PDA

View Full Version : [4e] I Like It



Myrddin
2008-06-19, 06:34 PM
There's a whole lot of 4e bashing going on. And a lot of it is justified... there are serious deficiencies with 4e, nobody will dispute that.

But I still like it. In fact, I think it's a notable step up from 3e, especially with regards to how fun combat is. Combat is FAST. I played my first game with 4e this weekend, and it was quite enjoyable. One roll... even at 20th level, one roll. One attack. Do you remember how slow combat got as you got higher and higher in level? Having to break out extra d6's from the Shadowrun set in order to roll your damage?

What about the reverse... playing a level one wizard. Casting your third spell of the day, and then relying on a goddamn crossbow or staff? How about the level one kobold that got a lucky crit and KILLED you, right off the bat, no save. I know that many a DM has fudged a roll at low levels, or created house rules to up player stats just to avoid this kind of deficiency... and it no longer exists in 4e.

For new players, starting a wizard was an ordeal... figuring out what spells they wanted, when they had no idea how the system even worked! In fact for most classes this was true; you often had little idea what abilities were important to the class, what synergies were present. And having to hunt through 100 pages of spells just to figure out what you could do? Yuck.

Understanding character level, class level, monster level, hit dice, caster level... this was hard, and I still had to explain things sometimes even though we'd been playing the same system (or nearly so, if you discount 3.5) for 7 years.

And who can forget how painful it was adjusting monsters! If you deviated from the stat block it was a goddamn pain to keep the monster balanced. Higher levels had **** for monsters... nearly every one had to be custom in some way to keep it interesting. Show me one DM that didn't just fudge nearly every fight they did once you got beyond level 15. 4e provides clear and simple (read: easy to do by hand in under 1 minute) guidelines to adding class levels to a monster, as well as just shifting the difficulty of the monster by up to 5 levels up or down. And the balancing of encounters just got a ton easier!

The system of distributing loot is almost exactly what I hashed up myself one day, because I was frustrated with the loot tables (though their tables have more magic stuff on them than mine did).

You can't judge a system by how well it works AFTER you find and fix all the problems. We had 8 years to figure out how to get past all the deficiencies in 3e (and they DID exist, in spades). 4e looks to be a clear win in the ease of DMing, the ease of creating characters, and the ease in arbitrating combat. Most of the ways in which it is deficient are role playing issues... backstory, flavor, description. And most good DMs threw all that crap out anyway, and made their own. 4e has finally gone the path of many other game systems, and decided that the rulebooks are not the best place to incite imagination... that's best left to the DM supplements or other fantasy literature.

And I admit... I miss that. Hell, every version of D&D has gotten less and less flavorful, and more and more utilitarian. But you know what? 4e is a ****ing good tool (IMO). Did you read the first 1/4 of the DM book? That's the best DMing advice I've seen in any roleplaying rule system. The simple and fast rules for prepping for a game, fudging damage.

Some things suck. Skill challenges are mathematically broken. Basing the ruleset on players buying their miniatures feels icky and greedy. Hollow monster descriptions. But I think the good notably outweighs the bad, and I'm interested to hear other opinions... from people that have played it. If you've just skimmed the books, I'm not sure I'm interested in your opinion yet. :-) Seriously, try it first... then come back and let me know what you think, good or bad.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-19, 06:46 PM
I happen to enjoy 4e very much, as do everyone here locally. Simple as that.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-19, 10:16 PM
What about the reverse... playing a level one wizard. Casting your third spell of the day, and then relying on a goddamn crossbow or staff?

It's funny how people keep bringing that up, but in 4E a 1st-level wizard is also relying on his at-wills when casting his third spell of the day. That the at-wills are called magic missiles instead of crossbow bolts is irrelevant considering the hit chance and damage are similar.

Seriously, 4E has a lot of things going for it, but "allowing wizards more options before they start repeating their weakest attack" isn't one of them.

Vikingkingq
2008-06-19, 11:27 PM
It's funny how people keep bringing that up, but in 4E a 1st-level wizard is also relying on his at-wills when casting his third spell of the day. That the at-wills are called magic missiles instead of crossbow bolts is irrelevant considering the hit chance and damage are similar.


I think you're missing the point. A crossbow was lousy damage based off an ability score and a BAB that was lousy. His at-wills are based off his primary stat, and have differing tactical effects: creating no-go zones that kill minons, slowing targets, AOE damage, and AOE knockback.

If you can't see how that is different than firing a crossbow, you're not making an honest argument.

Frost
2008-06-19, 11:37 PM
I've played it. It's boring. I'm one of three people I know (including people on this forum) who has played it past level 10. It's even more boring then. I don't want to hear your opinion yet either, play the whole game first.

AmberVael
2008-06-19, 11:49 PM
I've played it. It's boring. I'm one of three people I know (including people on this forum) who has played it past level 10. It's even more boring then. I don't want to hear your opinion yet either, play the whole game first.

I have a lot of complaints about 4th edition, but "it's boring" is certainly not one I had in mind. Even as a pure combat game it has its merits, though it shouldn't have to rely on that.
Honestly, if your game was boring, I might look to the players or DM before I looked at the system. Even if it were a terrible system, you could still have fun roleplaying...

