. I like the framework of rules, and I like having lots of crunchy bits like in 3E, because they allow me to customise a character on the rules level. Secondly, I think that a new edition of a game should be judged as part of the continuum, with emphasis on backwards compatibility, convertability and story continuity. These attitudes will be reflected in the review. Thirdly, I will occasionally ascribe motives or explanations for certain changes, that may sound stupid. I can’t vouch for them all, but most of them are from designer blogs, preview articles, interviews, and the like, and they’re real. I’m not linking them because trying to dig up stuff from the WotC website is a futile effort, Gleemax blogs don’t even do direct linking and because life is too short.

Also, as you may have figured out by now, this isn’t going to be very objective and doesn’t describe the actual content of the game much, just what’s wrong with it. There’s a lot.

Making Characters

Here, the basics of the game are explained. D20+modifiers for every check, ability scores and what they stand for, yada yada. Here we also have ability score generation. Method 1 - standard array, of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11 and 10. Yeah, can’t give people negative ability modifiers. That’s unfun. Can’t have unfun.

Then there’s a variant point buy, defaulting to 22 points but with the starting scores at 10, except for one that’s 8. Finally, there’s the novel concept of rolling dice for your ability scores, 4d6, drop the lowest.

Under the topic of “Roleplaying” we find the new alignment system, which they pruned down into irrelevance. Instead of the three-dimensional system of times past, we now have good, lawful good, evil, chaotic evil and unaligned. Especially the evil ones are rather one-dimensional, with chaotic evil as described difficult to imagine for anything but a mad beast.

Here we’re also introduced to the deities of 4E. Some of them are new, like Avandra, Erathis, Ioun, Melora and the Raven Queen. Then we have Bahamut, Corellon, Moradin and Sehanine, who are also new but stole the names of other deities from 3E, and finally, Kord and Pelor, who are more or less their old selves.

Here’s one thing that pisses me off to no end in 4E. They’re changing the setting material and background stuff for no good reason, and often only manage to make it more one-dimensional, less credible and creative. In addition to producing truly staggering amounts of subpar, uninspired fluff, they also produce irreconcilable continuity issues with old D&D material, rendering it unusable in 4E.

Another thing is that they clearly want to create new material, but for some reason feel obligated to make things seem like they resemble the previous editions in some fashion, and thus they take familiar names and give them new meanings. This generates more continuity issues and confusion between editions.

To top it off, they’ve been rationalising and trying to sell these decisions to the fans with a series of half-assed explanations on their website, claiming that things didn’t work they way they used to be, or this was constraining creativity, or that was just bad. I have never seen any of these problems in the game before they brought them up, nor had I ever heard anyone complaining of them. They made them up, out of whole cloth, to justify their changes for whatever reason.

I am somewhat tempted to make a comparison to Hitler and his vilifying of the Jews, but it wouldn’t be fair. I mean, in Hitler’s time, the problems actually existed, he just needed a scapegoat. The 4E designers scapegoated stuff for problems that were completely imaginary themselves.

Races

For races, we have the dragonborn, dwarves, eladrin, elves, halflings, half-elves, humans, and tieflings. Dragonborn, eladrin, halflings and tieflings are the new acquaintances. Yeah, even the halflings. They used to be those lovable, larcenous crossbreeds of hobbits and kender, but in the new edition, they’re a race of riverboat-gypsies, and a full foot taller than previously, because apparently a little guy can’t be a hero. Sorry, Frodo.

The dragonborn are scaly Klingons, basically, for those who really want to play a dragon. It’s not an urge I’ve ever had myself or seen elsewhere, but guess it can happen. They get dragon breath, too.

It’s interesting to note that the name dragonborn was first introduced in Races of the Dragon, which, while not being a very good book, did the concept way cooler. In RotD, they were members of other races who were ritualistically sealed into an egg, and they would then hatch and be reborn as champions of Bahamut, the Platinum Dragon.

Now, they’re just the proud heirs of an ancient empire.

Much like the tieflings. In previous editions, tieflings were one of the planetouched races, halfbreeds who had a trace of fiendish ancestry. Not half-blooded, but a generation or a couple removed. Their celestial counterpart were the aasimar. Now, the tieflings are the heirs of Bael Turath, an evil empire whose rulers made pacts with devils and became the first tieflings. There are no aasimar, allegedly because one of the designers couldn’t spell the name.

Amusingly, the half-orc was cut because it implied a rape had occurred, only to be replaced by a devil guy with a tail and horns.

Eladrin, in previous editions, were the chaotic good exemplar outsider race, sort of like elvish angels. They were pretty cool. Now, eladrin are a PC race, taking over the “elves as masters of magic” schtick, while the elf race gets to keep the “elves as masters of woodcraft” thing. Apparently, someone thought it was paradoxical that they could do both, while everyone, including J.R.R. Tolkien, solved the problem with subraces. For those of you keeping track, in 4E, eladrin = gold elves, elf = wood elf.

Dwarves are Gimli, elves are Legolas, humans are humans, half-elves are Tanis. Nothing new here.

Interestingly, the concept of negative ability score modifiers has been dropped. All races get +2 to one physical score and +2 to one mental score, except humans, who only get +2 to one score, which they may choose. Humans also get a bonus feat, a bonus skill, and a bonus at-will power from their class.

The gnome of the previous editions was cut and shoved into the Monster Manual. Interestingly, the 4E gnome seems to be based not on the classic D&D rock gnome, or the elusive and shy forest gnome, or even the Dragonlance tinker gnome. No! It is based on the whisper gnome, from Races of Stone, which I held even then to be a shining example of bad games design, stupid in both concept and execution.

Leave it to these guys to be given a world of options and then unerringly pick the worst one.

Back when the tiefling race entry was released as a preview, there was a bit of noise about how stupid the example names are. Especially the modern tiefling names sound horrible: Art, Carrion, Chant, Despair, Fear, Gladness, Hope, Ideal, Music, Nowhere, Open, Poetry, Quest, Random, Reverence, Sorrow, Torment, Weary.

Yeah, those are pretty bad. However, there’s worse (there always is) - the human female names: Ana, Cassi, Eliza, Gwenn, Jenn, Kat, Keira, Luusi, Mari, Mika, Miri, Stasi, Shawna, Zanne.

Those don’t sound like competent adventurers. Those sound like the new releases for the Bratz toy line - except for Mika, which is a male name in Finland, and Stasi, which was the DDR secret police.

Classes

For classes, we have the priest, the warrior, the hun- sorry, I mean, the cleric, the fighter, the paladin, the ranger, the rogue, the warlock, the warlord, and the wizard.

The classes are all tied to their party roles, a concept copied from MMO’s. You’ve got the controller, who nukes big groups of enemies; the defender, who manages aggro and keeps the monsters off the squishy controllers; the leader, who buffs the entire party and keeps them alive; and the striker, who does the most dps.

All classes have a set of powers. These powers are either at-will, once per encounter, daily, or utility. For the divine classes cleric and paladin, these are called prayers; the martial classes warlord, fighter, ranger and rogue call them exploits, and the arcane classes wizard and warlock have spells. There’s an assload of powers, but still only a small selection for every level, and little variation. Pretty much all powers are combat powers - the useful utility stuff has mostly been moved to the rituals, which have casting times measured in hours or tens of minutes, making them impossible to use in combat. Goodbye, creative casting.

In the classes chapter, the game is kinda schizophrenic. On one hand, the classes jealously guard their schticks to the exclusion of common sense - the rogue can’t sneak attack with a bow, while slings and crossbows are fine, because archery is the ranger’s schtick. So is two-weapon fighting, and nobody but a ranger can do it. Then, on the other hand, most of the powers are pretty much the same. Deal damage, plus something extra, like deal more damage, or move the enemy, or prevent the enemy from moving, or the like.

I wasn’t kidding about that aggro management thing, by the way. The fighters and the paladins have “marking” class abilities. Each round, they can tag an enemy, who has to then attack the fighter or the paladin or take combat penalties or damage.

While I see the sense in taking certain inspiration from MMO’s - they sell well and there’s some genuinely good design in World of Warcraft - it’d be better if they utilised some sense in what to take. See, aggro is a function of MMO’s, developed as an artificial intelligence because there couldn’t be a human being controlling every monster the players come across. However, D&D, last I checked, had a DM. Additionally, the mechanic makes no sense in itself. It’s moronic - Dungeons & Dragons can’t compete directly with World of Warcraft. It should emphasise its differences, the stuff it does better than WoW, instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator and trying to be more like a MMO, an endeavour that is doomed to fail.

The clerics and paladins feel redundant. They’re both described as divine warriors who get their powers from a ritual of ordainment. Their powers are very similar and neither class no longer needs to follow any ethos or code to retain their powers. Also, paladins can now be of any alignment. Both classes’ powers are flavoured for the vanilla good-aligned healer/crusader archetype. The only thing to mechanically differentiate cleric of a goddess of love from a cleric of the god of death is a Divinity feat, which are deity-specific and give new powers. If they choose to take them.

Every class has two build options, which are basically two different ways you can optimise your character, based on different ability scores. For example, the fighter’s options are the great weapon fighter and the guardian fighter. One is optimised for dealing damage, the other for taking it. They’re called “options” and “suggestions”, but really, they’re more or less hardcoded into the system through the power selections. I consider especially amusing that the trickster rogue build is optimised for dealing damage with high Charisma score.

The warlord is badly named. None of his class exploits gives him an army, and because of how “allies” are defined, he wouldn’t be much good leading one. Nevertheless, someone apparently thought the name sounded cool, or something, and decided there’s no chance anybody will confuse it with the warlock - which is strange, since every other part of design seems to assume the reader to be stupid. The warlord is a martial leader class that’s a mixture of 3.5’s marshal class from the Miniatures Handbook and the White Raven school from Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords (which I consider another example of piss-poor design work - which isn’t surprising because they designed it under the 4E design tenets and philosophy, not 3E).

And finally, there’s the wizard, the martial controller. Or not. There’s no wizard. The wizard class is dead. What we have is more reminiscent of the 3E sorcerer - limited in variety but unlikely to run out of magic missiles. As I stated, most of the utility spells like Tenser’s floating disc, or knock, or water breathing have been moved to the rituals section in the back of the book. What’s left for the wizard is just different ways to blow things up, with stuff like a gimped expeditious retreat and shield filling his utility slots.

It’s immensely disappointing. Wizards used to be nothing if not versatile.

Every class has four paragon paths (except the warlock, who only has three). These are the spiritual successors of 3E’s prestige classes, except that they’re not optional, as such - though you can also choose to multiclass, which isn’t worth it. A paragon path is a pile of powers and class features that you get during levels 11-20, which is the paragon tier.

It’s organised in tiers, see. 1-10 is the heroic tier, 11-20 is the paragon tier and 21-30 is the epic tier. At the epic tier, you get to pick an epic destiny, of which there are four. Total. One of them is the wizard-only archmage, another is the deadly trickster for rogue and warlock types, and then there’s the eternal seeker who gets other classes’ powers, and… the demigod. Yeah.

The epic destinies are also campaign enders. Every one of them assumes you to go on a destiny quest and to complete it at level 30. That’s when you become immortal. And the demigod ascends to godhood.

While this stuff isn’t a bad idea in itself, the way the book describes it is immensely cheesy. D&D doesn’t do the high-level, god-fighting stuff very well, from a flavour point of view (and the new edition doesn’t really do anything well from a flavour point of view, but that’s another story). I prefer to use Exalted for that. It retains the proper sense of myth and epicness.

The whole power level seems to have been jacked up from the beginning. A first-level character is already a hero, a power to be reckoned with. Characters no longer grow into powerful individuals, they grow into more powerful individuals. Someone on EN World described this as the death of the Bildungsroman, and I’m inclined to agree.

Skills

Pretty much every change in the game that isn’t for the worse is in this chapter - though I dislike the way the whole system was simplified. Some changes are good. Hide and Move Silently were folded into Stealth, Spot, Listen and Search into Perception and Climb, Jump and Swim into Athletics, among other things. However, beyond these, many of the necessary things were dropped from the skill list. Craft and Profession skills are gone, which annoys me.

Another workable concept is the idea of the passive skill checks. When you’re not actively using a skill, such as Perception or Insight, you’re assumed to default to taking ten on opposed checks involving that skill. Thus, when there’s a monster hiding in the room, he doesn’t need to roll behind his screen, ask for everyone’s Perception modifiers and whistle innocently when someone asks if there’s a monster hiding in the room. This is a useful thing. However, the implementation could be better, as Mzyxplk noted in his own review. With the passive skill defaulting to ten plus modifiers, there’s a 50% chance of doing worse when you’re actively trying to spot someone. This doesn’t really make sense, and defaulting to taking five instead would work better.

Insight, by the way, is the new name of Sense Motive, and also used for disbelieving illusions.

I also like the idea of the skill challenges (covered in the DMG). It works, though it’s hardly the awesome innovation they tried to sell it as. I’ve seen similar things in several D&D adventures before 4E. Basically, the idea in a skill challenge is that there’s an objective and you must net a certain amount of successes with a limited set of skills before you amass a certain amount of failures.

Skills, by the way, have been simplified in execution as well. You gain a certain number of skills you’re trained in at level 1, depending on your class but not modified by your Intelligence. If you’re trained in a skill, you gain +5 on checks with that skill. You get half you character level as a bonus on all skill checks.

Feats

Then there’s the feats chapter. This is a really boring read and I didn’t like to devote much time to it. Here, you’ll find stuff like the Divinity feats, which are the only way to customise your cleric to give off the illusion of your deity choice mattering. There are class feats, which boost your class features and racial feats, which boost your racial abilities. Then there are plain ordinary feats that generally boost your combat ability. The feats are organised into Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers.

The flavour descriptions that 3E feats had are gone. Now it’s only feat name, prerequisite and benefit. I dislike this change.

Here, you will also find the multiclassing stuff. It’s done by feats. First, you pick a class-specific multiclass feat, which gives you skill training in one skill, and a bonus related to the class. The warlord’s multiclass feat, Student of Battle, for example, gives you training with any of the warlord’s class skills, plus a single daily use of the warlord’s inspiring word power (an encounter power that all warlords have). Then, once you have that, you can take power-swap feats at 4th, 8th and 10th levels, to swap your encounter, utility and daily powers with powers from the other class. Once you’ve done all that, at paragon tier, you can skip the paragon path and multiclass instead, effectively taking powers from the other class instead of a paragon path. This means you’ll get four powers from the other class over ten levels.

Personally, I think calling this multiclassing is stretching the definition.

Equipment

On to the equipment chapter, which is a bit of a disappointment. It opens up with armour descriptions. Armour types have been cut down to the light armours cloth, leather and hide and the heavy armours chainmail, scale and plate. All armour types have masterwork versions with stupid names like godplate and starleather for higher tiers.

Then there’s the weapons. The weapon illustrations aren’t as good as they were in the 3E books, but they are more accurate. No strangely curved rapiers here. After weapons comes the mundane adventuring gear, which is just the bare bones, and shamefully lacks the blanket, a necessary tool for all adventurers since the days of Sir Robilar.

Finally, there are magic items, moved here from the Dungeon Master’s Guide, which I think is a good decision, because I’ve checked out the DMG and while it is actually a pretty good guide for a newbie, an experienced Dungeon Master should save his money, even if he, for some strange reason, likes this turkey.

Like with the powers, there’s an metric assload of these, with decent variety in effects.

Interestingly, you can also disenchant magic items with the proper ritual. From this, you get “residuum”, which can be used as currency or a component for certain rituals. This is another WoWism, and one I think sucks. It’s too convenient and easy. Too much like a game.

Adventuring

This is a brief chapter, starting with a note on quests. I dislike the way 4E codifies quests. It reminds me of World of Warcraft with its quest log and promised rewards at the end of it. In a tabletop game, it can lead to constraining imagination, predictable adventures and bad gaming. This section’s counterpart is one that I would excise from the otherwise rather good Dungeon Master’s Guide (along with Fallcrest, but that’s another story).

There’s also a section on rewards - what you can expect for completing encounters, milestones (two encounters without taking an extended rest), quests, and so on. This is bad, because it creates an expectation and may lead to a false sense of entitlement in players. Here, we’re also introduced to the action points, which you get every milestone and can use to take an additional action in combat.

Then there are some tables on overland travel speeds, illumination and breaking doors.

Finally, we get the rules on resting. You can take a short rest of five minutes to spend healing surges, or an extended rest of six hours to heal up completely and regain all your healing surges.

My feelings on this are mixed, but I guess it works. Hit points have always been an extreme abstraction, and I suppose this works just as well as the 3E interpretation. It does change the tone of the game, though, since now characters are never badly wounded or need to recover their strength for long. Any hits you take will be gone by morning.

Combat

Finally, we have combat, the main (and only) attraction of 4E.

The combat chapter is very neatly laid out, logical, and easy to peruse. It’d have to be, you’ll be using it a lot.

The game emphasises combat and interesting tactical setups. It recommends the use of terrain and environment effects. There are intricate rules about movement - shifting, pushing, pulling, sliding, charging, and so forth, and area effects - bursts, blasts, walls…

Thus, if anyone claims you don’t need a battlemap and miniatures to play 4E… well, he may be mistaken, or he may be lying. The game assumes you have all those - and hey, why shouldn’t it? It’s a miniature combat game at its heart. It’d be foolish to pretend otherwise. This is the one and only thing it does well.

I’m not even opposed to using miniatures. I like miniatures. They bring clarity to the field of battle and facilitate tactical encounters.

By the way, when they said they’d simplify the combat, speed it up? Yeah, right. I’ve only eyeballed it, but the amount of variable conditions, bonuses and penalties that shift from round to round and combatant to combatant is much greater than in 3E. Trying to remember all that is difficult, and it pisses people off when they rememer that they had a bonus they’d have hit with two rounds after missing.

Rituals

This is the final chapter of the book. The rituals are magic that anyone with the Ritual Caster feat and proper levels can use. They take long to cast and usually have a cost of some sort. Here are all the useful things we used creatively in combat in the days of yore, now excluded from the field of battle by virtue of taking ten minutes or even hours to cast.

Here we also have raise dead, which is cheaper than in 3E. It costs only 500 gold… for a heroic tier character. For some reason, they’ve made the interesting metagame decision to tie the cost to character tier. Paragon tier characters pay 5,000 gp and epic tier characters 50,000 gp (but then, they have abilities that start “Once per day, when you die…”). It irritates me to no end when metagame elements impinge upon the game world like this, and breaks suspension of disbelief and verisimilitude.

While the rituals themselves are a cool idea, the execution just plain sucks.

After that, it’s just playtester credits, where they misspelled my name, and the index.

In Conclusion

This is not Dungeons & Dragons. Yeah, I know, it’s a cliché, but it’s true. This game is not the Dungeons & Dragons that I know and love. It’s Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures, maybe, and even that’s a stretch. It’s a game for simpletons that abandons all pretense of depth in source material and deliberately cuts itself off from over three decades of its own history in order to pander to the lowest common denominator and attract players of online multiplayer games. It is no more Dungeons & Dragons than World of Warcraft is, or Final Fantasy, or Tunnels & Trolls. The inspiration is obvious, but at its root, it is a different game.

Of the other books, Monster Manual is a travesty, consisting of stats, stats, and more stats, with a sentence or two of background material, at best. This is a game where monsters exist to sit in a dungeon to be killed. The Dungeon Master’s Guide is better, and actually can be recommended to newbie Dungeon Masters - as long as the section on quests and Fallcrest are cut out, because that crap is just embarrassing.

All the crimes committed upon the setting that was Forgotten Realms have yet to come to light, but from the previews we know there will be little left of Ed Greenwood’s intricately woven campaign setting in the books that come out a couple of months from now. I quake for Greyhawk, and have only morbid curiosity for their takes on Ravenloft and Dark Sun, two settings that have been named for possible 4E development and at their very core run against the basic philosophy of 4E. Horror and survival adventure run on character disempowerment, and if you pull that on 4E, there’s really not going to be anything left.