The New Bruceski
2008-06-19, 11:50 PM
I've played it. It's boring. I'm one of three people I know (including people on this forum) who has played it past level 10. It's even more boring then. I don't want to hear your opinion yet either, play the whole game first.
Wow, you've taken on every monster in the book in an epic quest spanning multiple worlds? You've traveled from land to land succeeding in skill checks to win allies for a clash against Orcus?

The whole point of D&D is there is no end. The only limit of adventures and possibilities is the imagination. How can you have played the whole thing?

Tengu
2008-06-19, 11:58 PM
I've played it. It's boring. I'm one of three people I know (including people on this forum) who has played it past level 10. It's even more boring then. I don't want to hear your opinion yet either, play the whole game first.

Belive it or not, this is a thread for people who like 4e.

FoE
2008-06-20, 12:37 AM
I'm saying this in a couple of threads, so don't jump down my throat.

The problem with these threads proclaiming "I like 4E" or "I hate 4E!" is that it's just fueling the war between anti and pro-4E posters. And honestly, there's no winning this fight, because it all comes down to personal preference.

It would be better if every thread stating "I love/hate Fourth Edition" just died, and from now on, if you had a specific topic you wanted to discuss pertaining to either 3.5 or 4E, you would state in the title. But none of this "3E>4E" or "3E<4E" nonsense.

Shouldn't we all be actually playing this game instead of debating which version is better?

Frost
2008-06-20, 12:41 AM
I have a lot of complaints about 4th edition, but "it's boring" is certainly not one I had in mind. Even as a pure combat game it has its merits, though it shouldn't have to rely on that.
Honestly, if your game was boring, I might look to the players or DM before I looked at the system. Even if it were a terrible system, you could still have fun roleplaying...

I'm sorry, I thought it would be taken for granted that I was referring to the parts of the game that come from the rules. To clarify:

The game, 4E D&D, as contained in the rules, provides little fun that I could not have gained just as easily by gathering some friends and declaring a game of let's pretend.


Wow, you've taken on every monster in the book in an epic quest spanning multiple worlds? You've traveled from land to land succeeding in skill checks to win allies for a clash against Orcus?

The whole point of D&D is there is no end. The only limit of adventures and possibilities is the imagination. How can you have played the whole thing?

I'm sorry, if you are going to make a post claiming that people who have not played the game aren't allowed an opinion, you had damn well better have more then 3 sessions leveling up to level 6. You had better have actually played enough of the game to know what it's like. No I haven't faced everything in the MM. I have however, played level 1, level 11, level 15, level 21, and level 30 characters in adventures of varying sizes as part of my groups initial playtesting of the system.

Unlike every single 4E diehard fan who has played level 1-5 I don't think this magically makes my opinion more valid then everyone else's. But if you claim your play experience makes your opinion more valid then those who haven't, then you must accept that mine trumps yours (unless you have played more then me).


Belive it or not, this is a thread for people who like 4e.

Believe it or not, it's actually a thread created by a single person who likes it, and he is not allowed to ban people from participating in the thread just because they disagree with him, nor are you.

Myrddin
2008-06-20, 04:12 PM
I've played it. It's boring. I'm one of three people I know (including people on this forum) who has played it past level 10. It's even more boring then. I don't want to hear your opinion yet either, play the whole game first.

Perhaps you need a better DM?

I think the issue is that any game system can be boring with a poor DM or group... no game system 'creates' fun. It just provides a framework for having fun within constraints that create tension.

You can't really rate a game system by 'fun', because you're really rating your DM at that point. A game system's quality is determined by how fast and easy it is to resolve combat; how easy it is for a GM to setup encounters; the complexity of resolving conflicts; the variety of content it offers.

But if your games are boring... that's not 4e's fault. If you have few options in combat, that might be 4e's fault. If resolving OOC encounters is stupid, that might be 4e's fault. If you get confused when making a character, or leveling takes hours, that could be 4e's fault.

Indon
2008-06-20, 06:26 PM
Shouldn't we all be actually playing this game instead of debating which version is better?

I've been learning quite a bit from the discussions, honestly.

SmartAlec
2008-06-20, 06:37 PM
Believe it or not, it's actually a thread created by a single person who likes it, and he is not allowed to ban people from participating in the thread just because they disagree with him, nor are you.

Woah there, cowboy. No offence, but coming in to a thread like this with metaphorical fists swinging, the passive aggression... you're coming off as a troll here. Take a step back from yourself, and calm down, is my advice.

Anyhow. I'm a bit of a wargames fan on the side, and 4th Ed is giving my group a chance to indulge in some fairly indepth group-tactics skull sessions that we hadn't been able to before.

Frost
2008-06-20, 06:53 PM
Perhaps you need a better DM?

I think the issue is that any game system can be boring with a poor DM or group... no game system 'creates' fun. It just provides a framework for having fun within constraints that create tension.

You can't really rate a game system by 'fun', because you're really rating your DM at that point. A game system's quality is determined by how fast and easy it is to resolve combat; how easy it is for a GM to setup encounters; the complexity of resolving conflicts; the variety of content it offers.

But if your games are boring... that's not 4e's fault. If you have few options in combat, that might be 4e's fault. If resolving OOC encounters is stupid, that might be 4e's fault. If you get confused when making a character, or leveling takes hours, that could be 4e's fault.

I'm sure he appreciates your insult, but for some reason I've never had this problem in 3.5? I wonder why that is.

Let me explain in more detail:

1) Combat is boring because it is repetitive, you roll the same attacks over and over against the same enemies (the same one multiple times, don't say that enemies should be varied, they are, that's the only reason we haven't gone crazy.) You do pretty much the same thing every round, depending on how you built your character, every character is either a Wizard with improved unarmed strike and a no-save stun spell, or a Spiked chain Fighter, Or a charger, but all of them with way less damage.

2) Skill challenges are bad math, and if you play them how WotC wants you to, you fail period. If you creatively trick the system, you can succeed, but it still basically comes down to asking the guy with the best mod to roll over and over, while the rest of you come up with tricky reasons to not roll.

3) Characters are easy to understand, because they are so very boring. Unfortunately, the stupid 10 min PB decreases the variation in builds you can manage considerably.

4) The system is a game, and they don't try and hide it, there is almost no attempt at creating a believable world, but that's okay, because it's pretty much exactly like the middle ages with monsters, since no one can really do anything that has a serious effect in anything other then fighting monsters until level 21.

DMfromTheAbyss
2008-06-20, 07:35 PM
I must agree with the initial poster. 4rth edition has it's issues... but they are much easier to deal with than say 3.x's issues. I have played 1st and 17th level play throughs, and tested the system a bit besides and I must say mechanically it's a robust system that numerically works. The skill system is much improved and simpler and the game is overall more fun and from what I've seen in my group seems to instigate much more roleplaying than 3.x ever did (same group in 3.x talked and interacted less on account of people worrying about rules and figuring out the math on their next action).

If some did not enjoy the new game system as much as myself I would suggest GURPS as a much superior "realistic" system to model a "real" world and all the complexities thereof... If you want a simulation, look to skill and point based systems, which by the way D&D never was, and never will be. (It IS and has always been a class based system designed to be faster and easier to play by use of template proffessions better known as classes)

Every one has a preference as far as gaming goes. If 4rth ed isn't your thing, oh well... but I think people should definately give it a shot beyond a dismissive glance and a peek through the rules. So at least you can tell weither it's a good thing yourself.

Oh and BTW I categorically refute everything Frost is saying as in my own experiences I have experienced the exact opposite when comparing 3rd and 4rth editions.

Frost
2008-06-20, 08:23 PM
Oh and BTW I categorically refute everything Frost is saying as in my own experiences I have experienced the exact opposite when comparing 3rd and 4rth editions.

I think you should maybe read points 3&4 over again.

marjan
2008-06-20, 08:33 PM
3) Characters are easy to understand, because they are so very boring. Unfortunately, the stupid 10 min PB decreases the variation in builds you can manage considerably.


This is completely untrue. Every system uses one of the following methods: point buy, random generation, predetermined scores. You have all three options in 4e.

Crow
2008-06-20, 08:40 PM
4) The system is a game, and they don't try and hide it, there is almost no attempt at creating a believable world, but that's okay, because it's pretty much exactly like the middle ages with monsters, since no one can really do anything that has a serious effect in anything other then fighting monsters until level 21.

Wait a second. What can the characters do that doesn't pertain to fighting monsters at level 21? I've recently given epic play a try, and it doesn't feel very "epic" to me.

AslanCross
2008-06-20, 09:03 PM
I like a lot of elements they put into 4E, but I admit that I have a few serious issues that I think should be addressed.

What I like:
-Powers. More bookkeeping, but at least everyone progresses in the same manner. No dead levels too.
-Skill Challenges. They may be limiting in some ways, but they are definitely more interesting than solving a challenging situation with a single d20 roll. I liked the idea so much that I adapted it for my current 3.5 campaign.
-Combat is faster. A lot of the superfluous combat details that made 3.5 a bit clunky (iterative attacks) were taken out.
-Monsters are presented in a vast variety of forms and roles. I really like this. Granted that it isn't so difficult to make a monster with class levels in 3.5, but at higher levels it tends to get tedious and ruins suspension of disbelief. For example, to be a threat to high-level PCs, hobgoblin archers need to have unrealistically high levels (if you go by the concept that anything over Lv 5 is already incredibly superheroic), or need to come in immense numbers (and even then will only really do something if they manage a crit. Combat also gets very difficult to manage with that many people on the board.)

What I don't like:
-Lack of options. This is definitely one of the biggest complaints that a lot of people raise. Even with the roles concept, players should still be able to find multiple ways of doing this. More feats and powers will come, and there are definitely more feasible options in core (compare 3.5 core Fighter to 4E core Fighter), but there's the general feeling of getting stuck.
Apart from character building options, there's also the "lack" of options in combat. I really didn't have such a big issue with grappling (if there was, it was the length of time you had to devote to the numerous opposed checks) and I liked the things you could choose to do. Of course, they say that in 4E the DM can just wing it, but I prefer the rules in black and white.