Would I play this? Well, sure, as a miniature combat game. For a roleplaying game, I own, without exaggerating, a hundred better candidates, including all previous editions of the game and several adaptations of the D20 system.

I want my money back.


Make of it what you will...

Note: Review was encountered on James Mishler's Adventures in Gaming (http://jamesmishler.blogspot.com/) Blog

[Azerian Kelimon]

Meh. In order: Refusing to look at the new edition as a single entity BEFORE getting into the backwards compatibility, a Godwinlike, and worst of all, and the one that merited the big Facepalm.JPG, considering ToB poor design. It's one thing not to like it because it doesn't fit with your ideas, but to say ToB is bad is a sure sign of an idiot or a troll.

All in all, just as stupid as John Solomon, only that this one TRIES to be a review and thus deserves to be smacked down with blue lightning.

[Crow]

MAD? You ever tried making Pal/Wiz in 3e? Or monk maybe? That's what MAD is. In 4e you have one primary stat, one secondary (you can live with it even as a dump stat usually) and that's it. All other stats are useful but nothing that gimps you too much if you dump them. If you multiclass, you'll need one more and that's it. You picked up worst example for multiclassing. And even in 3e rangers weren't the best choice for multiclass with wizard. They were even MAD by themselves: STR(no extra source of dmg so you need this), DEX(light armor only so this is what keeps your AC up), CON(never heard of any even semi-optimized build that made this dump), INT(not necessary but helps your skills), WIS (you need decent score if you want to cast your spells), CHA(unless you want to do kinky stuff with animals you can dump this). So out of 6 abilities you cannot dump 4, 1 hurts if you dump it and 1 is useless. And that's even without mixing archery and melee. In 4e you need dex and wis if you are archer, or str and wis if you are TWFer plus int or dex (your choice). And for you to be effective in combat you only really need str or dex.


Dude, you're missing the point. A 3.5 Ranger was slightly MAD, yes, but if he wanted to pick up a few wizard spells, he could do so without needing a maxed out Int score. The 4e Ranger may as well not even bother with multiclassing to wizard because if his Int isn't absolutely maxed, he will never hit with any of the powers. This is because of the systems in-built dependence upon high attributes that tie into attack bonus (which is king in 4e).

[THAC0]

Dude, you're missing the point. A 3.5 Ranger was slightly MAD, yes, but if he wanted to pick up a few wizard spells, he could do so without needing a maxed out Int score. The 4e Ranger may as well not even bother with multiclassing to wizard because if his Int isn't absolutely maxed, he will never hit with any of the powers. This is because of the systems in-built dependence upon high attributes that tie into attack bonus (which is king in 4e).

But the 3.5 wizard is an idiot if he multiclasses to a fighter-type.

Each system has multiclasses that work and multiclasses that don't work.

[marjan]

Dude, you're missing the point. A 3.5 Ranger was slightly MAD, yes, but if he wanted to pick up a few wizard spells, he could do so without needing a maxed out Int score. The 4e Ranger may as well not even bother with multiclassing to wizard because if his Int isn't absolutely maxed, he will never hit with any of the powers. This is because of the systems in-built dependence upon high attributes that tie into attack bonus (which is king in 4e).

Yes, but what exactly is that 3e ranger going to fill his wizard spell slots with. He can fill them with offensive stuff (in which case he won't be able to do much with them because of low DCs and CL for penetrating SR) or he can fill them with utility spells, which now exist in form of rituals. In 3e you just had an illusion of effectively multiclassing with wizard, to be effective you needed huge stats in several atributes, so it wasn't possible. Even if you start with high enough attributes you still face the problem that you can increase only one at a time, which is not the case in 4e.

If you want to effectively build Ran/Wiz in 4e try putting 16 in dex, 14 in int and wis and the rest spread out as you like. Choose archery and increase dex and int whit ability boosts from levels. Your will defense will slightly suffer and your wizard powers won't be as effective as possible, but they will be decent enough to be used in combat.

[Eldariel]

Regarding that "less positive review"; he seemed to try to dig up everything he could complain about and complain about it - he wasn't reviewing the product, he was complaining about the product. That said, I'm actually inclined to agree with much of his theses (although the "female names"- and "stupid scaly lizards"-parts are just a lack of open mind on his part rather than genuine problems; what part Eliza or even Gwenn isn't a perfectly workable female name? What does he mean Warlords and Warlocks could be confused; because of the 'War' in the start? They sound nothing alike), which kind of depresses me, 'cause I'm still going to play 4E and now I may enjoy it less than I would've if I had just turned a blind eye to a good half of the issues.

[Crow]

Everyone's review is going to be slanted one way or the other, there is no way to avoid it. Pro and Anti 4e-ers have both fallen into the fanatical at times.

Anyhow, the Ranger example I was using earlier is not a build to pick up 9th-level spells. 3.5 had builds for that if that is what you want, but I'm talking about the ranger that picks up true strike, silent image, maybe cat's grace or even things like knock or comprehend languages (which he can do in 4e though rituals), etc...multiclassing to wizard to pick up blaster spells is an exercise in fail. The point is, he could get by with a lower Int because he didn't need it. If you multiclass into any class in 4e, you better have a high number in the attribute that class favors or else 3 out of 4 powers you gain from it will be nigh useless.

[Yakk]

Dude, you're missing the point. A 3.5 Ranger was slightly MAD, yes, but if he wanted to pick up a few wizard spells, he could do so without needing a maxed out Int score. The 4e Ranger may as well not even bother with multiclassing to wizard because if his Int isn't absolutely maxed, he will never hit with any of the powers. This is because of the systems in-built dependence upon high attributes that tie into attack bonus (which is king in 4e).

Note that 3.5e Ranger with low int who tries to cast attack spells ends up having save issues, due to the lack of int, and can only ever learn extremely low level spells.

I dunno -- he might swap his level 16 power for Greater Invisibility? (Which, I might add, doesn't require int). His level 15 power for Wall of Ice, his level 25 power for Maze (traps target even if you miss!)...

And he casts Rituals out of combat, reasonably well.

[Artanis]

Looks like the server's doing better. I stopped trying to post for a while in the hopes it'd speed up :smallwink:


I did read the article, thank you. And what I get from it is "You get less options in character creation, but the options during gameplay make up for it". And I disagree, because while more options in combat is a good thing, it doesn't make up the fact that character creation is much more dull now. That's right, options in combat- because the part about skills I disagree with even more. How is any character being able to do everything a good thing? The skill system in 4ed is bad and I won't change my mind on that.
To conclude: yes, options during combat are good, but removing all the tinkering and diversity in character creation is still a huge boop-up and the former don't make up for it sufficently.
Happy now?
Actually yes, yes I am happy now. The entire premise of the article was the difference between number of character-creation options, combat/etc. options, and total options. So in a discussion such as this, talking about one while meaning another is pretty much guaranteed to screw things up.

[marjan]

Anyhow, the Ranger example I was using earlier is not a build to pick up 9th-level spells. 3.5 had builds for that if that is what you want, but I'm talking about the ranger that picks up true strike, silent image, maybe cat's grace or even things like knock or comprehend languages (which he can do in 4e though rituals), etc...multiclassing to wizard to pick up blaster spells is an exercise in fail. The point is, he could get by with a lower Int because he didn't need it. If you multiclass into any class in 4e, you better have a high number in the attribute that class favors or else 3 out of 4 powers you gain from it will be nigh useless.

There are some powers that you can use without necessarily having high int. Still, it's not the problem with multiclassing system. It's problem with wizard powers not being what you want them to be. You would have the same problem in 3e if wizards all had blasty spells spells and spells that don't synergise well with your existing ranger abilities (like Assay Resistance).

[Killersquid]

Regarding that "less positive review"; he seemed to try to dig up everything he could complain about and complain about it - he wasn't reviewing the product, he was complaining about the product. That said, I'm actually inclined to agree with much of his theses (although the "female names"- and "stupid scaly lizards"-parts are just a lack of open mind on his part rather than genuine problems; what part Eliza or even Gwenn isn't a perfectly workable female name? What does he mean Warlords and Warlocks could be confused; because of the 'War' in the start? They sound nothing alike), which kind of depresses me, 'cause I'm still going to play 4E and now I may enjoy it less than I would've if I had just turned a blind eye to a good half of the issues.

Yea, I don't like 4e, but his review gave NOTHING good, not to mention pulled out Godwin's Law not even halfway through.

[SmartAlec]

Yea, I don't like 4e, but his review gave NOTHING good, not to mention pulled out Godwin's Law not even halfway through.

And to cap it all, he hadn't even played the game!

Note to all reviewers: Whether or not you have tried to play the game is a good litmus test of how seriously your review will be taken.

[Crow]

I believe he mentioned being a playtester...

[fendrin]

Crow,

I think you may be overestimating the MAD of the 4e Ranger; particularly the TWFer. Take the PHB suggested Str>Dex>Wis, drop Dex in favor of Int for Str>Int>Wis. You lose init but get a decent score for your handful of spells. Otherwise you're good. Int adds to AC like dex.

The archer is also not that bad off, as they don't really need str. It's nice to have a backup, but not all that necessary.

[Crow]

The TWFer is definately the way to go with the Ranger multi...You are right that he doesn't have it nearly as bad. The Archer Ranger is where it starts to get tight. You will need to pick powers (from ranger or whatever you multiclass into...Warlock could be really good here) that give you movement as part of the power, or shift enemies away from you in order to stay out of melee, becasue if you don't boost strength, you're not going to hit very often. If he does pick up any melee dailies, he will want things that deal something on a miss. I don't believe there are many encounter powers in any class (aside from utilities) that do much on a miss.

[wodan46]

For the record, I've played 4e, and playing it as a tactical wargame is distinctly unfun. Playing it as an RPG IS fun.

Also, TWF is mostly tied to Ranger Powers and not to class features. The TWF features exclusive to the ranger is the ability to use 1-handed weapons as if they were off-hand weapons regardless of whether or not they normally are, which isn't a huge deal really (1d6 for offhand attacks rather than 1d10s).

A Fighter could still multiclass to Ranger and pick up a couple of powers, such as the infamous Blade Cascade. Or they could multiclass to Warlock and use their Con to cthulumance people.

[SmartAlec]

I believe he mentioned being a playtester...

Even worse! Going into the whole thing with preconcieved opinions is not a point in his favour.

[Kizara]

One thing the article makes clear (as well as actually playing the game) is that 4th Ed has a fair amount to offer when it comes to battle tactics and teamwork. Is that something you could take seriously?

Only if its competitive and has a high skill curve: this is why I play DotA competitively.

4e is neither. (see my previous post on why it's easier, and the lack of ability to make meaningful choices makes it uncompetitive)

[Matthew]

Even worse! Going into the whole thing with preconcieved opinions is not a point in his favour.

That doesn't make much sense to me. His review is obviously negative, but why should being a playtester taint his view? I doubt you would say that of playtesters who came away with a positive viewpoint. The guy has playtested the game (to an unknown degree), bought the books, read them through, and posted a negative review. I don't see any problem with that, even if I don't agree with his conclusions. It sounds as though you are having a biased reaction to a negative review.

[Solo]

:smallconfused: And how does that contribute ANYTHING to the thread aside from attempting to be antagonistic?



Don't knock it till you've tried it.


You have a point there... by trying to do EVERYTHING it runs the risk of being bland across the board...

Bardic Knack+Improvisation :smalltongue:


Note that 3.5e Ranger with low int who tries to cast attack spells ends up having save issues, due to the lack of int, and can only ever learn extremely low level spells.
True Strike, Ray of Clumsiness/Enfeeblment...

And then there's just useful stuff like Mount and Identify.

[Kompera]

The NiTessine review is not credible, on many levels. The first being his Godwin, which should to any thoughtful reader of his "review" (more like rant) invalidate the entire thing. The author also fails at basic English comprehension, as his rant about Greyhawk reveals.

“Throughout the 1980s, [snipped] the first campaign settings (FORGOTTEN REALMS and DRAGONLANCE) were released,”

What this says is that Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance campaign settings were released in the 80s. If that is an incorrect statement of fact, then it's fair game to call it out as being incorrect. But to froth at the mouth about how the authors of 4e are either intentionally or incompetently ignoring Greyhawk is just absurd. If you ignore context you can fabricate any strawman you chose to rail against.

[Matthew]

The NiTessine review is not credible, on many levels. The first being his Godwin, which should to any thoughtful reader of his "review" (more like rant) invalidate the entire thing. The author also fails at basic English comprehension, as his rant about Greyhawk reveals.

“Throughout the 1980s, [snipped] the first campaign settings (FORGOTTEN REALMS and DRAGONLANCE) were released,”

What this says is that Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance campaign settings were released in the 80s. If that is an incorrect statement of fact, then it's fair game to call it out as being incorrect. But to froth at the mouth about how the authors of 4e are either intentionally or incompetently ignoring Greyhawk is just absurd. If you ignore context you can fabricate any strawman you chose to rail against.

Greyhawk Campaign Setting: Published 1980.

http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/gh/gh-folio.jpg

Greyhawk Campaign Setting: Published 1983

http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/gh/gh-wogbox.jpg

Dragonlance Adventures First Published: 1987 (adventure line started 1984)

http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dl/dl-hb.jpg

Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting: Published 1987

http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/fr/frbox.jpg

It is just basically ignorant to exclude Greyhawk there amongst the first campaign settings released in the 80s. Not a strawman or a product of a frenzied imagination, just a reasonable observation about which campaign settings they emphasised as "the first".

[Kompera]

Incomplete, yes. Ignorant, no. The context of the quote still makes it accurate (assuming that Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were indeed published in the 80s), even if every campaign setting published in the 80s isn't listed.

To put it even greater context, had TSR published 4,000 campaign setting in the 80s, would it be reasonable to expect that they all be listed in a small quotation in the 4e PHB? No, it would not. As such, even if only three campaign settings were published in the 80s it is not reasonable to insist that all three be listed in the same small quote referencing campaign settings published in the 80s.

Again, the NiTessine froth about Greyhawk was unwarranted, as was most of his rant against 4e.

[Matthew]

I take it you are not aware of the perceived 'marginalising' of Greyhawk that occured after Gygax's ousting in 1985? This was bound to rub the Greyhawk folks the wrong way, and it is ignorant to highlight two campaign settings out of the major three and imply they were the 'first', especially when the one not highlighted is actually the first and the third (Dragonlance) was not even released as a campaign setting.

Of course, opinions are subjective, and one man's ignorant is perhaps another's enlightened.



Throughout the 1980s, the game experienced remarkable growth. Novels, a cartoon series, computer games, and the first campaign settings (FORGOTTEN REALMS and DRAGONLANCE) were released, and in 1989 the long-awaited second edition of AD&D took the world by storm.

[Kompera]

Oh, so now it's "ignorant" because TSR apparently made a corporate decision to not mention a piece of work based on the campaign of the former (chairman? CEO? It's irrelevant, really), and it appears as though this decision has carried through to today?

Really, the argument that they were either ignorant or incompetent in failing to mention Greyhawk becomes even more tenuous in this light.

[Matthew]

No, it's ignorant because it is: A) Wrong (or at the very least misleading) and B) Uncaring towards its Greyhawk fanbase. As I say, though, perceptions of ignorance are subjective. Perhaps we will see this corrected in forthcoming print runs, or perhaps not, I couldn't really care less.

[XenoGeno]

As an unbiased source who's knowledge of 4e is pretty much limited to this one thread (but I am looking forward to at least trying it), here's what I've gathered:

If you want to play a one-shot, run 4e.

If you want to run a campaign, use 3x.


For the most part, anytime I've heard about people having a blast with 4e, they've been running a one-shot. From what I've read in this thread, 4e's lack of character variety seems like it may get boring playing a character for a long time, but in small doses it's more fun than 3x. I'm also interested in seeing if people manage to stay with 4e if there's not much character variety; while I haven't played too many games, I've never played the same character type twice, and I'm sure that there are many others like me who enjoy experimenting with different character archetypes.

However, 4e's battle system would work well for adventures without a need for character development, when all you want to do is fight some baddies without too much thought on anything outside the battle. With 3x, it might take too long to build your characters, especially if it's a higher-level adventure, to get done what you want to get done.

Now I know this is an oversimplification of... well, everything I talk about, but I still think it should be considered.

[Kompera]

A) It is not wrong to exclude one item when discussing several, especially in a limiting format such as a sidebar;
B) It is not ignorant to be uncaring, especially if that uncaring came about from a corporate decision to marginalize the product.

I'll agree with you on one point. Perceptions of ignorance are indeed subjective. I prefer to judge ignorance based on the definition:


1 a: destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>2: unaware, uninformed

In the case of excluding Greyhawk from mention in the context of the quotation from the PHB, I see zero evidence that the above definition applies. To attempt to put it in sharper relief, if excluding Greyhawk is grounds for charges of ignorance, then so is the exclusion of any other D&D product which was published in the 80s, as that exclusion would follow the same criteria of being an incomplete listing under the same rules.

This quotation is from a "sidebar titled “The History of D&D”". A sidebar. It is not reasonable at all to expect a scholarly treatise including every possible element to spring from such a constrained editorial workspace. Any claim to the contrary I would find to be lacking comprehension of the thing specified.

[Swordguy]

As an unbiased source who's knowledge of 4e is pretty much limited to this one thread (but I am looking forward to at least trying it), here's what I've gathered:

If you want to play a one-shot, run 4e.

If you want to run a campaign, use 3x.


For the most part, anytime I've heard about people having a blast with 4e, they've been running a one-shot.

I think you may be partially correct, but let's be fair. It's not like people at large have had a chance to run a year-long campaign in 4e yet.

[hamishspence]

I think the complaint turns on the use of First. If greyhawk was first campaign setting, defining FR and DL after the word First is bound to raise some hackles.

[nagora]

“Throughout the 1980s, [snipped] the first campaign settings (FORGOTTEN REALMS and DRAGONLANCE) were released,”

That is a flat-out lie.

[Morty]

This "less positive article" is really disappointing. The man makes some really good points such as unnecessary and silly changes in the fluff, small variety and choice of powers, patronizing approach towards reader etc. just to ruin his (her?) credibility by making WoW comparisions or devoting big parts of text to discussing purely subjective issues such as races.

[Azerian Kelimon]

As an unbiased source who's knowledge of 4e is pretty much limited to this one thread (but I am looking forward to at least trying it), here's what I've gathered:

If you want to play a one-shot, run 4e.

If you want to run a campaign, use 3x.


For the most part, anytime I've heard about people having a blast with 4e, they've been running a one-shot. From what I've read in this thread, 4e's lack of character variety seems like it may get boring playing a character for a long time, but in small doses it's more fun than 3x. I'm also interested in seeing if people manage to stay with 4e if there's not much character variety; while I haven't played too many games, I've never played the same character type twice, and I'm sure that there are many others like me who enjoy experimenting with different character archetypes.

However, 4e's battle system would work well for adventures without a need for character development, when all you want to do is fight some baddies without too much thought on anything outside the battle. With 3x, it might take too long to build your characters, especially if it's a higher-level adventure, to get done what you want to get done.

Now I know this is an oversimplification of... well, everything I talk about, but I still think it should be considered.

That couldn't be more mistaken. 4e doesn't stunt character development, which is more than 3.5 could say about anything that wasn't a chargemonkey, a factotum, or a spellcaster. With the scope that powers let you cover and the tremendous ease of homebrew, 4e is a bit closer to 2e, both in balance (But even better, as spellcasters don't own over everybody else at high levels) and in ease of concept representation. I'd actually have a long running campaign before making that kind of broad, incorrect statements.