-SRD = Fail. I find this very strange. I remember that some years back, WotC's stand on bootleg gaming was "Not much we can do about it, let them be. If they're really interested in the game they will buy our stuff."
This was exactly what happened in my case. I only had a passing interest at first, (I needed inspiration for a game system I wanted to use in my classes) but the stuff I found online (legal or illegal---this is not an endorsement of piracy) drew my interest to the point that I actually diverted a sizable chunk of my disposable income towards purchasing books and miniatures. Again, I'm not endorsing piracy, but having legal, free copies of the system is better for business. I really don't see why they had a sudden paradigm shift.

In any case, I do like 4E. I will run it eventually. But I don't think I need to totally abandon 3.5 (and my investment in it). I'm still rooting for both.

OwlbearUltimate
2008-06-20, 11:25 PM
I have to say, at first I was not a believer. I read a lot of bad things about 4e and thought it was going to be poorly done. Now I have not played as much 4e as our friend Frost here, but I do like it. Our group is fairly new and the 4e books have been very helpful with understanding how to play the game. We all know the roleplaying bits and pieces, we do not need a book to tell us how to do that. The rules are clear, easy to understand, and easy to pick-up. This has greatly helped some of my groups members who were clueless in 3.5. I also think it has more appeal to new gamers, which is about half the battle with possible recruits. I already have had three friends of mine stop and ask me if they could try out a 4e DnD campaign with my group.

JaxGaret
2008-06-20, 11:40 PM
1) Combat is boring because it is repetitive, you roll the same attacks over and over against the same enemies (the same one multiple times, don't say that enemies should be varied, they are, that's the only reason we haven't gone crazy.) You do pretty much the same thing every round,

That sounds like 3e to me, not 4e.

In 4e it is much, much easier for the DM to create customized monsters, so that every combat should be different from the last one.

As to the "same attacks over and over" comment, yes, sometimes combat grinds down into At-Will power spam. A good fix for that is my proposed houserule: if an enemy seems to have too many HP, you can halve its HP and reduce its monster level by 1. Look here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83475) for the reasoning behind it.


depending on how you built your character, every character is either a Wizard with improved unarmed strike and a no-save stun spell, or a Spiked chain Fighter, Or a charger, but all of them with way less damage.

Isn't this a reference to 3e builds?


2) Skill challenges are bad math, and if you play them how WotC wants you to, you fail period. If you creatively trick the system, you can succeed, but it still basically comes down to asking the guy with the best mod to roll over and over, while the rest of you come up with tricky reasons to not roll.

Depending on the skill challenge, yes, it can come down to it. The person best-equipped for the job should be the one on point trying to complete it, no?

Also, you are thinking in metagame terms. Characters should RP out the encounter, and the game action should flow from that, not the other way around. IMO anyway.


3) Characters are easy to understand, because they are so very boring. Unfortunately, the stupid 10 min PB decreases the variation in builds you can manage considerably.

You can roll character ability scores using pregen stats, PB, or good old dice rolling.


4) The system is a game, and they don't try and hide it, there is almost no attempt at creating a believable world, but that's okay, because it's pretty much exactly like the middle ages with monsters, since no one can really do anything that has a serious effect in anything other then fighting monsters until level 21.

3e was a game, and they didn't try to hide that, either. How was 3e a believable world at all? Tippy worlds should be the norm in 3e, the campaign settings didn't take into account the effects of the mechanics at all.

I could go on about this, but let me see what responses I get first.

EvilElitest
2008-06-20, 11:42 PM
Belive it or not, this is a thread for people who like 4e.

i don't think censorship was a forum rule
from
EE

Tengu
2008-06-20, 11:55 PM
i don't think censorship was a forum rule
from
EE

It is now. The Suzumiya Haruhi Brigade GiantITP Forum Chapter took over when you weren't paying attention. Thought that we're just a bunch of folks united by their love for an anime series? Hah!

EvilElitest
2008-06-20, 11:59 PM
It is now. The Suzumiya Haruhi Brigade GiantITP Forum Chapter took over when you weren't paying attention. Thought that we're just a bunch of folks united by their love for an anime series? Hah!

i shall stand against you. You cannot defeat my will, no matter how many disturbing images you throw my way
from
EE

Frost
2008-06-21, 01:33 AM
This is completely untrue. Every system uses one of the following methods: point buy, random generation, predetermined scores. You have all three options in 4e.

Um, and if you get predetermined scores of crap, rolling (which is always crap if you intend to keep your character for more then two levels), and a 5 PB everything starts at 13, that doesn't make your game robust because you have a lot of choices in how to get stats, it's the stats you can reliably expect that determine what characters you can play, and so rolling never gets you anything reliably, the Standard array barely supports a couple archetypes and punishes others, and the PB would be better as 32 PB from 8 using the old 3.5 system.

THe fact is you can't manage two 18s ever, you can't manage an 18/16, and you can't manage a 16/16/16 split. Basic levels that are the best arrangements for many different classes are completely removed as possibilities.


Wait a second. What can the characters do that doesn't pertain to fighting monsters at level 21? I've recently given epic play a try, and it doesn't feel very "epic" to me.