M0rt: True dat. I'd be willing to listen to a negative review, but not with Godwins, and most certainly not from an idiot who considers ToB bad design (A bald faced lie if there ever was one).

[Matthew]

I think the complaint turns on the use of First. If greyhawk was first campaign setting, defining FR and DL after the word First is bound to raise some hackles.

Indeed it does, and yes Greyhawk was the first published campaign setting.



That is a flat-out lie.

I agree, but evidently some people have selective reading ability.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Indeed it does, and yes Greyhawk was the first published campaign setting.


I agree, but evidently some people have selective reading ability.

Hmm...what was the first setting, period? Mystara?

[nagora]

This "less positive article" is really disappointing. The man makes some really good points such as unnecessary and silly changes in the fluff, small variety and choice of powers, patronizing approach towards reader etc. just to ruin his (her?) credibility by making WoW comparisions or devoting big parts of text to discussing purely subjective issues such as races.

I don't feel he made a great deal of the WoW comparison, and the bit he went into detail about (marking) was spot on: that is a programmer's mechanism for simulating AI, and it makes little sense in-character and less when there's an actual DM at hand.

Terrible Godwins, though.

[nagora]

Hmm...what was the first setting, period? Mystara?

Blackmoor, Tekumel (if we're just talking fantasy RPG settings in general, although its original rules were based on OD&D), and the original Greyhawk all predate any publication of Mystara as a setting "package".

[Matthew]

Hmm...what was the first setting, period? Mystara?

The first setting is Greyhawk (first published as Supplement One: Greyhawk in 1974/5). The actual campaign setting was released in 83, though the world gazetteer was released in 1980 (the 3e version is actually a really cool homage to it, though not everyone agrees).

If the text read, "first new campaign settings", it would be no problem.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Hmm...thought so. I knew I was forgetting some setting. Thanks.

[XenoGeno]

@Swordguy: In the first post I had typed up, I had mentioned that we wouldn't know for sure until at least several months from now, likely a year. But my internet crashed and I forgot to include it when I re-typed the post. :smallsigh:

@Azerian: I'm saying that the lack of variety in character creation in 4e, something that even its supporters have mentioned in this thread, seems likely to head towards this outcome. And I don't see what you mean by 3.5 stunting CD unless you're one of those three types. What's your definition of "character development" by the way? And of course I'm going to wait until I play a campaign before I make any final decisions myself. As I mentioned in my first post, what I said was just what people had been saying in this thread, and my thoughts as to what it means.

Sigh... this is what I get for posting at 2 in the morning...

[Dan_Hemmens]

As an unbiased source who's knowledge of 4e is pretty much limited to this one thread (but I am looking forward to at least trying it), here's what I've gathered:

If you want to play a one-shot, run 4e.

If you want to run a campaign, use 3x.


Possibly the reason that most of the 4E Actual Play you've heard about so far has been One Shots has been that, well, the game has only been out for about five minutes and nobody has had time to run a full campaign yet.

People played OD&D for years (indeed, some are still playing it) with only three (count 'em, three) Character Classes to choose from. Not everybody considers mechanical differentiation of their character's abilities to be what makes a PC "interesting".

[Eldariel]

Possibly the reason that most of the 4E Actual Play you've heard about so far has been One Shots has been that, well, the game has only been out for about five minutes and nobody has had time to run a full campaign yet.

People played OD&D for years (indeed, some are still playing it) with only three (count 'em, three) Character Classes to choose from. Not everybody considers mechanical differentiation of their character's abilities to be what makes a PC "interesting".

I think the point is that it's more interesting to play a character when you have mechanics corresponding to your idea of who he is and what he can do, than to talk about X, but being limited to Y. 3.X has the tools to give the proper mechanics to just about any concept; few other systems do without actually making a homebrew class for every character.

[Indon]

People played OD&D for years (indeed, some are still playing it) with only three (count 'em, three) Character Classes to choose from. Not everybody considers mechanical differentiation of their character's abilities to be what makes a PC "interesting".

People still play games on Commodore 64's - I saw a Youtube video of someone who had made a Guitar Hero game for the system.

That doesn't make the C64 the state of the art, and that doesn't mean anyone should take a commercial rerelease of the C64 seriously.

[Matthew]

I think the point is that it's more interesting to play a character when you have mechanics corresponding to your idea of who he is and what he can do, than to talk about X, but being limited to Y. 3.X has the tools to give the proper mechanics to just about any concept; few other systems do without actually making a homebrew class for every character.

For some people, that may be true. For me, it's not, at least in the sense of statistics representing how far a character can jump, how skilled a horse rider he is, or how good a swimmer. Those are not interesting mechanics to me, rather they are a waste of time. However, I recognise that is a subjective preference on my part, other people like the minutia of their character to be numerically expressed and mathematically related to the game.

[nagora]

People still play games on Commodore 64's - I saw a Youtube video of someone who had made a Guitar Hero game for the system.

That doesn't make the C64 the state of the art, and that doesn't mean anyone should take a commercial rerelease of the C64 seriously.

An Aston Martin DB5

http://images.askmen.com/cars/exotic_cars/5_exotic_car.jpg

drove past me on Sunday (no, really!). It's not "state of the art" either, but I can't think of a car I'd rather own.

[LotharBot]

I3.X has the tools to give the proper mechanics to just about any concept...

Core only? Or core plus several years of splatbooks?

In my limited experience of 4e, I don't think it'd be that hard to take most 3.X concepts and rebuild/re-imagine them for 4e. The tools are there to give the mechanics to a wide variety of concepts; 4e looks to be fairly easy for homebrewing.


think the point is that it's more interesting to play a character when you have mechanics corresponding to your idea of who he is and what he can do, than to talk about X, but being limited to Y.

Personally, I like to have my combat encounters have mechanics -- this spell does this much damage to these guys, etc. Both 3.X and 4e have that down. 3.X+ToB gives you a lot of options for certain classes and virtually none for others, while 4e gives every class a few useful and meaningful options. I'd prefer a larger number of options for all classes, but I'm pretty happy with the small but balanced powers in 4e.

On the other hand, I don't like for my fluff to be too mechanical, and that always bugged me with 3.X. If I wanted my cleric to be a master baker, I had to spend skill points on it, and there already weren't enough skill points for clerics. The lack of mechanics for that is, IMO, an improvement -- now I can just say "my dude is a master baker" and not have to worry that I'm destroying my combat abilities by diverting combat-useful skill points. I no longer have to worry that giving my character "color" will weaken his combat options; I can now simply declare that my character has that "color" and play it out by description rather than die-rolling. I consider that a good thing.

[Solo]

On the other hand, I don't like for my fluff to be too mechanical, and that always bugged me with 3.X. If I wanted my cleric to be a master baker, I had to spend skill points on it, and there already weren't enough skill points for clerics. The lack of mechanics for that is, IMO, an improvement -- now I can just say "my dude is a master baker" and not have to worry that I'm destroying my combat abilities by diverting combat-useful skill points. I no longer have to worry that giving my character "color" will weaken his combat options; I can now simply declare that my character has that "color" and play it out by description rather than die-rolling. I consider that a good thing.

DM: Here's 8 lifestyle skillpoints. Spend them on Profession skills that are in your character's background.

[THAC0]

DM: Here's 8 lifestyle skillpoints. Spend them on Profession skills that are in your character's background.

Or...

DM: Describe your character's background.

[fendrin]

DM: Here's 8 lifestyle skillpoints. Spend them on Profession skills that are in your character's background.

...which is a houserule, and thus not applicable to a discussion of the written rules. Houserules can change anything. ("Ok, were playing 4e, but use 3.5 classes instead. Oh, and races. Oh, and I want those crappy grapple rules back." :smallyuk:)

Sure, 4e has it's disadvantages and 3.X has it's advantages, but what you have listed is not one of either.

[tumble check]

On the other hand, I don't like for my fluff to be too mechanical, and that always bugged me with 3.X. If I wanted my cleric to be a master baker, I had to spend skill points on it, and there already weren't enough skill points for clerics.


No, if you want your Cleric to be a master Baker as a neat backstory, you don't need to spend skill points.

However, if you wanted to have him use these baking skills during a campaign, you need to have a system governing it.

Why? Because if your Cleric can start making awesome baked goods that advanced the campaign somehow and there's no crunch as to why, then you're basically playing a freeform RPG.

[LotharBot]

if you wanted to have him use these baking skills during a campaign, you need to have a system governing it.

Completely disagreed.

Turning everything into a die roll is exactly what makes certain sections of the game stupid/boring.

[RukiTanuki]

There may well be a bad assumption that the mechanics we have are the only mechanics we'll ever see.

To ask this in a way I don't see often:

Did mechanics to adjudicate success/failure for bakery, or weapon crafting, or singing, really need to be in the first book?

If so, which page of the current PHB would you have taken out in exchange?

The first books gave me the mechanics, rules, and guidelines I really needed. Best of all, they gave me a decent mechanic (whose math is sound) to handle miscellaneous tasks until such time as any official mechanic exists for those oddball cases.

[tumble check]

Completely disagreed.

Turning everything into a die roll is exactly what makes certain sections of the game stupid/boring.


The thing to which I'm referring is when a player uses his backstory as a mechanic in the game.

Just because because you "said" your Cleric is a baker doesn't mean you should get a +10 or whatever on your Baking check to impress the Duke.

And if you or your DM does allow that, then I can't begin to imagine the abuse that house rule would get.

[Raum]

The thing to which I'm referring is when a player uses his backstory as a mechanic in the game.

Just because because you "said" your Cleric is a baker doesn't mean you should get a +10 or whatever on your Baking check to impress the Duke.

And if you or your DM does allow that, then I can't begin to imagine the abuse that house rule would get.I don't think that's what LotharBot was referring to, he appears to be asking "Why roll at all for every potential skill?" And in many ways I agree with him, if the action isn't material there shouldn't be a roll.

To address your question though, why do you think it would be abusive to add bonuses based on back story? Other games do it successfully as part of the RAW. It also encourages people to write a good back story... :)

[nagora]

The thing to which I'm referring is when a player uses his backstory as a mechanic in the game.

Just because because you "said" your Cleric is a baker doesn't mean you should get a +10 or whatever on your Baking check to impress the Duke.

And if you or your DM does allow that, then I can't begin to imagine the abuse that house rule would get.

I know, if you let your players get away with giving themselves baking skills like that who knows where it will end? Eventually all those pasta-based monsters will have to be re-written!

Seriously, there are areas where we just don't need to waste the paper on having rules for it, the DM's there for that sort of thing.

[Indon]

Turning everything into a die roll is exactly what makes certain sections of the game stupid/boring.

What precisely about making something into a die roll is good?

[tumble check]

I'm completely in favor of neat and interest skills within a character as established in the backstory.

I realize that's what Lothar is talking about. At least I think it is.

But if we can create crunch out of fluff, then my halfling ranger used to be a lookout tower watchman, so he should get a bonus on Spot (or Perception). How about that?

[Human Paragon 3]

As an exercise, I thought I'd make a 4e Baking Challenge that does not require any sort of "Craft: Confectionary" check.


The party is carrying news of a goblin invasion from the west, and need the aid of Lord Marduke III to drive their forces back. The party investigates the town and learns that Marduke freaking loves sheet cake. It just so happens that the party's cleric is a master baker.

The party gains access to Marduke by telling his men that the cleric is the greatest baker inthe land and wants to bake him a sheet cake for the 10th aniversary of the battle of Marduke Valley. The lord agrees to this, because he freaking loves sheet cake, and gives the cleric and his friends access to the kasteel bakery.

Unbeknownst to the party, Marduke's advisor has been paid off by the goblin warlords and forwarned about the party, so he plants minsinformation, insinuates the party wants to poison the duke, and generally makes himself a pain. To make matters worse, the anniversary party has been moved up to TONIGHT instead of tomorow night, giving the cleric just a few short hours to devise and concoct the most delicious sheet cake ever baked.

The cleric doesn't have enough time to do everything so he makes up jobs for the party. He writes a list of rare ingredients that the party fighter needs to track down. The Great Oven is broken, and he tasks the wizard to fix it using a Make Whole ritual. Meanwhile, the Rogue is investigating Marduke's advisor, who he thought was acting a bit suspiciously.

Finally, after everything has been prepared, the sheet cake must be presented to Marduke, following strict protocol, and the party must reveal their alterior motives and ask for the lord's assistance against the goblin hordes.

The above could compose a highly complex skill challenge comprising Streetwise, History, Insight, Diplomacy, Nature, Arcana (in the form of Ritual Magic), Bluff, Thievery and Stealth (in the case of the rogue in the above example). Note that no baking skill is required. It is assumed that if everything else goes right, the cake is delicious, and the Lord will like it because he freaking loves sheet cake. The challenge is in everything else, because in D&D what's the fun of just baking a cake? Best of all, you've touched upon a character's background and made it a central plot point for the adventure, which will make the player happy and hopefully make a memorable gaming session, even if there's no combat at all. Other skills could obviously be used to suit your party. Your mileage may vary. If you use this skill challenge, make sure to tell your players it was a Gaurd Juris Joint. ; )

[fendrin]

I'm completely in favor of neat and interest skills within a character as established in the backstory.

I realize that's what Lothar is talking about. At least I think it is.

But if we can create crunch out of fluff, then my halfling ranger used to be a lookout tower watchman, so he should get a bonus on Spot (or Perception). How about that?

How about you restrict it to skills not already included in the crunch, and the DM (who is making this houserule anyway) uses common sense and makes sure that they don't have the best baker in the known world in their party.

[Tar Palantir]

I must say, a well presented argument (for a change). My first impression is that 4th edition is a lot like Star Wars Saga edition: everythings simpler and more streamlined, but at the cost of the ability to create highly specialized or unique characters. It's a different feel, and although I'm not sure I'll get into it (I get my fix of that kind of play from Saga), having both around is still good. Sometimes you want to play some obscure prestige class with some weird specialty, and sometimes you want to play something more versatile, but less unique. It's like pie versus cake: what people don't realize is that both are delicious. That's my two cents.

[Gamgee]

http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF020-Skub.gif

Let the common sense reign in.

[Helgraf]

I know, if you let your players get away with giving themselves baking skills like that who knows where it will end? Eventually all those pasta-based monsters will have to be re-written!

Seriously, there are areas where we just don't need to waste the paper on having rules for it, the DM's there for that sort of thing.

Ye gads ... we agree on something.

[Dan_Hemmens]

But if we can create crunch out of fluff, then my halfling ranger used to be a lookout tower watchman, so he should get a bonus on Spot (or Perception). How about that?

I'd go one better. I'd allow him to automatically succeed at all Spot/Perception checks which relate to "seeing things coming from lookout towers".

I'd also like to take issue with something you said upthread:


And if you or your DM does allow that, then I can't begin to imagine the abuse that house rule would get.

"Your character is a baker, therefore he can bake" is not a "house rule" (well, it would be in 3.X, where you need a skill for that sort of thing, but not in other games). A "House Rule" is a codified adjustment to the game mechanics, which both the DM and players are expected to abide by.

What you've described is a DM ruling.

I think it was nagora who suggested on another thread that one of the big problems with 3.X was that it shifted the dynamics of play from "you tell the DM what you're trying to do, and he tells you if it works, and might ask you to roll some dice" to "you tell the DM what your character does, with the rules backing you up."

[shadow_archmagi]

I realize I'm probably fairly late here, but the whole "gotta shift through 4 huge books" thing is, well... exaggerated.

Wizards only know every spell ever HYPOTHETICALLY. I mean, what sort of sane DM says "you can use everything ever available to your class."? Might as well tell the fighter he can have EVERY feat. In reality, your average level 10 wizard has about 30-35 spells (18 for leveling up, plus the first-levels and a few copied scrolls).

Admittedly, a list of 35 sounds long, but then you remember that this is divided up over six spell levels, so the wizard's job is to pick 4 spells from a list of 6.

[Dan_Hemmens]

People still play games on Commodore 64's - I saw a Youtube video of someone who had made a Guitar Hero game for the system.

That doesn't make the C64 the state of the art, and that doesn't mean anyone should take a commercial rerelease of the C64 seriously.

The difference is that the C64 is genuinely obsolete. There is nothing a C64 can do that a modern computer cannot do better. In D&D terms, it's like upgrading your Longsword to a +3 Longsword.

Pen and paper games don't work like that. A modern game is not automatically "better" than an old one, the reason that many people stick with the old editions is that they actually consider them to be better games.

[Indon]

The difference is that the C64 is genuinely obsolete. There is nothing a C64 can do that a modern computer cannot do better. In D&D terms, it's like upgrading your Longsword to a +3 Longsword.

Pen and paper games don't work like that.
What about pen and paper games makes it impossible to develop a genuinely better game?


A modern game is not automatically "better" than an old one, the reason that many people stick with the old editions is that they actually consider them to be better games.

Isn't that what many people feel about computers, video games, and as someone else pointed out, cars?

Yet computing, game design, and even automobile engineering have progressed as fields.

[JaxGaret]

Yet computing, game design, and even automobile engineering have progressed as fields.

Have you played any old computer games?

[Indon]

Have you played any old computer games?

Are you trying to say that game design hasn't improved over the past couple decades?

[Raum]

What about pen and paper games makes it impossible to develop a genuinely better game?Absolutely nothing. How are you measuring the games' performance to know when one is better than another? There are known performance metrics for the C64 and newer computers.


Yet computing, game design, and even automobile engineering have progressed as fields.Again, what metrics make you think game design is improving? There are metrics for the computing and automotive industries.


Are you trying to say that game design hasn't improved over the past couple decades?Unless you have metrics showing otherwise, yes.

What has changed the gaming industry over the last two decades are the tools and platforms supporting the games. In other words, computers and electronics. But those merely changed the platforms and presentation. Chess and Go have been the strategy games of choice for millenia. Is either a more compelling game when played on a computer? What new game is so improved and compelling that you see it replacing them?

[Indon]

Unless you have metrics showing otherwise, yes.

Would the number of games being played regularly by a significant group of people qualify? How about the amount of time being spent by people playing games relative to total time that could be spent playing games?

I'm sure I could dig up some anti-video game news article somewhere that mentions such metrics.

[Raum]

Do either of the metrics you propose differentiate by game? If so, do they show a historical trend? How are they separating a game's play from technology? I can see the number of people playing a game being a valuable metric if you can compare game X to game A. I suspect no game invented within the last two decades will come close to older games though. Poker, chess, Monopoly, etc are almost certainly played more than newer games.

I would be interested in any metrics you find though. Who knows, I might be surprised...

[Dan_Hemmens]

What about pen and paper games makes it impossible to develop a genuinely better game?

Nothing makes it impossible to develop a genuinely better game, just as nothing makes it impossible to write a genuinely better book. The point is that games aren't a technology. You can't invent new ways of combining description with dice rolling that weren't possible thirty years ago.

It is not impossible for a modern RPG to be better than an old RPG, but neither is it necessary. The same is not true of computers. A computer built in 2008 will be just flat out better than one built in 1978. Always.


Isn't that what many people feel about computers, video games, and as someone else pointed out, cars?

Yet computing, game design, and even automobile engineering have progressed as fields.

Computing and automobile engineering have progressed in quantifiable ways, there are things that are possible now that were not possible thirty years ago. The same is not true of roleplaying games.

Besides, you're confusing "progression" with "improvement". Cinema has progressed a lot in the past century, so has literature, but it doesn't mean that modern movies, by definition, are better than old movies or that modern books are better than old books.

[Gorbash]

However one thing I'd like to note about 4e's design strategy is, indeed a reduction of overall options... in that in 3.5 it was a little intimidatiing to say "I want to be a WIZARD" and then your DM plops 4 books in front of you and says "Pick some level 0 and 1 spells now." you've now got to sift through 4 books every time you want to pick your spells to put into your spellbook. God help you if you're a Cleric, because then you can choose ANY of them...

Hm that's not intimidating, that's fun... I always get giddy as a little girl when I get an odd numbered lvl with my wizard which means I get to look at all of the new lvl spells contained in 3 books actually (phb, spell compendium and complete mage), and then have to choose which ones will I learn, which one will I have to learn from a scroll, which one will I use, when will I use it etc... Really fun aspect of 3.5 for me.
Being a cleric just makes thing easier, also, since you don't have to worry about learning it, you already know them, you just have to choose which one will you use...

Yes, the article is well-written, but reading it I got the impression that 4ed is a combat-based system, that it makes combat more fun. Has anyone ever actually complained that 3.5 combat is boring?

[Talya]

It's like the writer of the OP never played 3.x edition.

You have almost infinite options in combat in 3.5, and a lot more viable and interesting ones than 4e gives you. Even the lowly single-class fighter, the least interesting for variety among base classes, usually has 3-4 tactical feats (each representing 3 unique options for actions in combat), robillar's gambit, backstab, 3 martial maneuvers, a martial stance, power attack, combat expertise, bullrushing, charging, disarming, sundering, tripping...the list is nearly endless. All represent things more varied and more interesting than "do 2(w) damage and slide the target 3 squares." And every single 4e ability reads the exact same way.

Now, compare that 3.5 fighter to a Crusader, Swordsage, or Warblade, or spellcaster of any kind, and suddenly the already overmatched 4e character's options look nonexistent.

[shadow_archmagi]

It's like the writer of the OP never played 3.x edition.

You have almost infinite options in combat in 3.5, and a lot more viable and interesting ones than 4e gives you. Even the lowly single-class fighter, the least interesting for variety among base classes, usually has 3-4 tactical feats (each representing 3 unique options for actions in combat), robillar's gambit, backstab, 3 martial maneuvers, a martial stance, power attack, combat expertise, bullrushing, charging, disarming, sundering, tripping...the list is nearly endless. All represent things more varied and more interesting than "do 2(w) damage and slide the target 3 squares." And every single 4e ability reads the exact same way.

Now, compare that 3.5 fighter to a Crusader, Swordsage, or Warblade, or spellcaster of any kind, and suddenly the already overmatched 4e character's options look nonexistent.

Yeah. If we consider the Crusader or Warblade Vs the 4e Fighter, they STILL have more combat options.

"Should I teleport 30 feet? Should I bend the shadows into a whip and garrote my enemy from over here? Should I replace my attack roll with a jump check so I can kick my enemy in the head? Should I throw my enemy 5 squares? Maybe I ought to switch to the stance that gives flanking easier."

"Should I add double STR to damage, scoot the kobold 3 squares over, or just get 2[w]?"

Now that I think about it, the 4e fighter is a watered down version of the ToB classes.

[Dyrvom]

One argument for 3.X over 4E that was alluded to on the first page of this thread is that of the latter requiring less "thinking" or personal intelligence than the former. This seems to be much more likely an issue of players having not yet figured out how best to think about strategy in 4E. Since there is no definable threshold of "you are thinking intensely enough to play this game," it is merely a question of how much thought is being applied to a given game on an individual basis. If 3.X gets-you-thinking more quickly and extensively than what you've seen of 4E, my first recommendation is obviously to consider the splat and aforementioned creation/gameplay dynamic inequalities.

But furthermore- and this is the point of this post- is that you take a step back and attempt to re-integrate the less war-gamist aspects of D&D in general into your play style. Stunts and Skill challenges, while pending some purely mathematically-driven errata, mark an enormous change in attitude towards the integration of non-combat and roleplaying with the hack-and-slash core. In 3.X, thinking about what combination of low-level spells could off a mid-to-high level encounter may have gotten intense, and the Power options of 4E are by no means yet comparable to those combos. However, Powers now interact with Skills and Stunts in such a way that spells in 3.X never synergized with other mechanics, aside from broad (and ultimately rule-zeroed) interpretation of certain environmental and high-level effects.

[Balok]

My chief complaints so far are two: it more or less forces you to use miniatures or something that does the same job. You just don't get much bang for your abilities with abstract movement. However, it should be noted that 3.5 trended in this direction, and it is probably true that Hasbro directed this to stimulate ongoing sales of miniatures. If you don't like this approach then earlier editions are for you.

It also seems to me that they've made the classes rather similar tactically, at least based on what I've read so far. They achieved playability over all levels by filing off the high spots and slapping some plastic wood over the low spots and sanding it all real smooth. I just don't see that much tactical difference between the various classes. HOWEVER, and I must emphasize this point: this is a read-only evaluation. We haven't actually started playing, yet, and I'm prepared for that experience to alter my view.

It's kind of a nitpick, but although the PHB is quite long, there is a *lot* of wasted space in the magic items section. Items at every level always cost the same, yet the cost is repeated. The selection of magic items seems more bland, now, too - e.g. no more "flaming ghost touch" swords as far as I can see. But perhaps such things will appear - the 3.x edition did have nearly eight years of published material behind it.

I'm also vexed that Hasbro is trying to force folks to purchase D&D Insider subscriptions by prohibiting or restricting third party software. Note that I'm not saying they haven't got the right - they have - just that I find it to be an odious business practice.

[OneFamiliarFace]

The same is true with many of 4'th edition's cullings. People may argue that by removing features, one reduces problems caused by the features - and this is, on a very primitive level, true. But removing features introduces the problem of needing to reimplement them from scratch, or simply having a less capable game. And implementing game features well should not be the job of a DM - it should be the job of a professional game designer, such as one finds working at Wizards of the Coast.

Whew, there must be some 1st and 2nd editioners rolling in their graves at that one. Part of being a GM in general is making up unique features for your game and working with players to help them create the characters they want. Now, if you don't want to do all that footwork, and are looking for a game that makes it easier to GM in general, then I might suggest 4th edition.

Either way, I for one, am looking forward to the ideas that can come from substituting powers of equal class levels. And to keep people from breaking the system, you can require these substitution powers to be taken by gaining a feat (similar to multiclassing).

And I agree with many posters thus far that the quoted post in the OP doesn't account for these two being very different systems. But I don't think 3rd was ever intended to be an "upgraded" 2nd (nor was 4th supposed to be as such to 3rd). It created and added a lot of never before seen features. SO, I think it ends up being a very good thing that the systems are very different:

If you would like to come up with thrice-templated gestalt killing machines, then there is third edition. If you would like to engage in tactical mastery of the battlefield, then there is 4e. Neither one prevents you from roleplaying any character you wish, because attitudes, dispositions, motivations, beliefs, likes, and dislikes are all pretty much divested from class abilities.

The best thing about a game like DnD is that your old material is never obsolete. You can either use it, and play an old game. Or you can update it, and use it in the new game. I'm only sad a friend of mine loaned, without asking me, half my ADnD books to a shady character who promptly moved away.

What I am curious about is that I have heard very few DMs saying one thing or the other about 4th. If they are, then they are speaking as players. Most of the discussions I've seen deal with player options and not DM kickassery. What do people think of options for the Man himself?

[Oh, and one last thing, I've played with people playing Crusaders and Warblades before... Their turns take FOREVER :-p. That being said, ToB was the best splatbook for players to come out for 3.5.]

[Helgraf]

I realize I'm probably fairly late here, but the whole "gotta shift through 4 huge books" thing is, well... exaggerated.

Wizards only know every spell ever HYPOTHETICALLY. I mean, what sort of sane DM says "you can use everything ever available to your class."? Might as well tell the fighter he can have EVERY feat. In reality, your average level 10 wizard has about 30-35 spells (18 for leveling up, plus the first-levels and a few copied scrolls).

Admittedly, a list of 35 sounds long, but then you remember that this is divided up over six spell levels, so the wizard's job is to pick 4 spells from a list of 6.

Excepting in almost every game I've played or DMed from 2nd edition forward, wizards will take steps to expand that list, even when it means parting with their precious gold, or having to trade spells or run errands or what have you. So those lists get longer a lot faster than the "2 automatics per level" would otherwise indicate (but since as DM I have final approval on all spell seeking attempts, I'm alright with it.)

[Oslecamo]

One thing I loved about 3.X is that they would to to great lenghts to replicate a world as much as possible.

Ok, the job wasn't perfect, and there were plenty of holes but still it's the most complete system I ever saw.

We had stuff such as the average age of monsters, how much heat a fireball produced, how fast did that wind spell go, how much damage you would deal if you left a big rock fall on the BBEG's head, how much would cost the larva of a purple worm in the market and how to properly train it, how to get your character drunk, build traps, produce poisons, the life cycles of monsters, sickness, housecats, etc, etc.

Most players didn't care about all of it, but most of them cared about parts of it.

Thus, 3.X greatly rewarded creativity. Even if playing a fighter, it was a world full of possibilites, and if playing a cleric or wizard, well, the sky was the limit.

This is why 3.X was a hack and slash game only if you wanted, since you could probably achieve your objectives with little fight if you just bothered to think a little. And even during combat you had plenty of ways to win. Yes, 90% of the combat options are inferior to other choices, but 10% of a million possibilities is still a lot, compared to 4e, in wich choices are much more balanced, but they are just too few. A 30th lv wizard knows what, a couple dozen powers at best?

In 4e, on the other hand, all those details are left out. 90% of the powers and abilities just deal damage and some kind of debuff effect. There aren't rules for geting and training larva monsters or how to start a forest fire(or how much damage it would deal), or how to dig under the BBEG's castle, or how to kill someone by droping big rocks on them, or how the hell did those monsters found and reached the party.

[OneFamiliarFace]

In 4e, on the other hand, all those details are left out. 90% of the powers and abilities just deal damage and some kind of debuff effect. There aren't rules for geting and training larva monsters or how to start a forest fire(or how much damage it would deal), or how to dig under the BBEG's castle, or how to kill someone by droping big rocks on them, or how the hell did those monsters found and reached the party.

And that is why God invented the DM :-p. I'm an avid 3.5 DM who is going to move on to 4e for a chance to revamp my creative juices and really start delving into the world I want. I'm gonna let go of the shackles I put on myself (note, I put them there, not 3.5e). And so far, I am absolutely loving monster customization, and the usefulness of creation by power levels rather than monster HD or something else.

I still love 3.5. I'm going to miss my crazy-go-nuts giant spellbook casters, but I don't see any reason why one can't be just as creative in 4e. And it's a fresh start for those of us who have gotten bogged down in using the old system.

Heck, in the Wizards forums, I just found a guy who explained every power he had with his wizard by means of a plant he had created through botany that attached itself to his back. Odd concept, but by the time he was done, I was convinced. (Cloud of Razor Leaves, Sleep spores and all!)

No matter the number of the edition, you've always got Rule 0.

[JaxGaret]

Are you trying to say that [video] game design hasn't improved over the past couple of decades?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

It's been stagnant for a good ten years now.

[Jerthanis]

This is why 3.X was a hack and slash game only if you wanted, since you could probably achieve your objectives with little fight if you just bothered to think a little. And even during combat you had plenty of ways to win. Yes, 90% of the combat options are inferior to other choices, but 10% of a million possibilities is still a lot, compared to 4e, in wich choices are much more balanced, but they are just too few. A 30th lv wizard knows what, a couple dozen powers at best?

In 4e, on the other hand, all those details are left out. 90% of the powers and abilities just deal damage and some kind of debuff effect. There aren't rules for geting and training larva monsters or how to start a forest fire(or how much damage it would deal), or how to dig under the BBEG's castle, or how to kill someone by droping big rocks on them, or how the hell did those monsters found and reached the party.

But the 4th edition character chooses which power he or she uses from the complete list of abilities they have access to, and each one is a viable tactic and a good idea, where the 3rd edition one chooses the only one that can possibly apply to the situation. The problem comes when the one option that can possibly apply to a situation is so very different, and will end the battle immediately. A fighter can disarm, trip, bullrush... uh... drop rocks on people... but when dealing with 80% of the monster manual creatures, none of those options are a good idea, and the fighter is charge-power attacking again.

I tend to think details are the domain of the DM. The DM shouldn't, in my mind, be simply a physics computer, calculating the holy Rules and what they mandate happens within a stimulatory universe, but an arbitrator of a story. I just see the details you describe 3rd modeling as the job of a DM, not the job of a rulebook.

[Previn]

As an exercise, I thought I'd make a 4e Baking Challenge that does not require any sort of "Craft: Confectionary" check.


The party is carrying news of a goblin invasion from the west, and need the aid of Lord Marduke III to drive their forces back. The party investigates the town and learns that Marduke freaking loves sheet cake. It just so happens that the party's cleric is a master baker.

The party gains access to Marduke by telling his men that the cleric is the greatest baker inthe land and wants to bake him a sheet cake for the 10th aniversary of the battle of Marduke Valley. The lord agrees to this, because he freaking loves sheet cake, and gives the cleric and his friends access to the kasteel bakery.

Unbeknownst to the party, Marduke's advisor has been paid off by the goblin warlords and forwarned about the party, so he plants minsinformation, insinuates the party wants to poison the duke, and generally makes himself a pain. To make matters worse, the anniversary party has been moved up to TONIGHT instead of tomorow night, giving the cleric just a few short hours to devise and concoct the most delicious sheet cake ever baked.

The cleric doesn't have enough time to do everything so he makes up jobs for the party. He writes a list of rare ingredients that the party fighter needs to track down. The Great Oven is broken, and he tasks the wizard to fix it using a Make Whole ritual. Meanwhile, the Rogue is investigating Marduke's advisor, who he thought was acting a bit suspiciously.

Finally, after everything has been prepared, the sheet cake must be presented to Marduke, following strict protocol, and the party must reveal their alterior motives and ask for the lord's assistance against the goblin hordes.

The above could compose a highly complex skill challenge comprising Streetwise, History, Insight, Diplomacy, Nature, Arcana (in the form of Ritual Magic), Bluff, Thievery and Stealth (in the case of the rogue in the above example). Note that no baking skill is required. It is assumed that if everything else goes right, the cake is delicious, and the Lord will like it because he freaking loves sheet cake. The challenge is in everything else, because in D&D what's the fun of just baking a cake? Best of all, you've touched upon a character's background and made it a central plot point for the adventure, which will make the player happy and hopefully make a memorable gaming session, even if there's no combat at all. Other skills could obviously be used to suit your party. Your mileage may vary. If you use this skill challenge, make sure to tell your players it was a Gaurd Juris Joint. ; )

Except, what exactly has the cleric done that shows his master baking skills? Don't get me wrong, the challenge is certainly fun for everyone -but- the cleric who does nothing except tell everyone else what to do (basically mimicking the DM or not even having to tell them if another player is the leader).

Really, in the above example couldn't we replace the cleric with -anyone- and have the same outcome? There wasn't anything in there that would make being a master baker help. Indeed, the rogue with no taste and no baking knowledge could in effect do the same thing in the given scenario and be just as successful short of DM fiat.

We have the following challenges:
- Find stuff
- Fix thing
- Prevent interruptions

I mean you could cut the cleric out of the example entirely and replace him with the king's personal NPC baker and it plays out exactly the same. it really has nothing to do with baking besides saying it's a baking challenge. I could say that the king has a thing for tapestries, replace all instances of baking with weaving and it becomes.....

The party is carrying news of a goblin invasion from the west, and need the aid of Lord Marduke III to drive their forces back. The party investigates the town and learns that Marduke freaking loves tapestries. It just so happens that the party's cleric is a master weaver.

The party gains access to Marduke by telling his men that the cleric is the greatest weaver inthe land and wants to weave him a tapestries for the 10th aniversary of the battle of Marduke Valley. The lord agrees to this, because he freaking loves tapestries, and gives the cleric and his friends access to the kasteel weaving room.

Unbeknownst to the party, Marduke's advisor has been paid off by the goblin warlords and forwarned about the party, so he plants minsinformation, insinuates the party wants to poison the duke, and generally makes himself a pain. To make matters worse, the anniversary party has been moved up to TONIGHT instead of tomorow night, giving the cleric just a few short hours to devise and weave the most fabulous tapestries ever woven.

The cleric doesn't have enough time to do everything so he makes up jobs for the party. He writes a list of rare dyes that the party fighter needs to track down. The Great Loom is broken, and he tasks the wizard to fix it using a Make Whole ritual. Meanwhile, the Rogue is investigating Marduke's advisor, who he thought was acting a bit suspiciously.

Finally, after everything has been prepared, the tapestries must be presented to Marduke, following strict protocol, and the party must reveal their alterior motives and ask for the lord's assistance against the goblin hordes.

The above could compose a highly complex skill challenge comprising Streetwise, History, Insight, Diplomacy, Nature, Arcana (in the form of Ritual Magic), Bluff, Thievery and Stealth (in the case of the rogue in the above example). Note that no weaving skill is required. It is assumed that if everything else goes right, the tapestries is amazing, and the Lord will like it because he freaking loves tapestries. The challenge is in everything else, because in D&D what's the fun of just weaving a tapestries? Best of all, you've touched upon a character's background and made it a central plot point for the adventure, which will make the player happy and hopefully make a memorable gaming session, even if there's no combat at all. Other skills could obviously be used to suit your party. Your mileage may vary. If you use this skill challenge, make sure to tell your players it was a Gaurd Juris Joint. ; )

Seems like little more than lip service to being a "baking" or "weaving" challenge. I personally would be pretty insulted if my 'master baker' skills were shown off by nothing I did but based on what everyone else did while I basically sat on my thumbs, and could have been done by anyone.


Now let's consider if there was an actual baking skill. Our cleric happens to be both trained in it and has some feat equivalent of +4.

The party is carrying news of a goblin invasion from the west, and need the aid of Lord Marduke III to drive their forces back. The party investigates the town and learns that Marduke freaking loves sheet cake. It just so happens that the party's cleric is a master baker, with the skills and feats to back it up.

The party gains access to Marduke by telling his men that the cleric is the greatest baker inthe land and wants to bake him a sheet cake for the 10th aniversary of the battle of Marduke Valley. The lord agrees to this, because he freaking loves sheet cake, and gives the cleric and his friends access to the kasteel bakery.

Unbeknownst to the party, Marduke's advisor has been paid off by the goblin warlords and forwarned about the party, so he plants minsinformation, insinuates the party wants to poison the duke, and generally makes himself a pain. To make matters worse, the anniversary party has been moved up to TONIGHT instead of tomorow night, giving the cleric just a few short hours to devise and concoct the most delicious sheet cake ever baked (Giving a -4 penalty for being rushed).

The cleric doesn't have enough time to do everything so he makes up jobs for the party. He writes a list of rare ingredients that the party fighter needs to track down (If the party fighter succeeds in tracking them down, it's a +3 bonus to the cleric's final baking roll). The Great Oven is broken, and he tasks the wizard to fix it using a Make Whole ritual (which if the wizard gets done in time is another +3 bonus to the cleric's final roll). Meanwhile, the Rogue is investigating Marduke's advisor, who he thought was acting a bit suspiciously (and by doing so keeping the advisor out of the kitchen and the cleric's way, thus preventing the cleric from taking a -3 penalty for distractions in addition to possibly discovering the advisor's plotting).

Finally, after everything has been prepared, the sheet cake must be presented to Marduke, following strict protocol (+1 bonus to the roll if done right), and the party must reveal their alterior motives and ask for the lord's assistance against the goblin hordes. Now at this point, the cleric makes his roll. Since the average joe can hit around a 13 we're going to set the DC at 20 for a low level challenge. Our Cleric is coming in with 5 trained +1/2 level (say 4th) + 2 ability +4 feat -4 time +7 if everyone does their job. So he's going to be doing a d20+16 on his roll. On a 4 or better he succeeds. If he gets a really high roll (say finishes with a final roll 30+) the king is going to be so impressed he'll offer extra help. On a failure, the king's going to at best not get in their way and give them the ok, but provide no assistance.