Clerics can make all day chariots, which if there where enough of them (Epic Clerics) would completely destroy the Points of light campaign setting.


That sounds like 3e to me, not 4e.

In 4e it is much, much easier for the DM to create customized monsters, so that every combat should be different from the last one.

As to the "same attacks over and over" comment, yes, sometimes combat grinds down into At-Will power spam.

1) No, that sounds like if you purposely choose to have no fun in 3.5 by playing a crappy class just so you can later claim 4es superiority. If you actually try, you can play one of the half of all classes that have lots of fun options that are actually different.

2) It doesn't matter how varied the monsters are, because every single monster, no matter how varied, is exactly the same. You hit it with damage effects that also cause minor status effects (and the minor effects are easily rankable in order of usefulness) until they die.

3) It's not even the inevitable at-will spammathon. It's also the fact that you have literally 20 things you will do in 30 levels. And so when you face 20 combats at level 11, and you have 12 actual abilites that you can ever do, and you do 4 of them every encounter, and 6 of them every day, and 2 of them 100 times a day, you don't really care.

You've used each Encounter Power 20 times already, why are you going to seriously care the 21st time? You've used the same Daily for 4 days, it isn't going to be interesting when you use it today, just like the last 4.


Isn't this a reference to 3e builds?

The point is that there are 3.5 builds that are exactly comparable to every 4e character, and those 3.5 builds share the following characteristics:
1)They have more, and more varied options then the 4e ones.
2)They have very few options relative to most 3.5 characters.
3)No one likes them.

So why does being in a game that took away all the good things magically make these formerly inferior options suddenly fun?


Depending on the skill challenge, yes, it can come down to it. The person best-equipped for the job should be the one on point trying to complete it, no?

Which is fine if you let it actually work that way. But 4e punishes people if they can't weasel their DM into letting them pass.


Also, you are thinking in metagame terms. Characters should RP out the encounter, and the game action should flow from that, not the other way around. IMO anyway.

People should RP out social situations (not encounters) based on their character, they should not roll diplomacy nine times instead of once. Guess which option 4e went with?


You can roll character ability scores using pregen stats, PB, or good old dice rolling.

Yes, you can use a crappy array, crappy dice, or a restrictive PB. That doesn't mean that the fact that the best stat arrays for classes with a certain "value" cannot be created.


3e was a game, and they didn't try to hide that, either. How was 3e a believable world at all? Tippy worlds should be the norm in 3e, the campaign settings didn't take into account the effects of the mechanics at all.

3E tried to take into account effects of the mechanics, but did not do a very good job. Others have done better, and you can use theirs, or create your own. In 4E that's not an option, because the rules genuinely only create games. Encounter based powers? Powers with a duration of either 1 round, 1 or two rounds, or encounter? These things can't even be understood by their characters.

A Warlock can fly forever as long as he doesn't sleep or rest. How do you justify that in world? The second he sits down he can't fly for another day? Um, WTF?

The world generally is just "The Middle Ages, but in the forests Adventurers fight Dragons for no reason."

JaxGaret
2008-06-21, 01:59 AM
1) No, that sounds like if you purposely choose to have no fun in 3.5 by playing a crappy class just so you can later claim 4es superiority. If you actually try, you can play one of the half of all classes that have lots of fun options that are actually different.

Sure, I can do that, and completely overshadow the rest of the party. Not everyone plays with a group of optimizers.


2) It doesn't matter how varied the monsters are, because every single monster, no matter how varied, is exactly the same. You hit it with damage effects that also cause minor status effects (and the minor effects are easily rankable in order of usefulness) until they die.

In my experience 4e monsters have been quite variable in tactics and abilities. I'm sorry if you haven't found the same.


3) It's not even the inevitable at-will spammathon. It's also the fact that you have literally 20 things you will do in 30 levels. And so when you face 20 combats at level 11, and you have 12 actual abilites that you can ever do, and you do 4 of them every encounter, and 6 of them every day, and 2 of them 100 times a day, you don't really care.

You've used each Encounter Power 20 times already, why are you going to seriously care the 21st time? You've used the same Daily for 4 days, it isn't going to be interesting when you use it today, just like the last 4.

There's retraining. And we only have core right now; splatbooks will provide more options.

Look, if you don't like the system, you don't like the system. There's nothing I can say that will change that.


The point is that there are 3.5 builds that are exactly comparable to every 4e character, and those 3.5 builds share the following characteristics:
1)They have more, and more varied options then the 4e ones.
2)They have very few options relative to most 3.5 characters.
3)No one likes them.

So why does being in a game that took away all the good things magically make these formerly inferior options suddenly fun?

Because it is fun. I've played the game; I've had more fun playing it than I have playing 3e.


Which is fine if you let it actually work that way. But 4e punishes people if they can't weasel their DM into letting them pass.

No, 4e isn't punishing anyone, the DM is.


People should RP out social situations (not encounters) based on their character, they should not roll diplomacy nine times instead of once. Guess which option 4e went with?

I already explained that Skill Challenges, used properly, promote RP just as much as not using them.