The above could compose a highly complex skill challenge comprising Streetwise, History, Insight, Diplomacy, Nature, Arcana (in the form of Ritual Magic), Bluff, Thievery, Stealth (in the case of the rogue in the above example) and Baking.

Now if the rogue takes this up, he's going to have a 2 untrained +1/2 level (4th still) -4 time +7 if everyone does their job, for a d20+7. His chances of making it are much worse, but not impossible. If the cleric can't do his job of keeping the advisor out of the kitchen, the rogue finds himself with only a d20+4, making it very unlikely that he'll get a suitable cake done.

Now which of those really feels like a Baking Challenge? In the second example the cleric actually gets to do something, everyone can see that they are contributing, they get know how awesome (or bad) of a cake they made, and there's actual benefit to being a master baker rather than just getting to say "I can cook!" and then doing nothing.

Has having a baking skill detracted from the game or role-playing in any way in the second example, or has it instead added to the game?

[Artanis]

THE CAKE IS A LIE!


C'mon, somebody had to!

[mcv]

I guess I really should check out GURPS fantasy, as apparently I don't know what I'm missing.
And if you like archetypes, take a look at GURPS Dungeon Fantasy. It's a set of PDFs availlable from e23.sjgames.com (although I wouldn't be surprised if they're going to publish it in hard copy later this year).

DF takes the (normally completely optional and often ignored) template system from GURPS and makes it compulsory, turning the templates into some sort of classes, although within that template you're still completely free to spend your points however you like. And because it's still 100% GURPS, no character is going to be completely useless (unless you make a serious effort at it), and nobody will overshadow the rest of the group.

If you're not sure if GURPS is for you, you could also take a look at GURPS Lite, which is availlable for free (but doesn't include anywhere near as many options as the Basic Set, obviously).


Also, as far as 2e goes, the problem there is that its not written very consistantly. Part of a good simulation is that its consistant with itself and clean and easy to understand. 2e fails here. There's no reason rules can't be detailed and complex as well as clean and understandable at the same time. 3e for the most part does a good job here in my opinion.
Oh, and "set a D% for the check, here's some examples to help you guess" isn't really giving me very useful tools.

I think I know what you mean. I've always considered AD&D2 a big, convoluted mess which lacked the flexibility of many other RPG systems, although I did like that AD&D2 finally acknowledged that there was such a thing as non-combat skills. D&D3 really surprised me because it was a huge break with older versions. I mean, the original D&D, AD&D1 and AD&D2 were pretty much the same game, just turned into an increasingly more complex patchwork, whereas D&D3 made a clean break and went into a completely different direction. A direction I liked: skills got more respect, and you don't have to stick to a single class your entire life. It allowed for weird mixes and unconventional characters. Its only real problem was that the balance was seriously out of whack, and it looked like you had to plan your character's entire future in advance.

As for D&D4, everything I've heard so far (I haven't seen it myself yet) gives me the impression that it's a brilliant skirmish-level miniatures game with some roleplay elements. And I'd love to play it as a skirmish game someday. But for a serious roleplaying campaign, it just feels way too restrictive and silly.

[mcv]

(Sorry for responding to these old messages from this thread, but I basically finally registered to join in this discussion. Which makes me late. Yes, sorry. And having been ill for a couple of days added to that.)


Are you trying to say that game design hasn't improved over the past couple decades?

If you ask me, game design hasn't improved in the way scientific engineering fields like computing and car design have improved. It has "improved" in the way painting has improved. Or music. Was Van Gogh a better painter than Rembrand just because he lived a couple of centuries later? Is Led Zeppelin now obsolete and surpassed by Britney Spears?

Yes, lessons are learned, new ideas are implemented, but it's not based on some fundamental underlying technology that's steadily improving. The quality of an RPG, like the quality of music or a painting, depends entirely on the taste, skill and inspiration of the designer. Some people love Britney Spears and think Led Zeppelin is for old geezers, others will love Led Zeppelin and think Britney Spears is for airheads with no imagination. Same thing with 3rd and 4th edition. It's a matter of taste and style, and they're very different tastes and styles.

[Talya]

That's an awesome comparison. I can get behind that entirely. 3.x = Led Zeppelin, 4e = Britney Spears.

Woohoo!

[Indon]

I would be interested in any metrics you find though. Who knows, I might be surprised...

Unfortunately, while I've managed to find quite a few metrics on how much time people play games now, and a couple other similarly current metrics, I can't actually find any data of appreciable age to compare it to - meaning that they can't be used to demonstrate any kind of change.

In retrospect, I should have expected this - gaming hasn't ever exactly been a field with well-structured creative processes.


Nothing makes it impossible to develop a genuinely better game, just as nothing makes it impossible to write a genuinely better book. The point is that games aren't a technology. You can't invent new ways of combining description with dice rolling that weren't possible thirty years ago.
You can't invent new physics, either - you can only use them.


Besides, you're confusing "progression" with "improvement". Cinema has progressed a lot in the past century, so has literature, but it doesn't mean that modern movies, by definition, are better than old movies or that modern books are better than old books.

Isn't "progression" usually used as a synonym with "improvement"? I wouldn't say literature has "progressed" necessarily.


Whew, there must be some 1st and 2nd editioners rolling in their graves at that one. Part of being a GM in general is making up unique features for your game and working with players to help them create the characters they want. Now, if you don't want to do all that footwork, and are looking for a game that makes it easier to GM in general, then I might suggest 4th edition.
I wouldn't describe 4'th edition as having much less footwork than AD&D had (except for skill use).


But I don't think 3rd was ever intended to be an "upgraded" 2nd (nor was 4th supposed to be as such to 3rd).
I disagree. 3'rd edition's attempt to encapsulate as much as it could of 2'nd edition while simultaneously expanding upon many features that had been forming since its' creation is clearly indicative of a design iteration designed to expand upon the game.

I would describe the 4'th edition design process, however, as, "Get back to the basics," with the basics being a tactical game. I can see where that would be described as not being an upgrade, and instead a restructuring (And even then, some aspects of the system could be argued to be upgrades to their 3'rd edition counterparts - yet again I'll cite the trap system).


The best thing about a game like DnD is that your old material is never obsolete.

No, this is the best thing about tabletop gaming. The best thing about D&D is massive third-party support.


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

It's been stagnant for a good ten years now.

As slightly off-topic as talking about specifically video game design is, I'm curious as to why you think that video game design hasn't progressed this decade but has progressed in decades prior.


If you ask me, game design hasn't improved in the way scientific engineering fields like computing and car design have improved.
Humans are still the same creatures we were a hundred years ago, and yet leadership and management have improved. No, not in the way that S&T fields have improved - more in the way that game design would improve (and I might be able to demonstrate that it has, if you give me a couple decades for a relevant database to build up regarding it, heh).

[kjones]

Actually, Tayla, the comparison was that newer editions are not a significant improvement over Original D&D, which only had 3 "character options"... and still managed to be a hell of a lot of fun. A bazillion different ways to stat out a character does not a fun RPG make.

[Atanuero]

Ok, folks, sorry to stick this long-winded pin into your otherwise very interesting discussion of D&D cross-edition ideological goals, but pretty much all of you are forgetting some key facts.

- When 3.0 came out, the D&D community at large experienced an emotion that in other places would be called incentive to riot, and yet, as it turned out, almost everybody eventually switched to 3.X and we now look down upon those that don't, although I'll bet that many of you from around then were saying that you'll never so much read the 3.0 PHB.

- Now, the last point may be based on fairly tenuous information, but this one I'm almost sure of. For one reason or another, and usually for all of them, NOBODY (not one of you) stuck to RAW when you sat down with your gaming group to play 3.X past the first few times when you were first getting used to it. None of you. Everyone had their homebrew, because the rules didn't make sense for you or you didn't like them or whatever. You altered your personal game in order to have more fun, and this system worked out great for all of you in the end.

Now, I realize that I'm invoking the 'rule 0 fallacy' as someone (Alexandrian?) said before, and that is 'If you can fix it by houseruling, then it's fine to begin with.' Well, people, guess what? If you did fix it with a houserule, and your houserule has indeed fixed the problem, and everyone who didn't like that particular rule fixed it with their own customized houserule, then the quality of the rule as printed is now a technicality. It seems that on the night of the 4.0 PHB release, everyone forgot how well this system worked for them in 3.5, where every player and their half-dragon half-drow mother would houserule everything that came off of the WotC printers.

Also, people, to point out another fact: it is completely impossible for WotC to playtest every encounter/character a munchkin/optimizer/whatever is going to think of, because of the open-ended nature of the genre. We play a game limited only by our imaginations here, folks, and as such it's silly to expect the guys down at Wizards to have forseen even 1/10 of what the Gitp or the CharOps forums can put out in a week. When a new splatbook or edition comes out, hundreds of people rush home with it and then pull all-nighters trying to break the rules, and guess what? Given the average intellegence of the D&Der (hint: it's high), they're likely to succeed. In fact, the only reason computer games like WoW don't suffer from this problem as much is because the game itself limits what the players can do.

So before you bash this rule or that splatbook or 4th ed in general (which is a very silly thing to do for a number of reasons), please realize that not only is WotC doing what they can with what they have, but the problem may not lie exclusively with them.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Isn't "progression" usually used as a synonym with "improvement"? I wouldn't say literature has "progressed" necessarily.


No, it's not.

"Progression" is, quite simply, going from the thing that came first to the things that came after. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is a linear progression, but 5 is not "better" than 2.

[Indon]

No, it's not.

"Progression" is, quite simply, going from the thing that came first to the things that came after. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is a linear progression, but 5 is not "better" than 2.

Hmm, a good point, consider it conceded.

[Previn]

- When 3.0 came out, the D&D community at large experienced an emotion that in other places would be called incentive to riot, and yet, as it turned out, almost everybody eventually switched to 3.X and we now look down upon those that don't, although I'll bet that many of you from around then were saying that you'll never so much read the 3.0 PHB.

I don't recall such an outrage, I do recall some people not wanting to switch, but no where near the revulsion that 4th has caused. In fact I liked what 3.0 did when it came out. I've been playing since the 1st boxed edition of D&D, I find that 3.x has been the most coherent, comprehensive and well laid out version presented thus far.


- Now, the last point may be based on fairly tenuous information, but this one I'm almost sure of. For one reason or another, and usually for all of them, NOBODY (not one of you) stuck to RAW when you sat down with your gaming group to play 3.X past the first few times when you were first getting used to it. None of you. Everyone had their homebrew, because the rules didn't make sense for you or you didn't like them or whatever. You altered your personal game in order to have more fun, and this system worked out great for all of you in the end.

I have always used the rules as written. I don't think I've ever actually house ruled anything in 3.x unless I didn't know where to find it and just wanted to keep the game moving or it didn't exist. So saying that no one has done something is very short sited and probably disproves your own argument without anything else needing to be said.


Now, I realize that I'm invoking the 'rule 0 fallacy' as someone (Alexandrian?) said before, and that is 'If you can fix it by houseruling, then it's fine to begin with.' Well, people, guess what? If you did fix it with a houserule, and your houserule has indeed fixed the problem, and everyone who didn't like that particular rule fixed it with their own customized houserule, then the quality of the rule as printed is now a technicality. It seems that on the night of the 4.0 PHB release, everyone forgot how well this system worked for them in 3.5, where every player and their half-dragon half-drow mother would houserule everything that came off of the WotC printers.

Uh... what? I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.


Also, people, to point out another fact: it is completely impossible for WotC to playtest every encounter/character a munchkin/optimizer/whatever is going to think of, because of the open-ended nature of the genre. We play a game limited only by our imaginations here, folks, and as such it's silly to expect the guys down at Wizards to have forseen even 1/10 of what the Gitp or the CharOps forums can put out in a week. When a new splatbook or edition comes out, hundreds of people rush home with it and then pull all-nighters trying to break the rules, and guess what? Given the average intellegence of the D&Der (hint: it's high), they're likely to succeed. In fact, the only reason computer games like WoW don't suffer from this problem as much is because the game itself limits what the players can do.

What does this have to do with the argument between 4th and 3.x? 4th has it's own broken things (Blade Cascade, the blood mage ability), WoW has had broken things as well (Reckoning bombing raid bosses down with 2 players? Low level rogues with high agility being immune to lvl 60 players attacks). Everything has these problems.


So before you bash this rule or that splatbook or 4th ed in general (which is a very silly thing to do for a number of reasons), please realize that not only is WotC doing what they can with what they have, but the problem may not lie exclusively with them.

A lot of us don't see them doing what they can with what they have. There was a massive amount of more material in the 3.0 PHB than in the 4th on, same for the DMG and MM.

In fact the quality of the 3.x MM and the 4th MM bespeaks volumes about the way the game is to be played. In 3.x the monsters had flavor, they had tactics and things they would do outside of combat. You could advance them, you could have the players play them, a monster used the same rules as the players did, the world worked them same for them.

In 4th, they are little more than stat blocks for the players to destroy. THey do not share the same rules as the players do on all but the most rudimentary of levels. Dragons are the worst of this in my opinion, they basically have no abilities, and the flavor text included with them? Pathetic.

I don't want everything about my creatures to fit on a 2.5" card because there is no room for anything but the most basic creatures in doing so. I find this same mentality pervades most of 4th.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I have always used the rules as written. I don't think I've ever actually house ruled anything in 3.x unless I didn't know where to find it and just wanted to keep the game moving or it didn't exist. So saying that no one has done something is very short sited and probably disproves your own argument without anything else needing to be said.

Wait... you actually used the 3e Diplomacy RAW? How'd that work out for you?

[JaxGaret]

As slightly off-topic as talking about specifically video game design is, I'm curious as to why you think that video game design hasn't progressed this decade but has progressed in decades prior.

Video game technology has improved, but video game design hasn't IMO.

They're still releasing the same games they were 10 years ago. There was better game design in any single year of the late 80s or 90s than there have been in the past five years combined.

Yes, I am a video game grognard.

[Previn]

Wait... you actually used the 3e Diplomacy RAW? How'd that work out for you?

Fine because my players weren't out to abuse the rules of the game, but to have fun. I suppose you can basically have the players who want to play, or you can have the players who want to win.

Just because Pun-Pun can exist doesn't mean every player wants to play him. In the cases where we have used it, we simply haven't included the epic use, nor has anyone focused on getting a regular +58 to diplomacy checks for the the ability to change a hostile combatant to helpful in combat. Diplomacy also isn't effective against everything, so even if someone did, the DM has some leway in shifting encounters to favor those things that would ignore diplomacy.

Is it perfect? No. Is it useable as is in a normal game without breaking the game? Undeniably yes.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Fine because my players weren't out to abuse the rules of the game, but to have fun. I suppose you can basically have the players who want to play, or you can have the players who want to win.

Did anyone try to make a character that was good at Diplomacy? To move from Hostile to Indifferent he'd just need a 25 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm), which a 2nd level Bard with 18 CHA and Skill Focus (Diplomacy) would just need a 13+ to make. If he also took Bluff then he'd need a 11+, and Knowledge (Nobility) makes it a 9+. That's enough to stop rampaging hordes from attacking you, as Rich points out (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html).

That's not exactly Pun-Pun.

Now, your players may never have tried that because it's a stupid rule and you would probably have houseruled that it didn't work. I applaud you and your players for ignoring the stupid RAW, but that doesn't make it go away.

[nagora]

Whew, there must be some 1st and 2nd editioners rolling in their graves at that one.
Hey! I ain't dead yet!

The best thing about a game like DnD is that your old material is never obsolete. You can either use it, and play an old game. Or you can update it, and use it in the new game. I'm only sad a friend of mine loaned, without asking me, half my ADnD books to a shady character who promptly moved away.
:smallfrown:

[mcv]

You can't invent new physics, either - you can only use them.
You can discover new physics, and develop new engineering. They're "hard", measurable, testable. Stuff like writing, painting and game design aren't. They're mostly a matter of taste.


I disagree. 3'rd edition's attempt to encapsulate as much as it could of 2'nd edition while simultaneously expanding upon many features that had been forming since its' creation is clearly indicative of a design iteration designed to expand upon the game.
I think 3rd edition was mostly intended to be a drastic cleanup of 2nd edition. 2nd had grown into a big, unwieldy patchwork of uncountable little individual rules with no real underlying system. 3rd edition introduced an underlying system on which everything else was based. And 3rd edition also tried to be a bit more "modern", with more emphasis on skills and more than just combat.
It was a noble attempt, but in some ways not entirely successful.

3rd edition was also IMO a completely different game with an old name slapped onto it, whereas the original D&D and AD&D1 and 2 were evolutionary versions of the same game.


I would describe the 4'th edition design process, however, as, "Get back to the basics," with the basics being a tactical game. I can see where that would be described as not being an upgrade, and instead a restructuring
That's just it. It is a tactical game, and not a lot more than that. Now D&D has always been mostly about combat (including D&D3), so in a sense it's perfectly understandable that they consider combat, combat options, combat performance and combat roles the center of the system. But D&D3 suggested a new direction where non-combat stuff also got some love, and interesting non-combat characters and non/low-combat campaigns became a possibility (whether that was WotC's intention or not), so it's quite understandable that a lot of people are a bit upset now that that new direction has been abandoned.


Humans are still the same creatures we were a hundred years ago, and yet leadership and management have improved. No, not in the way that S&T fields have improved - more in the way that game design would improve (and I might be able to demonstrate that it has, if you give me a couple decades for a relevant database to build up regarding it, heh).
Yet there's still a lot of really bad leadership and management around (my wife's predecessor at her current job thought that shouting at underlings was a good idea, so now she has to fix/undo a lot of the damage he did). Similarly, while on average game design improves, there's still quite a lot of crap around.

Ofcourse people learn. People try new stuff, recognise good ideas, see what works and what doesn't, and try to improve on the good things. But that doesn't make every improvement good. In many ways, 3rd was a huge improvement on older editions, but it also has enormous problems. 4th edition improves a lot on some of those problem areas, but throws away entire parts of the game that 3rd was so goood at.

For me, I prefer games that are not entirely about combat, where the balance between PCs is not determined by whether they all get they're chance to shine during combat. I want everybody to get a chance to shine in the story, in the great variety of different situations and encounters in which they end up. I want the fighters to shine in combat (I don't like rogues doing more damage, or spellcasters with mostly direct damage spells), I want the social types to shine in social encounters, I want the investigation and knowledge types to shine in mystery and investigation situations. I want spellcasters to shine in mystical and arcane matters, in encounters with mysterious forces, problems that require a supernatural solution, or in out-of-the-box solutions that couldn't possibly be reproduced by people without magical abilities. I want PCs to shine because of their special contacts, their interesting background, some utterly useless skill that saves the group from some odd situation, or anything else that makes them different from the rest of the group.

Ofcourse that kind of play requires a lot more involvement from the DM than simply playing the monsters. It requires him to know what makes each PC special and unique, work plot hooks into that, rework encounters to fit them, and make sure everybody gets his moment in the limelight. This is a lot more work, but IMO also a lot more rewarding.

[mcv]

Did anyone try to make a character that was good at Diplomacy? To move from Hostile to Indifferent he'd just need a 25 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm),
He'd need a 25 and a chance to negotiate, which hostile people aren't always willing to give you.

But IMO, any significant change resulting from a Diplomacy check should also be a credible deal. If someone gets paid lots of money to attack you, but will get killed and have his family tortured when he doesn't, there's not really much of a deal that you can offer him, is there? But if you can think of one (convince him that he will lose the fight if he attacks, but you'll try to save his family if he doesn't), then go ahead and try your Diplomacy.

There are many situations where Diplomacy can't do anything for you, whereas Bluff can. And vice versa.

[Oracle_Hunter]

He'd need a 25 and a chance to negotiate, which hostile people aren't always willing to give you.

But IMO, any significant change resulting from a Diplomacy check should also be a credible deal. If someone gets paid lots of money to attack you, but will get killed and have his family tortured when he doesn't, there's not really much of a deal that you can offer him, is there? But if you can think of one (convince him that he will lose the fight if he attacks, but you'll try to save his family if he doesn't), then go ahead and try your Diplomacy.

There are many situations where Diplomacy can't do anything for you, whereas Bluff can. And vice versa.

Very true, but it's not RAW. Under RAW, if you could speak the language, then you could use Bluff, Diplomacy, etc. Throwing situational modifiers is all well and good, but you weren't supposed to use more than +/- 2, and banning social rolls when they are clearly capable of being used is hardly RAW.

My point is just that the 3e Diplomacy RAW is stupid (I mean, by your logic, when would you ever be able to use Diplomacy on Hostile opponents?) and nobody used it RAW for that reason. No failure on their part - they were just capable of playing a Pen & Paper game instead of a computer game :smalltongue:

[Previn]

Very true, but it's not RAW. Under RAW, if you could speak the language, then you could use Bluff, Diplomacy, etc. Throwing situational modifiers is all well and good, but you weren't supposed to use more than +/- 2, and banning social rolls when they are clearly capable of being used is hardly RAW.

Could you point out where language is part of the requirements? Out of combat, well it doesn't really matter too much anyways. Helpful NPCs may still not do much...

PC: Ok, now let us into the castle!
NPC: Well, I'd like to friend, but I've got a job. Tell you what to do though, go talk to Messias, the captain of the guard, tell him I sent you and that he should draw up the papers for a formal pass, then, I can let you in!
PC: But... that's not helpful!
DM: Sure it is, now you know how to get in.

In combat, I would say that most people would have to be moved to at least friendly before stopping attacks, even assuming they're willing to listen. Indifferent gets people killed during muggings. :P


My point is just that the 3e Diplomacy RAW is stupid (I mean, by your logic, when would you ever be able to use Diplomacy on Hostile opponents?) and nobody used it RAW for that reason. No failure on their part - they were just capable of playing a Pen & Paper game instead of a computer game :smalltongue:

Why go into the old abandoned building to hunt down the vampires when you can just burn the building down? Again, attitude and what you want from the game. If you have to break the game, then yes, diplomacy may cause problems from some DMs.

It seems to work fine for a normal game to me though.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Could you point out where language is part of the requirements? Out of combat, well it doesn't really matter too much anyways. Helpful NPCs may still not do much...

PC: Ok, now let us into the castle!
NPC: Well, I'd like to friend, but I've got a job. Tell you what to do though, go talk to Messias, the captain of the guard, tell him I sent you and that he should draw up the papers for a formal pass, then, I can let you in!
PC: But... that's not helpful!
DM: Sure it is, now you know how to get in.

In combat, I would say that most people would have to be moved to at least friendly before stopping attacks, even assuming they're willing to listen. Indifferent gets people killed during muggings. :P

Well, I was willing to give you a language requirement, but you're right - it's not written there. I guess you can use Diplomacy on all non-Mindless creatures... though I don't see a requirement there either. :smalltongue:

As for the rest - you're right too. We only have the brief guidelines here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) as to what they mean. However, I'm pretty sure an "indifferent" foe will break off an attack if you can be a credible threat - after all, muggers generally do run off if you pull a gun on them. That's why "hostile" says "Will take risks to hurt you."

My point was just that, using 3e Diplomacy RAW, it was easy for even well-intentioned party members to totally screw up an adventure unless you houseruled that the skill doesn't work that way or the PCs willingly refused to use the rules to achieve absurd (but RAW) outcomes. That is the same as making a houserule, in a way, and the more often you have to ignore the system to make it work, the less you can say that it works fine (the famous Rule 0 Fallacy).

[mcv]

Very true, but it's not RAW. Under RAW, if you could speak the language, then you could use Bluff, Diplomacy, etc. Throwing situational modifiers is all well and good, but you weren't supposed to use more than +/- 2, and banning social rolls when they are clearly capable of being used is hardly RAW.

My point is just that the 3e Diplomacy RAW is stupid
I agree there. But using pure RAW without even the slightest bit of common sense turns any RPG stupid (though admittedly D&D more so than most). My point is that a decent DM with an ounce of common sense wouldn't need a special house rule to prevent that kind of abuse. It simply wouldn't happen in the first place, because it's roleplaying, not wargaming.

If you treat D&D as a wargame (and some, including WotC, it seems, seem to think it is), then yes, Diplomacy is completely broken.


(I mean, by your logic, when would you ever be able to use Diplomacy on Hostile opponents?)
The Firefly episode Out Of Gas has an excellent example of this: the crew is on a planet, threatened at gunpoint by some bandits. The Captain starts chatting with one of them, hints that he's very badly paid by those bandits and he'd get a bigger share and a private room if he were to switch sides, and the bandit switches sides, points his gun at the other bandits, and joins the crew.

The fact that they're Hostile doesn't mean that they're already busy attacking you, it's just that it seems in their current best interest to harm your interests. If you manage to make it in their interest to help you, that's Diplomacy. If you manage to make them believe temporarily it's in their interest to help you, even when it really isn't, that's Bluff. Diplomacy is likely to cost you something in return, Bluff is likely to blow up in your face.

That, in a nutshell, is how social skill checks should work IMO. Although personally I think D&D should have a lot more social skills. Take a look at GURPS for a much more thoroughly approach to social situations.

[Previn]

As for the rest - you're right too. We only have the brief guidelines here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) as to what they mean. However, I'm pretty sure an "indifferent" foe will break off an attack if you can be a credible threat - after all, muggers generally do run off if you pull a gun on them. That's why "hostile" says "Will take risks to hurt you."

Except that, hostile is subjective. An indifferent mugger is likely to try and shoot you if you try and pull a gun out (minimal risk to him in doing so, possibly more risk if he tries and runs and you decide to shoot him in the back). Takes risks would be more along the lines of you pull a gun out and they decide to charge 15' and try stab you with a knife before you shoot him. Again, the DM is the arbitrator of what exactly indifferent means.


My point was just that, using 3e Diplomacy RAW, it was easy for even well-intentioned party members to totally screw up an adventure unless you houseruled that the skill doesn't work that way or the PCs willingly refused to use the rules to achieve absurd (but RAW) outcomes. That is the same as making a houserule, in a way, and the more often you have to ignore the system to make it work, the less you can say that it works fine (the famous Rule 0 Fallacy).

No, you're missing the point that it is not easy to screw up adventures with it. In fact you haven't shown anything remotely resembling that. You just agreed with everything I said above, which involved no house ruling or PC limiting themselves. You haven't show it to break the game in anyway yet, and keeping saying that we need house rules to fix it, when we clear don't.

In fact your example:
Did anyone try to make a character that was good at Diplomacy? To move from Hostile to Indifferent he'd just need a 25, which a 2nd level Bard with 18 CHA and Skill Focus (Diplomacy) would just need a 13+ to make. If he also took Bluff then he'd need a 11+, and Knowledge (Nobility) makes it a 9+. That's enough to stop rampaging hordes from attacking you, as Rich points out.

To stop rampaging hordes would in fact take closer to a 35 assuming no other modifiers, and that assumes that the horde is willing to listen. Even give a non-combat situation, in your above example, you have a less than 50% chance to make the check with an 18, a feat and about 12(?) skill points. Yes, the can get it higher, but as Richard pointed out: They have a new mood; great, what does that mean? In reality, it means whatever the DM says it means.

You keep making claims that it's unusable RAW, but I have yet to see you make an compelling argument that backs that statement up.

[mcv]

Except that, hostile is subjective. An indifferent mugger is likely to try and shoot you if you try and pull a gun out (minimal risk to him in doing so, possibly more risk if he tries and runs and you decide to shoot him in the back). Takes risks would be more along the lines of you pull a gun out and they decide to charge 15' and try stab you with a knife before you shoot him. Again, the DM is the arbitrator of what exactly indifferent means.
I have no idea how exactly D&D defines "hostile", but if you ask me, threatening and robbing someone is by definition hostile. A mugger that's indifferent to you is one that's robbing someone else.

According to the definition of the Diplomacy skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm), the attitudes are:

Hostile - Will take risks to hurt you - Attack, interfere, berate, flee
Unfriendly - Wishes you ill - Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult
Indifferent - Doesn’t much care - Socially expected interaction
Friendly - Wishes you well - Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
Helpful - Will take risks to help you - Protect, back up, heal, aid

And if you ask me, confronting someone directly with your hostility by robbing him, is by definition "taking risks". He just made an enemy. You might call the police on him, use violence to defend yourself, take the law into your own hand, etc.

The trend I see in that table is that "hostile" means you're willing to show your animosity in his face, whereas "unfriendly" means you're only doing it behind his back. Look at the list: "Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult." "Insult" is the only directly confronting action listed. All others are indirect.

Threatening someone with violence and taking his stuff is way too direct to count as unfriendly or indifferent. It can only be hostile. "Willing to take risks" does not mean "suicidal", it means "willing to suffer any kind of negative backlash". Probably because he feels the gains from that direct confrontation (which might simply be an angry villager shouting that you hoodlums should leave the village) are worth the risk of the negative backlash.

[Oracle_Hunter]

You keep making claims that it's unusable RAW, but I have yet to see you make an compelling argument that backs that statement up.

That's cool. If neither mine nor Mr. Burlew's arguments sway you, then there's no need to convince you. I could pull out the BBEG who summarily puts LV 9 Bards to death lest they convert him to the side of Good by turning his hostility to friendliness.

This is ultimately a question of semantics. I say if you don't play by RAW then you must be using a houserule. You say that if the situation never comes up because the players never try to use diplomacy according to RAW, then you are playing by RAW.

How about you tell me how a standard Diplomacy encounter works for you then. We'll go with PCs confronting the Evil Wizard in his inner sanctum, the PCs pleading for their lives before the Evil Duke, and the PCs facing down a Pit Fiend who was about to go slaughter some innocents. In each case, combat has not started.

[TSGames]

It is a very well written post on the subject of the differences between 4e and 3e. Having DMed many 3.5 campaigns, and one 4e campaign for about a month now: there is nothing I can disagree with in the quoted post. Less character creation options, more combat options. Thank you for posting it.

[Previn]

That's cool. If neither mine nor Mr. Burlew's arguments sway you, then there's no need to convince you. I could pull out the BBEG who summarily puts LV 9 Bards to death lest they convert him to the side of Good by turning his hostility to friendliness.

It's not charm person, or some change alignment spell. In the case of the above BBEG, it could simply mean that rather than torturing you for days, he'll grant you a quick death, the final outcome is always in the hands of the DM.

I'll say it again for the emphasis: the final outcome is always in the hands of the DM. How is a friendly or neutral target going to act? Are there rules to cover this? No, just guidelines.


This is ultimately a question of semantics. I say if you don't play by RAW then you must be using a houserule. You say that if the situation never comes up because the players never try to use diplomacy according to RAW, then you are playing by RAW.

I said that my players don't go around abusing it trying to convert everyone, don't go around trying to get +60 to skill, and don't assume that Diplomacy works all the time, which there isn't a reason to assume. They use it just fine without having to have a house rules or it breaking the game.


How about you tell me how a standard Diplomacy encounter works for you then. We'll go with PCs confronting the Evil Wizard in his inner sanctum, the PCs pleading for their lives before the Evil Duke, and the PCs facing down a Pit Fiend who was about to go slaughter some innocents. In each case, combat has not started.

I tell the player to roll for their diplomacy check, decide if the creature can be swayed or not which is also part of if the creature is capable of being negotiated with (golems and magical beasts for example would not be covered, magically compelled creatures and reasons for the task in the first place), assign appropriate modifiers (which you should do for all skills), compare results to the chart and decide if the basic DCs (which skill notes that those are) are appropriate and then... and this is the big one... decide what the attitude change, if any, means in that context.

Evil Wizard? Not enough info one the situation to tell what might happen.
PC pleading for their lives with the Evil Duke? "I'll aid you and spare you lives. For the rest of your lives you'll work the pepper mines instead!"
Pit Fiend? Not enough info. If you're referring to getting him to not slaughter innocents? He'll make a deal, but he has to kill some innocents, so it's just the next village over instead of this one.

Again, for a DM this isn't really a problem since the skill is so subjective compared to the static "Instant alignment change and charm person" you seem to want it to be. There's also no reason to assume that just because you did make a successfully diplomacy check, that the attitude toward you is now set and unchanging.

Again, not seeing what makes it unusable or broken in a normal game yet, and not seeing any house rules.

All that Richard's Diplomacy does is make it slightly level dependent and specifically spell out the bonuses/penalties to the roll (i.e. your worst enemy with a bad deal is +20 to the DC). To quote Richard: The point of this system is to incorporate the NPC's overall evaluation of the situation into one number, so avoid giving modifiers like "+2 because they are wary." It's better for those who need the specific numbers as a set in stone guideline, but still abuseable as the original Diplomacy if you considered it as such.


mcv, I understand what you're saying, but note as well that berating and insulting are the same thing, and are in Hostile and Unfriendly respectively. We could get down to splitting the opinions of what actions equate to where on the chart, but that's very subjective, and doesn't really relate to Diplomacy being useable as is in a game from the perceptive of this discussion.

[Kaiyanwang]

It's like the writer of the OP never played 3.x edition.

You have almost infinite options in combat in 3.5, and a lot more viable and interesting ones than 4e gives you. Even the lowly single-class fighter, the least interesting for variety among base classes, usually has 3-4 tactical feats (each representing 3 unique options for actions in combat), robillar's gambit, backstab, 3 martial maneuvers, a martial stance, power attack, combat expertise, bullrushing, charging, disarming, sundering, tripping...the list is nearly endless. All represent things more varied and more interesting than "do 2(w) damage and slide the target 3 squares." And every single 4e ability reads the exact same way.

Now, compare that 3.5 fighter to a Crusader, Swordsage, or Warblade, or spellcaster of any kind, and suddenly the already overmatched 4e character's options look nonexistent.

I completely agree

[hrpatton]

I think 4e is actually a better system for world building than 3e.

Note, please, that I didn't say that it's a better system for world *simulation*. It requires a lot of houseruling and DM fiat for things like out-of-combat skills. Lots of gamers don't like that kind of system, and I respect their opinions.

Every edition since the original AD&D has shared a common problem: the shape of the campaign world is dictated by the PCs' abilities. The same flexibility that gives the PCs the space to devise creative tactics also obliges the DM to predict these tactics and take them into account in his/her game world.

D&D magic is focused on adventuring. It's always been, and 3e is no exception. Most of the spells in the rulebooks, including nearly all of the classics, were designed to solve problems encountered by adventurers. While your campaign may have spells to assist childbirth, smelt ore and build roads, the standard spells are good ol' fashioned dungeoneering tools. Most of the non-spell class abilities are of similar utility, as are most of the magic items.

The Wall of Iron spell has been discussed to death, but it's a perfect example. The ability to create large amounts of iron at will creates problems for the campaign. Why doesn't everyone do it? Why isn't every building made of durable, dirt-cheap iron (presumably painted against rust)? Why aren't the streets paved with it (again, presumably tarred against rust)? You can houserule away the problem (the spell creates pig iron) or come up with a campaign explanation (the powerful artisans' guilds forbid it) but you're conforming your campaign world around the consequences of a spell that was designed to give PCs an option in dungeons.

Ditto for another perennial topic: castles and city defenses. Virtually every mainstream D&D campaign is based in a pseudo-medieval world full of castles, keeps, fortresses and walled cities. Fortifications of this sort are a genre convention. How did they evolve in a world in which low-level casters can fly and turn invisible? Again, you can come up with a plausible explanation -- special detection spells on the walls; domesticated creatures that can detect invisibility -- but again, you're writing your campaign around abilities that were created for adventurers. If you want medieval castles, you have to counter all the tactics that make them impossible. At best, you have consistency at the price of losing some of your choices as a DM. At worst, you're railroading the entire campaign world.

People on these forums and others have done a better job of detailing the absurdities of D&D than I can. There's the mandatory Teleport and scrying protection that every person of wealth or substance must maintain at all times, the futility of non-magical locks when Knock is so common, etc. Everyone knows this stuff. The DM either painstakingly works around it or hand-waves it away to the frustration of the players.

That may be your kind of game, and if so you're entitled to it. Some DMs relish the challenge of building a game world that retroactively fits the rules. Others houserule extensively. I regret that 4e requires these DMs to change their playstyle if they want to use it.

That said, I see the confinement of PCs' abilities to an adventuring context as a strength, not a weakness. There are plenty of abilities that can be used outside of combat, but they're mostly of short duration. PCs can't turn invisible for hours, run around in monster form or permanently transmute vast quantities of rock into mud. Their ability to affect the campaign world via their abilities is less flexible, but much more predictable.

I'm not sure the developers intended it, but this focus on adventuring has the consequence of allowing the DM to build a campaign world as he or she intends without having to take the PCs' abilities (and those of other adventurers) into account. There are still a few examples -- prisons need to be built with Eladrin in mind -- but for the most part 4e lets DMs build the world first and deal with the PCs second.

Whether that's a good thing is a matter of taste and playstyle.

[Dausuul]

That's just it. It is a tactical game, and not a lot more than that. Now D&D has always been mostly about combat (including D&D3), so in a sense it's perfectly understandable that they consider combat, combat options, combat performance and combat roles the center of the system. But D&D3 suggested a new direction where non-combat stuff also got some love, and interesting non-combat characters and non/low-combat campaigns became a possibility (whether that was WotC's intention or not), so it's quite understandable that a lot of people are a bit upset now that that new direction has been abandoned.

The funny thing is, I find 4E supports non-combat stuff better than 3E did. Between the skill challenge system, the simplification of the skill list, and the ability to have basic competence everywhere, 4E makes it much easier to build a character who's good at the social and exploration parts of the game, without sacrificing too much combat effectiveness.

In particular, the removal of the idiotic "class/cross-class" system means that your choice of class no longer cripples your ability to develop your non-combat talents. You can be a highly intelligent fighter with a broad array of knowledge-type skills; you're not gimped by cross-class restrictions. It's easier to be a loremaster if you're a wizard, since you can put your starting skills toward it, but just a couple of feats are enough to bring the fighter up to par.

[nagora]

Lots of interesting stuff

A lot of what you are talking about was handled quite simply in 1e: leveled characters represent 1% of the population, magic users a fraction of the adventuring population. There simply wasn't enough magic users to supply the world with huge amounts of magical iron, and even where a local caster was providing, a house or castle or bridge that can be dispelled is lacking in appeal!

Similarly, most combat was still between armies with some reinforcement by special troops. The theory was that these specials had little overall effect on defensive tactics (don't look at this one too hard!). Meanwhile, spell-casting clerics are too rare to dramatically change the effects of disease and death on a country-wide scale.

But, any game where magic works has implications about the world that results and if the DM totally ignores them then the world starts to lose its "reality".

[Kaiyanwang]

[QUOTE]I think 4e is actually a better system for world building than 3e.
/QUOTE]

In 3e each class has his own mechanic. So if I want built a campaign whit no magic, It will be very different from a campaign of high magic. In 4th I've the same kind of character, no matter the class.

How can a toolbox with less tools be better to build things?

I think 4e is better only to railroad PC in your story, no matter what they rellay want to do. I not good to bring them the pleasure to move in a living world with which they can interact, a world they can FEEL living and ready to react to their action, their imagination and ingenuity.

Nagora said the right thing: the percentage of adventurers on the total population is very low. Further, magic should be a mysterious and powerful thing, think about magic users doing that aubuse is a bad roleplaying issue, IMO.

[Indon]

Very true, but it's not RAW. Under RAW, if you could speak the language, then you could use Bluff, Diplomacy, etc. Throwing situational modifiers is all well and good, but you weren't supposed to use more than +/- 2, and banning social rolls when they are clearly capable of being used is hardly RAW.