But if you don't like them, simply don't use them. They're a tool for DMs who know how to use them properly; if you don't want to use them, then don't.


Yes, you can use a crappy array, crappy dice, or a restrictive PB. That doesn't mean that the fact that the best stat arrays for classes with a certain "value" cannot be created.

Same as 3e?


3E tried to take into account effects of the mechanics, but did not do a very good job. Others have done better, and you can use theirs, or create your own. In 4E that's not an option, because the rules genuinely only create games. Encounter based powers? Powers with a duration of either 1 round, 1 or two rounds, or encounter? These things can't even be understood by their characters.

So you don't like ToB, either, I assume. You just took away melee characters with options from 3e.


A Warlock can fly forever as long as he doesn't sleep or rest. How do you justify that in world? The second he sits down he can't fly for another day? Um, WTF?

What power(s) specifically are you referring to?


The world generally is just "The Middle Ages, but in the forests Adventurers fight Dragons for no reason."

The reason is created by the DM and the players, not by the system.

marjan
2008-06-21, 05:14 AM
Um, and if you get predetermined scores of crap, rolling (which is always crap if you intend to keep your character for more then two levels), and a 5 PB everything starts at 13, that doesn't make your game robust because you have a lot of choices in how to get stats, it's the stats you can reliably expect that determine what characters you can play, and so rolling never gets you anything reliably, the Standard array barely supports a couple archetypes and punishes others, and the PB would be better as 32 PB from 8 using the old 3.5 system.


You know that is default point-buy for 3e is 25. That's 3 more than 4e. Yes much diversity there. If you really want diversity that much you should play GURPS or similar game in which you can have characters with all 8s or with 14 in each stat.



THe fact is you can't manage two 18s ever, you can't manage an 18/16, and you can't manage a 16/16/16 split. Basic levels that are the best arrangements for many different classes are completely removed as possibilities.


18/18, 18/16, 16/16/16. So in other words if you don't have extremely high stats, it's not worth playing.



1) No, that sounds like if you purposely choose to have no fun in 3.5 by playing a crappy class just so you can later claim 4es superiority. If you actually try, you can play one of the half of all classes that have lots of fun options that are actually different.


You mean by playing 50% of the classes. You either rock or suck and in rare cases you are OK.

Frost
2008-06-21, 01:22 PM
You know that is default point-buy for 3e is 25. That's 3 more than 4e. Yes much diversity there. If you really want diversity that much you should play GURPS or similar game in which you can have characters with all 8s or with 14 in each stat.

You know that 3.5 specifically suggests other PB values, and 4e doesn't?


18/18, 18/16, 16/16/16. So in other words if you don't have extremely high stats, it's not worth playing.

Oh, I'm an evil powergamer, wawa. NO! I just want to put stats where they are actually good for me, instead of wasting them. First of all, you need a 18 min for your to hit stat(s) after racials because in 4e the math is designed for min-maxed characters and if you don't do that you will fail miserably. What I want is the ability to get two 18s instead of wasting points on useless things if you want to, or for classes (or multiclasses) that need three stats at 16 before racials to actually manage it.


You mean by playing 50% of the classes. You either rock or suck and in rare cases you are OK.

No, by playing 50% of the classes you have a really fun and interesting game in which no one ever feels like they are useless and everyone can play well and keep up with the challenges presented to them.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-21, 01:44 PM
Oh, I'm an evil powergamer, wawa. NO! I just want to put stats where they are actually good for me, instead of wasting them. First of all, you need a 18 min for your to hit stat(s) after racials because in 4e the math is designed for min-maxed characters and if you don't do that you will fail miserably. What I want is the ability to get two 18s instead of wasting points on useless things if you want to, or for classes (or multiclasses) that need three stats at 16 before racials to actually manage it.


Actually, you aren't joking. You are a evil powergamer.

Show me the math that proves you must have Min-Maxed stats.
You can manage with a 18 and a 16 (after racials).

Lady Tialait
2008-06-21, 01:46 PM
This thread is as good as any to state what I got to say.

4e has proved slower combat for my game, plus all together harder to play. I won't say it is worse, or better. I see it as different, and harder to run for my players.

My players consists of my mother-in-law, who is blind, my husband who was just learning 3e when 4e came out (3e took him 4 years to learn), my uncle who keeps confusing random stuff from 1e for 3e stuff, so he'll always be confused anyway, and my cousin, who played 3e sense it came out and is a true rules lawyer. You can see the problems running even 3e with this group, much less teaching a new system. The squares to feet thing has really caused problems, so has the need to always announce what combat option you are using. But, I think this is only because we are just getting used to the system. I havn't gotten a verdict yet, but I will say Chocolate > 4e...way soo.

Frost
2008-06-21, 01:56 PM
Actually, you aren't joking. You are a evil powergamer.

Yes, I don't want to play a system because I feel like it forces min-maxing, and I don't want to be forced into it. How terrible of me.


Show me the math that proves you must have Min-Maxed stats.
You can manage with a 18 and a 16 (after racials).

Yes, some classes can manage with an 18/16 after racials, which is good because that's pretty much the maximum you can get with any class that doesn't have a +2 to both stats needed race. Some classes can manage with just a single stat at 20 and one or two 14s. Other classes, and multiclasses need three 18/16/14, and if they are unlucky enough to have say Cha and Wis as two of those stats, then they are going to be lacking in one defense at least.

But no matter what your class, your primary attack stat needs to be an 18 at level 1 for you to keep up with defenses, and actually be able to hit 50% of the time. This can be somewhat alleviated by having a min-maxed Cleric pound away with Righteous Brand, since then you hit pretty much every time.

Skyserpent
2008-06-21, 02:00 PM
You know that 3.5 specifically suggests other PB values, and 4e doesn't?



Oh, I'm an evil powergamer, wawa. NO! I just want to put stats where they are actually good for me, instead of wasting them. First of all, you need a 18 min for your to hit stat(s) after racials because in 4e the math is designed for min-maxed characters and if you don't do that you will fail miserably. What I want is the ability to get two 18s instead of wasting points on useless things if you want to, or for classes (or multiclasses) that need three stats at 16 before racials to actually manage it.



No, by playing 50% of the classes you have a really fun and interesting game in which no one ever feels like they are useless and everyone can play well and keep up with the challenges presented to them.

Okay, Frost, look, we get that you're good at 3.5 You have fun playing it your way and all that.

I myself have only played 4e up to level 9, and our group must be ridiculous or something because we've been having fun the whole way through.

However your points on how to play 3.5 well are really kind of funny... I mean, you're cutting down the system to the part that works well for you, removing the extraneous, weak classes in favor of the robust full casters and all their varied options for insta-victory. This is great. You guys have had a lot of experience with this kind of stuff and you know what spells to pick and what builds to work with. Whereas in 4e you're suddenly forced into a place that is so "Balanced" that it's lost a lot of it's flavor. You WANT to be better than everyone else. That's what made you feel like HEROES. I get that.

And I can't really decry what you're saying because your opinion is that 4e is terrible. However, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it's BAD. It just means that it's not suited to YOU.

Fact of the matter is, when you tell people it "Sucks" or is "boring" the people who enjoy it are going to take offense because to them, you're wrong.

You play the game how you want to play the game. But don't tell us we're wrong for enjoying 4e.

I know that's not what you're trying to tell us (I hope) but that's how you seem to be coming off.

Anyway, 3.5 had a silly number of options, some good some bad. Some people had TIME to flit through all of these options, but that's not everyone. In my gaming group we have two powergamers and 3 or 4 regular players, and let me tell you, it wasn't all that pleasant. The powergamers kept telling the casual guys how their builds suck, and then upstaging the casual guys with ridiculous power-builds. This was not conducive to good gameplay and regulating the players was a bit tiresome.

Now in 4e we have everyone genuinely excited about the system and I'm getting a feeling that we'll be on at least a LITTLE more of a level playing field... I mean, we're having fun. Which is more than can be said for you. So go back to 3.5, and have your fun. maybe give 4e another shot in a few years when the splatbooks give you enough options....

Frost
2008-06-21, 02:58 PM
Okay, Frost, look, we get that you're good at 3.5 You have fun playing it your way and all that.

I myself have only played 4e up to level 9, and our group must be ridiculous or something because we've been having fun the whole way through.

However your points on how to play 3.5 well are really kind of funny... I mean, you're cutting down the system to the part that works well for you, removing the extraneous, weak classes in favor of the robust full casters and all their varied options for insta-victory. This is great. You guys have had a lot of experience with this kind of stuff and you know what spells to pick and what builds to work with. Whereas in 4e you're suddenly forced into a place that is so "Balanced" that it's lost a lot of it's flavor. You WANT to be better than everyone else. That's what made you feel like HEROES. I get that.

And I can't really decry what you're saying because your opinion is that 4e is terrible. However, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it's BAD. It just means that it's not suited to YOU.

Fact of the matter is, when you tell people it "Sucks" or is "boring" the people who enjoy it are going to take offense because to them, you're wrong.

You play the game how you want to play the game. But don't tell us we're wrong for enjoying 4e.

I know that's not what you're trying to tell us (I hope) but that's how you seem to be coming off.

Anyway, 3.5 had a silly number of options, some good some bad. Some people had TIME to flit through all of these options, but that's not everyone. In my gaming group we have two powergamers and 3 or 4 regular players, and let me tell you, it wasn't all that pleasant. The powergamers kept telling the casual guys how their builds suck, and then upstaging the casual guys with ridiculous power-builds. This was not conducive to good gameplay and regulating the players was a bit tiresome.

Now in 4e we have everyone genuinely excited about the system and I'm getting a feeling that we'll be on at least a LITTLE more of a level playing field... I mean, we're having fun. Which is more than can be said for you. So go back to 3.5, and have your fun. maybe give 4e another shot in a few years when the splatbooks give you enough options....

You seem to have a fundamental misconception about this, that it comes down to number of options. Or being more powerful. That's not it, its about being able to do anything that has any meaning at all after you've beaten whatever you are facing right this second, it's about doing cool things out of combat as well as in it, and it's not going to change in 4e when they have 500 splatbooks all of which present a 100 different ways to do minor damage+ Immobilize/stun/slow for one round. Because if you could ever do any of the things you could do in 3.5 then you are too awesome and no one will ever play any of the other lame classes.