Not to say the 3'rd edition Diplomacy rules aren't silly, but:


Action
Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. A rushed Diplomacy check can be made as a full-round action, but you take a -10 penalty on the check.


How can a toolbox with less tools be better to build things?

It has to do with your basic attitude towards game rules.

Those who feel that a game should have every rule detailed included in a game are those who can feel impeded by additional rules that might not suit them. For such a gamer, a roleplaying game's 'toolbox' is like a toolbox in which every tool must be used for every given task - obviously, for such a game it would be better to have a single multitool than a toolbox.

However, those who feel that a game should only use rules selectively, depending on need, create the kind of game you're talking about. For such gamers, a roleplaying game is indeed a simple toolbox, with a variety of functions, not all of which may be required for any given task (game).

4'th edition is designed for gamers who want a Swiss Army Game, not a toolbox.

[RukiTanuki]

How can a toolbox with less tools be better to build things?

The same way that a small box set of good, consistent tools will help me with my hobby better than, say, a factory of robots in an assembly line.

If I'm trying to make a little model of a village, the little box of good tools will let me work hand-on with the material, crafting it with my own personal touch. The factory would let me generate things that are more mechanically detailed than I can do with my hands and a set of good tools, but to be used to its fullest potential, I have to spend a good deal of time figuring out what I want all the robots to do at each stage, computer-aided-drafting everything, programming the robots, and so on.

Not only would I rather spend my time building the village (rather than learning how to build it), I'd like to bring others to help me build the village, and I don't think they want to learn robot programming just so they can make a person for the village. :)

Anyhow, I'm done before this metaphor gets completely out of hand. A small set of effective tools can be far more useful than a vast variety of complex tools. This is doubly true if you aren't running D&D as a simulation.

[hrpatton]

In 3e each class has his own mechanic. So if I want built a campaign whit no magic, It will be very different from a campaign of high magic.


You can have a high-magic or low-magic campaign with 4e. The abilities of PCs and other adventurers don't have to govern the shape of your campaign, though. They can, but they need not, as you wish.

If you want powerful uberwizards who can shapechange, dimension shift and stop time at will, you can create them. They'll be monsters, technically, but you can give Merlminster whatever powers you deem necessary for the campaign.

One of the things I liked in the PHB was the existence of permanent teleportation circles ... with no means of making them. They exist where the DM wants them, or not at all. He can come up with any creation process he wants for them. Maybe they're ancient relics of a lost civilization and they can't be made anymore, or they're created in a very dangerous and expensive ritual. Their in-game function is to get PCs back to town after the adventure, but they don't cause the problems inherent in letting PCs (and everyone else) teleport wherever they please.



How can a toolbox with less tools be better to build things?


... because you can't build a campaign world with mechanics.

Saying "The rules say *this*, so my campaign must do *that*" is exactly backward, in my view. The rules are based on the requirements of simulating heroic adventure. They're broken if they dictate the shape of the rest of the world too.

(That said, I want a full skill system too.)



Nagora said the right thing: the percentage of adventurers on the total population is very low. Further, magic should be a mysterious and powerful thing, .

The problem's not the number of adventurers, but a whole world based in a set of assumptions grounded in adventuring. Note that most published game worlds and adventures -- and, I'd hazard to guess, most homebrew worlds -- are full of wizards and clerics who have exactly the same abilities as PCs of equivalent level. Why would a scholarly wizard who never leaves his tower know dozens of spells for detecting traps, creating walls of various sorts and blowing things up with fire and lightning? He has the abilities of an adventurer even though he isn't one. Ironically, people scold 4e for precisely this problem: cookie cutter characters. In a world in which magic is defined in terms of adventuring, everyone's a de facto adventurer.

"Wizard" need not mean "person with the PC class 'wizard'." If you want Merlminster the Mage to have abilities beyond those of PCs, just create him with those abilities and don't worry about wizard daily powers and such. He has those powers because he's an initiate of the Ancient Order of Blargh which by sheerest coincidence you've detailed extensively in your campaign notes.

Perhaps I should have said "4e and 3e both suck for world building, but for different reasons." 4e doesn't really have tools for it, while the tools 3e provides are all screwdrivers.

[DoomCup]

Just saying...

Those who think "more rules = better game"...

Obviously never looked at FATAL.

:smalltongue:

[j0lt]

It's like the writer of the OP never played 3.x edition.

You have almost infinite options in combat in 3.5, and a lot more viable and interesting ones than 4e gives you. Even the lowly single-class fighter, the least interesting for variety among base classes, usually has 3-4 tactical feats (each representing 3 unique options for actions in combat), robillar's gambit, backstab, 3 martial maneuvers, a martial stance, power attack, combat expertise, bullrushing, charging, disarming, sundering, tripping...the list is nearly endless. All represent things more varied and more interesting than "do 2(w) damage and slide the target 3 squares." And every single 4e ability reads the exact same way.

Now, compare that 3.5 fighter to a Crusader, Swordsage, or Warblade, or spellcaster of any kind, and suddenly the already overmatched 4e character's options look nonexistent.

Good point. It seems like they've substituted 3.x's flexible feat system where you can customize your character's abilities to suit the character concept to the new 4e concept of "All (insert class name here) do this."

One of my favourite aspects of roleplaying is character design, and when the mechanics limit my creative input, I find it very hard to feel that I'm playing the character I want.

Beyond crunch, there's the complete abortion of the generic setting fluff for no apparent reason. I know not many people liked the alignment system, but instead of doing something like d20 Modern's allegiance system, they just neutered the alignments so that you can no longer have a free-wheeling rogue who is generally good, but has a problem with rules (CG). Nor can you have an evil tyrant who wants to rule the world (LE).

[hamishspence]

concerning the last two: you can, they just won't be called Chaotic or Lawful.

Close examination of the Good and Evil alignments sugests they have rolled CG and NG, and LE and NE, together, but there is enough room in both for your originally CG character to be averse to rules (esp bad ones), or your formerly LE character to be unusually honest.

[hamlet]

A lot of what you are talking about was handled quite simply in 1e: leveled characters represent 1% of the population, magic users a fraction of the adventuring population. There simply wasn't enough magic users to supply the world with huge amounts of magical iron, and even where a local caster was providing, a house or castle or bridge that can be dispelled is lacking in appeal!

Similarly, most combat was still between armies with some reinforcement by special troops. The theory was that these specials had little overall effect on defensive tactics (don't look at this one too hard!). Meanwhile, spell-casting clerics are too rare to dramatically change the effects of disease and death on a country-wide scale.

But, any game where magic works has implications about the world that results and if the DM totally ignores them then the world starts to lose its "reality".

You are right in that "technically" leveled persons make up less than 1% of the population, but let's be entirely honest about it: how often did you end up in a game where every member of the city guard was a 3rd level fighter and the king was a 12th level whatever and the local priesthood were all 10th+ level clerics.

Personally, I have great fun in busting expectations by making the local friendly priests 0-level characters incapable of casting spells. It really throws players for a loop when they realize that they, at first level, are the most powerful persons in the region and it's up to them alone to stop the bad guys.

[Kaiyanwang]

Originally posted by Indon:
However, those who feel that a game should only use rules selectively, depending on need, create the kind of game you're talking about. For such gamers, a roleplaying game is indeed a simple toolbox, with a variety of functions, not all of which may be required for any given task (game).
4'th edition is designed for gamers who want a Swiss Army Game, not a toolbox.

Exactly.


Originally posted by RukiTanuki:
Anyhow, I'm done before this metaphor gets completely out of hand. A small set of effective tools can be far more useful than a vast variety of complex tools. This is doubly true if you aren't running D&D as a simulation.


I think the metaphor is good.
My problem is not verisimilitude, or simulation, but the freedom of choose between the few tools and the robots. Now is like designers said to me: “to have fun you need only small tools. Don’t think anymore about robots. We will think for you”.



Originally posted by hrpatton:
You can have a high-magic or low-magic campaign with 4e. The abilities of PCs and other adventurers don't have to govern the shape of your campaign, though. They can, but they need not, as you wish

Is exactly my point. In 4th the problem is not low or high magic, if a Marshal (a martial character) and a Cleric ( a divine character) affect their companions health more or less in the same way. Magic is simply not magic. Is the fluff behind restricted mechanics of a combat.
On the contrary, in 3.5, I can choose to run a campaign with Batman, a campaign with Bard as the unique spellcaster, a campaign with no spellcaster at all. This is my toolbox point. Ok, maybe few tools can be good to run a game. But is simpler screw a rule you don’t need or invent and test a new one you need? (And I buy books to have designers do it in my place :smallamused:)



... because you can't build a campaign world with mechanics.

I create stories and worlds with my imagination: Rules are the mechanism of my construct, the laws of my Matrix.



Saying "The rules say *this*, so my campaign must do *that*" is exactly backward, in my view.

Never said this.


The rules are based on the requirements of simulating heroic adventure. They're broken if they dictate the shape of the rest of the world too.

Behind the characters there are players. And seeing different rules for their characters and all other people in the world could damage their immersion. Why should necessarily be broken anyway? And, you completely avoided (and partially misquoted) my observation about spellcaster aptitude toward magic. If you see magic as something sacred or mysterious, you use it only when truly in need. And by the way, I thing a mage would feel very silly throwing walls all around all the time.


"Wizard" need not mean "person with the PC class 'wizard'." If you want Merlminster the Mage to have abilities beyond those of PCs, just create him with those abilities and don't worry about wizard daily powers and such. He has those powers because he's an initiate of the Ancient Order of Blargh which by sheerest coincidence you've detailed extensively in your campaign notes.

When I talk about lack of option and poor design I don’t talk only by the DM side (even if when I’ve seen the Phane my /facepalm resounded through the planes).
I design my own “Merlminster” (:smallsmile:), ok. I don’t understand your point here. You admit with this that in 4th edition the wizard is a mockery? I don’t want Merlminster for me. I want a world in which exist a decent class of mage and my players could have the chance of take that path. And no, I will not have the fear that “Batman” will ruin my game: if I run a game including batman, there will be challenges that will need batman. He will not ruin my story, he will make my story. And yes, the fighter will shine too, because batman is a member of a party and luckily D&D is not yet a videogame, even the loss of immersion and dimension of the 4th let me think that it could be the purpose..

[Dan_Hemmens]

In 3e each class has his own mechanic. So if I want built a campaign whit no magic, It will be very different from a campaign of high magic. In 4th I've the same kind of character, no matter the class.

Your point being? In 3.X you can create a game with no magic, and watch your players get eaten as they try to face level appropriate challenges without level appropriate magic items. In 4E you can create a game with no magic and things will still work pretty damned well.


How can a toolbox with less tools be better to build things?

Because it's easier to find the tools you need? Because it actually contains the tools you need? Because you don't have to carry around a whole bunch of useless tools?


I think 4e is better only to railroad PC in your story, no matter what they rellay want to do. I not good to bring them the pleasure to move in a living world with which they can interact, a world they can FEEL living and ready to react to their action, their imagination and ingenuity.

Really, what precisely gives you that impression? The fact that there's no longer any rules telling you that all professions are equally well paid? The fact that the Diplomacy skill no longer allows the player to infallibly dissuade anybody from taking hostile action against him? The fact that, perish the though, Wizards no longer to get to do anything it is conceivably possible to do, for free?


Nagora said the right thing: the percentage of adventurers on the total population is very low. Further, magic should be a mysterious and powerful thing, think about magic users doing that aubuse is a bad roleplaying issue, IMO.

Nagora is absolutely right, in first and second edition. In 3.X magic is ubiquitous, and something like 10% of the population are high level members of PC classes. We know this because 3.X has helpful rules telling us what the breakdown by level of the population of the world is (in the DMG). 3.X has rules mandating the sale of magical weapons in any town sufficiently large. The very rules which you praise for allowing players "the pleasure to move in a living world with which they can interact" completely contradict your interpretation of the game world.

[Crow]

Because it's easier to find the tools you need? Because it actually contains the tools you need? Because you don't have to carry around a whole bunch of useless tools?

I know this is more about the books than the system, but the PHB index is garbage. It's just not in-depth enough. I liked my 4 pages of index where I could look up just about anything and know immediately what page it was on.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I know this is more about the books than the system, but the PHB index is garbage. It's just not in-depth enough. I liked my 4 pages of index where I could look up just about anything and know immediately what page it was on.

Index? There's an index?

That's actually not a joke. I totally missed that. Damn that's one crappy index. I thought it was just more lists of playtesters.

[RukiTanuki]

I think the metaphor is good.
My problem is not verisimilitude, or simulation, but the freedom of choose between the few tools and the robots. Now is like designers said to me: “to have fun you need only small tools. Don’t think anymore about robots. We will think for you”.

I may start up a new thread about this. Yes, the first set of books, being roughly the same size as they've always been, present us with the information necessary to do the core tasks present in pretty much every D&D game ever. Are people assuming that this is all 4e is ever going to focus on? Or is there a chance that later books will expand the things directly covered under the rules?

Is everyone assuming that they'll never have access to power tools again? I'm asking these questions as neutrally as possible; the idea just came to me.



Is exactly my point. In 4th the problem is not low or high magic, if a Marshal (a martial character) and a Cleric ( a divine character) affect their companions health more or less in the same way. Magic is simply not magic. Is the fluff behind restricted mechanics of a combat.

I see degrees to which this is true and degrees to which this isn't.
* Shooting an arrow at an opponent and zapping them with a spell both technically result in damage.
* Tripping an opponent and casting Iron Horn on them both technically make the opponent prone.
* Evasion and Energy Buffer both let you take less damage from fireballs.

The effects 3.x magic exerted on the world overlapped and imitated virtually every mundane task, and virtually always did them better. For Wizards, myself, and a lot of players and DMs, this caused problems with our game, problems that have already been discussed at length (especially regarding whether it actually was a problem if only some DMs didn't like it). It's hard to ignore that 4e was made with a different (but not inherently better/worse) goal in mind.

4e did two things that seem to affect magic's appearance as "special". First, it brought class power levels closer together, through empowering martial classes and reining in magic classes. I'd wanted to do this in 3.x before 4e was announced, and I was happy to see it be a primary design goal for the project (though, again, I can see how others would want to run their games differently). Secondly, it wrote all class abilities using the same nomenclature. This takes a bit of the air out of magic's sails, because it no longer is unique enough to warrant its own rules.

Though, really, magic has its own rules through the Ritual mechanic, where it does a lot of things that can't be imitated otherwise... and the only issue I've seen with them is the same sort of issue: anyone can perform them with training (magic's not special anymore) and the strength and convenience of the abilities does not match 3.x (magic's not ultra-powerful anymore). It seems like some of the reasons to be disappointed in Rituals are the same reasons to be disappointed in Powers.

The result has caused a little confusion for me personally, because when I read people's worries that "magic isn't special" I can't tell which aspect they don't like: magic no longer being an order of magnitude more powerful than mundane/martial ability at the same character level with no major drawbacks, or magic no longer existing as its own subset of rules, with the reward for mastering those rules being a character who exerts more influence on the game than mundane/martial characters.


On the contrary, in 3.5, I can choose to run a campaign with Batman, a campaign with Bard as the unique spellcaster, a campaign with no spellcaster at all.

I'm not certain how running a campaign with varying combinations of character classes is any less possible in 4e. Indeed, it's been discussed more than once.

Anyhow, I think my idea regarding "will later 4e books fill in areas previous editions covered in more detail" needs to go to a separate discussion. That's really my core take-away here.

[Kaiyanwang]

Originally posted by Dan Hemmens
Your point being? In 3.X you can create a game with no magic, and watch your players get eaten as they try to face level appropriate challenges without level appropriate magic items. In 4E you can create a game with no magic and things will still work pretty damned well.

In 3.X I can create a game with no magic, and obviously such game will be very different in feel and in challenges. If you assume that in such campaign I will use the same challenges of a high magic one, you fail. Challenges and dynamics will be very different, and annoying obstacle in a high magic campaign could be almost insurmountable in this no-magic one. And it will be my purpose: create a different game. Different situations. And I could do it, by core, only screwing things (“sniff.. sniff.. it smells like magic.. throw it away”).
In 4th, the gamestyle will not change in a martial-only game or in a game with all the classes. Because they are not classes, are 4 roles each time refluffed. Nobody has something special. In the name of…? A balance good for MMORPG not for a RPG.
You say that with no magic things work well. I say that I don’t see differences (or not the amount of differences I would see) in 4th, between two campaigns high-magic vs.no-magic.
SO 3.5: one system, many games. 4th one system, one game. This was my point.


Because it's easier to find the tools you need? Because it actually contains the tools you need? Because you don't have to carry around a whole bunch of useless tools?

How do you know what I need for my games, Dan? Are you a Diviner? :smallwink: E.g. I need system that makes work fine trade, craft and monsters qualities (the campaign I’m running), like damage reduction. In 3.5 I can, in 4th.. meh.


The fact that there's no longer any rules telling you that all professions are equally well paid?

??? If is a veiled charge toward me to be a DM that needs a rule for everything, is a little bit clumsy.. otherwise, I don’t understand what you mean with this.


The fact that the Diplomacy skill no longer allows the player to infallibly dissuade anybody from taking hostile action against him?

Again with diplomacy.. I’m a little upset of all this diplomacy issue. Ok, diplomacy need a fix (if the players and the DM stubbornly refuse to use common sense), but designers must fix diplomacy not transform D&D in a miniature game. 3.5 is far to be perfect, but if 4th edition is the answer, is better for all of us go to play Monopoly.


3.X has rules mandating the sale of magical weapons in any town sufficiently large. The very rules which you praise for allowing players "the pleasure to move in a living world with which they can interact" completely contradict your interpretation of the game world

How selling a sword reduce immersion? I miss your point here. And by the way, the DMG suggest the idea of low-magic campaigns, too, where sell a sword is weird because magic items are too rare and precious.
And about mandatory rules.. no rule is mandatory. And DMG says this. Simply, suggest to think about change, ignore or add a rule in base of how the system works and in the way the changed rule works with the system. And the amounts of gold pieces for the value of a magic sword is decided in base of crafting rules, wealth and so on. Is up to you transform a rule in a suggestion.

I know, rule 0 fallacy. But IMO, a system is good even for the capability of suggest or produce house rules. For example, in 3.5 there is a XP price for magic items and some spell. DMG suggests an houserule for special components for craft and spell which can avoid the XP loss, and suggests too the value in gold, rarity, quests and so on). I used this base to make craft profession etc more funny, because in my current campaign when the players kill something (ore someone) special and magic like a fey, dragon, elemental, magical beast or outsiders, can skin his hide, or gather his fang and blood. This brings to a reagent pool usable to craft alchemical and magic items of adequate level. The CD? 10+1/2 HD… and failures are funny, too, as seeing the Ranger spreading hide pieces all around disgusting the onlookers..
10+1/2 HD + something else (natural armor e.g.). One of the pillars of 3.5.
In 4th, this is simply avoided. Ok, I can say I’m a leatherworker, but I have first to houserule crafts and professions. Instead of houserule a CD. OK I know.. THIS rule is WOW-like:smallbiggrin:

A suggestion mean some work of the designer to help you. Avoid completely the problem isn’t bad design (see craft and professions)? Because this is the point. It seems to me that 4th edition designers way is: “Instead of fix problems, we shift the focus of the game even more toward combat. Those who want a different flavour campaign must built it by the ground because today I’ so tired *yawn*”)


Originally posted by Me
magic should be a mysterious and powerful thing, think about magic users doing that abuse is a bad roleplaying issue, IMO

Ignored, again. Rp is an issue in miniature games?




originally posted by Rukitanuki

The result has caused a little confusion for me personally, because when I read people's worries that "magic isn't special" I can't tell which aspect they don't like: magic no longer being an order of magnitude more powerful than mundane/martial ability at the same character level with no major drawbacks, or magic no longer existing as its own subset of rules, with the reward for mastering those rules being a character who exerts more influence on the game than mundane/martial characters


Is not a matter of power magnitude. Is a matter of aesthetics, first. Of character class and whole campaigns. And a matter of drive people to use their ingenuity, or railroad them into pre made maneuvres or spells that can only damage (see meteor swarm: before, 4 projectiles able to destroy 4 pillars, and an AOE damage spell, now, AOE damage. Period.)