I am having fun in 3.5, but guess what, I'm also having fun talking about the problems with 4e, so no matter how much you and every other "4e is fun and 3.5 never ever was!" person begs me to just go crawl in a hole, die, and leave them alone, I'm still going to keep posting whenever I want to post. So instead of telling me over and over to stop posting, perhaps you can just accept it or ignore it?

Skyserpent
2008-06-21, 03:20 PM
You seem to have a fundamental misconception about this, that it comes down to number of options. Or being more powerful. That's not it, its about being able to do anything that has any meaning at all after you've beaten whatever you are facing right this second, it's about doing cool things out of combat as well as in it, and it's not going to change in 4e when they have 500 splatbooks all of which present a 100 different ways to do minor damage+ Immobilize/stun/slow for one round. Because if you could ever do any of the things you could do in 3.5 then you are too awesome and no one will ever play any of the other lame classes.

I am having fun in 3.5, but guess what, I'm also having fun talking about the problems with 4e, so no matter how much you and every other "4e is fun and 3.5 never ever was!" person begs me to just go crawl in a hole, die, and leave them alone, I'm still going to keep posting whenever I want to post. So instead of telling me over and over to stop posting, perhaps you can just accept it or ignore it?

My bad for misinterpreting... I'm not trying to tell you not to post at all. Feel free to post the flaws in 4e and all that, but don't say the system sucks in general. At least give us that much latitude.

You're acting like the big victim and I'm sorry if that's how you feel, I NEVER said 3.5 wasn't fun. I mean, don't get me wrong there were some things that irked me about it, but I've been playing 3.5 for several years and I loved it to death.

I can't say you're being hypocritical, because you're really not. But I am getting a bit of an ironic vibe that you've got this understanding that 3.5 was fun and 4e will never EVER be fun. That kind of call is a bit more presumptuous than I had come to expect from you. You seem to be the type to do a lot of research and get your kicks through deep understanding of the game.

4e has it's flaws, I get that. But come on, man.

if you're going to work posts like


I've played it. It's boring. I'm one of three people I know (including people on this forum) who has played it past level 10. It's even more boring then. I don't want to hear your opinion yet either, play the whole game first.

Back it up! I mean, you did later on, but this kind of stuff really isn't helpful at all. If you want to complain about 4e, complain about it in a way where we can know where you're coming from and why you found it boring.

Anyway, some of the things you could do in 3.5 were a bit unbalancing, and you LIKED that, okay that's fine. Indeed the ability to knock the spellcaster down several levels with a single spell or one-shot a dragon were interesting and powerful and all that. But it wasn't fun for EVERYONE.

Yeah I get that nothing can be fun for EVERYONE, indeed it runs the risk of just being mediocre across the board, which seems to be how you view it.


Because if you could ever do any of the things you could do in 3.5 then you are too awesome and no one will ever play any of the other lame classes.
as much as I hate this argument: isn't this how it is in 3.5? I mean, if you can do all the stuff Wizards and Clerics can do why would you ever play the lame fighter or paladin?

To you, they have cut out the classes you liked and substituted them for classes you don't. Okay we get that. But don't say the system sucks. Say it sucks for YOU and "here's why" That I can deal with. What I have trouble swallowing is:

"This game sucks. It's boring and uninspired and crap." This doesn't seek to back itself up and seems to speak for everyone's play experience... I guess I'm just having trouble dealing with the assumed subjective standpoint when someone seems to speak in general when in reality everyone really IS talking about their own experiences... unless they're not.

Keep on posting man, seriously this is interesting sh*t. I'm sorry if I came off as antagonistic, I didn't mean to. I'm not asking you to stop posting, I'm just asking that you stop launching bile at the system in general (which has several redeeming features) and instead launch bile at the crappy way they dealt with Out of Combat Actions.

marjan
2008-06-21, 05:20 PM
You know that 3.5 specifically suggests other PB values, and 4e doesn't?


The 3e was built with 25 PB (or elite array score) in mind and "balanced" with that. Just because it presented options doesn't mean it's the default.



Oh, I'm an evil powergamer, wawa. NO! I just want to put stats where they are actually good for me, instead of wasting them. First of all, you need a 18 min for your to hit stat(s) after racials because in 4e the math is designed for min-maxed characters and if you don't do that you will fail miserably. What I want is the ability to get two 18s instead of wasting points on useless things if you want to, or for classes (or multiclasses) that need three stats at 16 before racials to actually manage it.


If you really need 18/18 or 16/16/16, then yes you are. I like powerful characters, but I don't see stats that high as necessary.

Kompera
2008-06-23, 05:55 AM
I don't want to hear your opinion yet either, play the whole game first.
Despite your most fervent of wishes, others will continue to post their opinions.

Frost
2008-06-23, 07:41 AM
Despite your most fervent of wishes, others will continue to post their opinions.

You might have missed this, but that was a sarcastic rejoiner to the OP who explicitly said that he doesn't want to hear the opinions of others. I have no problem with others posting, I prefer it.