And by the way, I'm not sure about the improvement of martial classes. Weapon use is limited (se TWF), Weapon choose is flat (I add the Con modifier to the damage if I wield an axe for that blow.. so what?) and instead of pushing the martial class players to create situations in combat and then strike in base of them, simply in 4th we find the click-this-button-to-do-that powers.
(In Soviet Russia, the strategy elaborates you?:smalleek:)



I'm not certain how running a campaign with varying combinations of character classes is any less possible in 4e. Indeed, it's been discussed more than once.


Again, the issue is: why would I vary if the result is the same? I've the same characters, 4 roles refluffed.

[RukiTanuki]

Kaiyanwang, I'll be honest: I'm having trouble reading your post. But, I'm going to try my best, because your viewpoint is still valid.


Is not a matter of power magnitude. Is a matter of aesthetics, first. Of character class and whole campaigns. And a matter of drive people to use their ingenuity, or railroad them into pre made maneuvres or spells that can only damage (see meteor swarm: before, 4 projectiles able to destroy 4 pillars, and an AOE damage spell, now, AOE damage. Period.)

I would like to see more detail on what specifically is meant by each of these points.
* Aesthetics: Does magic seem less special because the instructions (on resolving the success/failure of the spell and its effects) are written the same as martial exploits?
* Driving players to use ingenuity: Do you prefer 3e's focus on character creation: ensuring that the perfect combination of multiclassing, prestige classing, and feats results in a character that decimates a Base Class 20 build? Do you disapprove of (or are you indifferent to) 4e's focus on in-battle tactics: ensuring that the powers you use are coordinated with your teammates' abilities for maximum effect (particularly when using "benefit until end of your next turn" boosts)? I see less need for ingenuity in character creation, and more ingenuity at the table, when running 4e.
* Railroading: Are fighters more "railroaded" in character choice by having 70 abilities available in the first PHB? How many different attacks did fighters have in the 3e PHB? I can't think of more than ten. There are more powers in the 4e PHB than there are spells in the 3e PHB; it's just that the "fun" abilities are no longer hoarded by half the classes.
* Spells only damage: By my count, 57 Wizard spells include a die roll for damage, and 38 do not. The former includes spells like "Maze" where the damage isn't even the point of the spell. This, of course, ignores the 34 or so Rituals that use Arcane checks, and do most of the things non-damage spells commonly do in 3e. (Plus, characters can learn them without becoming less useful in combat).

Again, if these remarks miss the point, I'd appreciate more detail.


And by the way, I'm not sure about the improvement of martial classes. Weapon use is limited (se TWF), Weapon choose is flat (I add the Con modifier to the damage if I wield an axe for that blow.. so what?) and instead of pushing the martial class players to create situations in combat and then strike in base of them, simply in 4th we find the click-this-button-to-do-that powers.

* TWF: I never DMed D&D with the idea that die roll represented one weapon swing, because it's jarring for me to think that someone can only attack once every 6 seconds. At low levels in 3e, the die roll represents the overall success of the PC's attacks. (I describe several swings and parries to the players after resolving their roll.) At high levels, they're skilled enough to get additional rolls (and thus additional chances to get a successful attack in amongst their swings and parries). For me, 4e moves further in the direction I've been running the game: one roll represents your relative success in attacking that round. I don't mind that the PC swung a weapon several times and the player rolled once, so I don't mind that the PC swung two weapons several times (or, realistically, parried with one) but the player rolled once.
* "Flat" weapon choice: I'm very confused here. 4e's Weapons table has lots of modifiers (weapons with higher proficiencies, reach, high crit, versatile, etc.), what appears to be more than 3e (crit ranges stand out as one removed, since there are new crit rules). Martial powers provide small bonuses with certain weapons (but in 4e, small bonuses mean something)... did 3e provide any bonus for using a weapon other than that weapon's particular properties? I'm not seeing how, on a PHB-to-PHB basis, weapon choice is less important in 4e.
* "Create situations and strike in base of them": Again, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean here. Fourth Edition is ripe with combat situations where the PCs affect their opponents in ways that the entire party can take advantage of. I'm at a complete loss how, when specifically calling out martial characters, 4e's selection one of over a dozen character powers (chosen from over 70 for your class alone) is one-click-stupid, but 3e's repertoire of "charge, full-attack, power-attack, trip/disarm/grapple" makes all these unique situations that 4e does not.


In 3.X I can create a game with no magic, and obviously such game will be very different in feel and in challenges. If you assume that in such campaign I will use the same challenges of a high magic one, you fail. Challenges and dynamics will be very different, and annoying obstacle in a high magic campaign could be almost insurmountable in this no-magic one. And it will be my purpose: create a different game. Different situations. And I could do it, by core, only screwing things (“sniff.. sniff.. it smells like magic.. throw it away”).

Why can't this be done in 4e? Why can't you literally apply the principle you just described and say "Warlord's healing sounds like something I don't like; while I'm wholesale removing entire classes and retooling the Paladin, I'll retool the Warlord too"?


In 4th, the gamestyle will not change in a martial-only game or in a game with all the classes. Because they are not classes, are 4 roles each time refluffed. Nobody has something special. In the name of…? A balance good for MMORPG not for a RPG.

* The only reason the game changes in 3e with the removal of magic is because it does everything and it does it better. One can claim it's not about power levels, but find me a 3e discussion where "low-power" doesn't mean "magic is removed or massively amputated" while the fighters are dealing with little more than the loss of their magic items.
* The four roles are iconic. They've been there since the beginning, and they're mapped to Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric because that's what those four classes have done since they were Fighting Man/Thief/Magic-User/Priest. 4e did not invent the roles, it gave them names. 3e has them every bit as much as 4e does; 3e just has magic classes that can do all four if they even remotely try.
* Just look at the threads from the people actually playing 4e, and tell me that the guys with no Cleric or Warlord aren't feeling the loss.
* Again, because it needs stressed: if your problem is not that the Warlord is magic, but that he's restoring hit points in a setting where you want HP restoration to be hard, then the Warlord is as easy to remove or change. I don't see a difference between that and the class changes necessary for a low-magic 3e setting.


You say that with no magic things work well. I say that I don’t see differences (or not the amount of differences I would see) in 4th, between two campaigns high-magic vs.no-magic.
SO 3.5: one system, many games. 4th one system, one game. This was my point.

A fighter/ranger/rogue/warlord party does just fine in 4e. My question is, is that what you don't like? Is the problem that the all-martial PCs are not sitting there thinking "Man, magic would make this a lot easier"? The impression I'm getting is that of disappointment because magic in 4e is not inherently better than non-magic.

If your problem is that an all-martial party isn't sitting their running on vapors (HP-wise) and thinking they need to go home, then you can probably recreate the feel of the "no-magic-anything" 3e campaign with two tiny changes:
* Alter Healing Surge usage.
* Alter Healing Surge restoration and HP restoration after extended rests.

I'd like to understand your point better, so my big question is: What made 3e magic special and 4e magic mundane?
* Could 3e magic do anything an adventurer would want, usually in a form superior to any character that did not use magic?
* Was this power in 3e effectively in the hands of two/four classes? (Cleric/Druid and Wizard/Sorceror)
* Could the Cleric or Wizard's outperform other PCs at the tasks those PCs specialized in, without specializing other than "these are the spells I chose today"?

If you could, be as specific as possible; it's the vague, broad statements that confuse me. I hear them often and I never know exactly what people mean.

[hrpatton]

Is exactly my point. In 4th the problem is not low or high magic, if a Marshal (a martial character) and a Cleric ( a divine character) affect their companions health more or less in the same way. Magic is simply not magic. Is the fluff behind restricted mechanics of a combat.


Well, yes, that's the design philosophy behind 4e. Everyone in the party is supposed to be equally useful. Rules for adventuring shouldn't govern everything in the campaign.

Clearly, you have a different design philosophy and don't care for 4e's. I'm cool with that. It's a matter of taste.



On the contrary, in 3.5, I can choose to run a campaign with Batman, a campaign with Bard as the unique spellcaster, a campaign with no spellcaster at all. This is my toolbox point.


Yes, but you get wildly disparate power levels between PCs of the same level. That's OK if it's what you want, but a lot of people (myself included) don't think the extra flexibility warrants the headache. Batman turns all the non-casters in his party into henchmen.

The question of magical superiority has been beaten to death on these and other forums. I don't mean to continue thrashing it. Suffice to say that some gamers enjoy uber-powerful magic that outstrips and outshines all mundane abilities, while other gamers prefer magic that's more on a par with other heroic abilities. The latter group seems to have won out with 4e.



I create stories and worlds with my imagination: Rules are the mechanism of my construct, the laws of my Matrix.


Of course. The direction should be just that: "imagination -> rules." Previous editions have gone in the opposite direction: "rules -> imagination." They required you to imagine ways to incorporate the rules into your campaign, as the consequences of the rules were so broad. If the rules are limited in scope, as in 4e, you don't have to sit around asking "How can I protect locks against Knock? How can I ward every bank vault against Teleport?"

Again, just a difference in design philosophy.



Never said this.


Didn't mean to imply that you did.:smallsmile: My quotation was meant to describe the problem I see in 3e's design philosophy, not anything you said. The rules ...

(Ah, hell, let me stop saying "the rules" and start saying "the magic rules," as they're the real problem.)

The magic rules in pre-4e editions allowed casters such flexibility that the campaign world was circumscribed by them. Again, lots of people liked this. Lots of others didn't.



Behind the characters there are players. And seeing different rules for their characters and all other people in the world could damage their immersion.


Why? Why assume the PCs are typical? You may want this for your campaign, but it's not a foregone conclusion. I've always told players "Don't assume there are any other Clerics, Rangers, Wizards, etc. in the world. There are other people with powers, but never assume their powers are the same as yours just because you're of comparable level."

Making the "Cleric" a bundle of powers and statistics means the player and DM can fluff him however they like. (Wait, that didn't come out right.) Maybe he's a priest-militant, but maybe he's a hermit who lives in the woods and gained his proficiency with armor and weapons from his god in the same way he got his other powers.

You can make the PCs typical if you want, of course, but they needn't be. That's a decision that should be left to the DM, IMHO, and not to the rules.



Why should necessarily be broken anyway? And, you completely avoided (and partially misquoted) my observation about spellcaster aptitude toward magic. If you see magic as something sacred or mysterious, you use it only when truly in need.


That's how it is in your campaign, though, not everyone's. Lots of campaigns have a relatively high population of spellcasters. (See my and other posters' comments about published campaign worlds.) Magic is commonplace in many campaign worlds, some going back to the earliest days of D&D.

It's really even worse for the campaign if spellcasters (and adventurers) *are* rare. That means there's no meaningful defense against them for 99% of the population, as nothing really defends against magic except magic. If only 1% of the population can even aspire to wizardry, and fewer still can master it, a mid-level caster is unstoppable. No one's around to cast those anti-Teleport wards over bank vaults, treasure hordes, strategy rooms, etc.

This is what I mean by rules that dictate the campaign. If casters are rare, they're tiny gods. If they're common, the whole world engages in an arms race to counter magic with more magic. I'd like to run a campaign with a relatively historical medieval culture, but it's silly if I use a spell system designed for allowing adventurers to make end runs around obstacles.



I design my own “Merlminster” (:smallsmile:), ok. I don’t understand your point here. You admit with this that in 4th edition the wizard is a mockery?


No, I think the wizard is finally balanced with the other PC classes. Why would a character who's no more powerful than the rest of his party be a "mockery"?



I don’t want Merlminster for me. I want a world in which exist a decent class of mage and my players could have the chance of take that path.


Again, your definition of "decent" and mine differ. I think the 4e wizard is an entirely decent class. It balances well with other PCs.



And no, I will not have the fear that “Batman” will ruin my game: if I run a game including batman, there will be challenges that will need batman.


Well, yes, but you could say that for any character. You could put a mindflayer PC into a party of first-level characters and make the same argument, so long as you provide challenges that need a mindflayer.

You want one kind of campaign, and I want another. That's fine. I'm not trying to convince you to play my way; I'm trying to demonstrate that a 4e campaign is not necessarily dumbed down, crippled or videogamey. (Videogamish? Videogamelike?) You want a ruleset that creates the physical and magical laws of the world; I want one that doesn't. 4e skews more my way than yours. I sincerely hope you're able to find, maintain or create a ruleset that plays the way you want.

[Kaiyanwang]

Originally posted by Rukitanuki
Aesthetics: Does magic seem less special because the instructions (on resolving the success/failure of the spell and its effects) are written the same as martial exploits?

Ok, maybe this is matter of personal taste for a fireball. But see the warlock curse (warlock curse… mmh.. It remember me something) and the 3.0 bestow curse spell (or 3.0 warlock spell-like ability). The game loses something here.



Do you prefer 3e's focus on character creation: ensuring that the perfect combination of multiclassing, prestige classing, and feats results in a character that decimates a Base Class 20 build?

And


I'm at a complete loss how, when specifically calling out martial characters, 4e's selection one of over a dozen character powers (chosen from over 70 for your class alone) is one-click-stupid, but 3e's repertoire of "charge, full-attack, power-attack, trip/disarm/grapple" makes all these unique situations that 4e does not


I meant use ingenuity in game. Using a combination of attack mode during the full attack action, even alternating range and melee attacks, not using pre-made combinations of click-this-to-shift-the-enemy attacks. Maybe is only my feeling, or the way I play with my friends, but in 3.0 melee characters had to invent a strategy round-by-round to slay enemies and take them away from the casters (who, but maybe is me, tend to die if they fighter buddy don’t protect them, see useless fighters issue). One round you have to charge and cleave, one round to use combat expertise to escort the cleric to the dying rogue, one round disarm a nearby enemy, stun another one with a kick, drop the sword, 10 foot step, chaintrip another enemy 3 m away (not two squares), keep the chain in one hand, quickdraw a dagger, ranged pin a ninja on the wall, quickdraw a dagger, ranged disarm the enemy artificer of his wand, or quickdraw an alchemical smoke grenade (which he crafted) and throw it in the ground.
Do it with a 4th edition fighter. You can’t because the 4th edition fighter at high levels do the same things he did at lower, cool ability name and some [XW] more. Ok, Stalwart Guard, Act of Desperation, etc. Not all the Fighter Powers are Click-to-hit-and-do-something but a lot of them are. No comment about the craft.
In a 3.0 a full attacking fighter can do a “Rain of Blows”, or rain two blows and then trip another enemy, or whatever. My actions are linked to the situation, to the weapon he wields (se weapon style), or the fact the flanking rogue is Ambush or Telling Blow builded. Or the fact that he’s in a inn and that chandelier’s rope is too much tempting. I don’t mean a 4th edition 15 level fighter can’t cut ropes, I mean a 3rd edition 10 level fighter can cut the rope in the inn and smack the nose of the ugliest guy near him (he loves Aesthetics too). Can a 4th ed fighter do the same in the same round? Unless you use a power to cleave rope-ugly man?


TWF: I never DMed D&D with the idea that die roll represented one weapon swing, because it's jarring for me to think that someone can only attack once every 6 seconds. At low levels in 3e, the die roll represents the overall success of the PC's attacks. (I describe several swings and parries to the players after resolving their roll.) At high levels, they're skilled enough to get additional rolls (and thus additional chances to get a successful attack in amongst their swings and parries). For me, 4e moves further in the direction I've been running the game: one roll represents your relative success in attacking that round. I don't mind that the PC swung a weapon several times and the player rolled once, so I don't mind that the PC swung two weapons several times (or, realistically, parried with one) but the player rolled once.

Your sight of TWF is more realistic, but if I accept that a 20 level mage can twist the reality, I can accept that a 20 level fighter becomes a whirlwind of blade fury. For the remainder, see above.



Flat" weapon choice: I'm very confused here. 4e's Weapons table has lots of modifiers (weapons with higher proficiencies, reach, high crit, versatile, etc.), what appears to be more than 3e (crit ranges stand out as one removed, since there are new crit rules). Martial powers provide small bonuses with certain weapons (but in 4e, small bonuses mean something)... did 3e provide any bonus for using a weapon other than that weapon's particular properties? I'm not seeing how, on a PHB-to-PHB basis, weapon choice is less important in 4e.

Bonus on sleight of hand to hide, trip, bonus on trip or disarm, rapier+rogue… The choice of the weapon meant something even about hiding or wielding it. Are weapon’s properties, but meant about the way the player played the character. You said well, on PHB-to-PHB is not so different, but I hoped that they learned from weapon style or similar feats in a better way than “adding const if wield an axe” or so.



A fighter/ranger/rogue/warlord party does just fine in 4e. My question is, is that what you don't like? Is the problem that the all-martial PCs are not sitting there thinking "Man, magic would make this a lot easier"? The impression I'm getting is that of disappointment because magic in 4e is not inherently better than non-magic.

If your problem is that an all-martial party isn't sitting their running on vapors (HP-wise) and thinking they need to go home, then you can probably recreate the feel of the "no-magic-anything" 3e campaign with two tiny changes:
* Alter Healing Surge usage.
* Alter Healing Surge restoration and HP restoration after extended rests.


Again: you understand that I can taste a mechanical, so playstyle difference in 3rd and not in 4th between a no magic and a magic campaign? And you are suggesting to houserule and invent for a 4th edition campaign when in 3rd I have only to screw? THIS is my point.


I'd like to understand your point better, so my big question is: What made 3e magic special and 4e magic mundane?
* Could 3e magic do anything an adventurer would want, usually in a form superior to any character that did not use magic?
* Was this power in 3e effectively in the hands of two/four classes? (Cleric/Druid and Wizard/Sorceror)
* Could the Cleric or Wizard's outperform other PCs at the tasks those PCs specialized in, without specializing other than "these are the spells I chose today"?

If you could, be as specific as possible; it's the vague, broad statements that confuse me. I hear them often and I never know exactly what people mean

So in your campaigns these casters have ALWAYS the right spell, all the enemies fail their saves, no SR, no minions to waste spell whit, no unforeseen situation,no false alarms, no one-shot-mage-killing-ambushes, no dead magic or wild magic zone, wildshaped druids beat warriors “because the bear have bigger strength”, clerics spent 10 rounds buffing themselves seeing their compainoins slaughtered, or abuse 24-h divine metamagic and turning check be damned. And BBEG don’t remember that divination exist, and neither try to take advantage from it. I would know your DM, just to congratulate (and to /lol).

If a rogue can ressurect someone and i don't see a real difference in combat or outside from a warlock, magic is mundane.

To hrpatton: Yes, is definitively a matter of taste, and 4th definitively doen’t fit with mine. For me, the magic (and melee) issue is a DM matter (for batman see above). But is only my opinion, and this I had to write above to Rukitanuki to end our interesting and stimulating conversation, if he treated me in a bit less conceited way (see last quote).
When I started to read 4th edition threads, my stupid opinion was more or less “4th edition is for people incapable to built a PC or for lazy DM”. Wrong. Gamegroups are different and people found problems where I didn’t (someone can quote this sentence and post captain obvious? Thanks). I only think that from 3.x there were a lot of stuff to fix, modify, organize. I don’t HATE 4th, but I see many good ideas (prestige classes bye bye I.e.) horribly realized.
About the videaogamey.. is not about the “is like wow” issue. Is not about how much the game has of videogames, but about the feeling how the game is realized to be easily translated in a MMORPG.